Ok.
The person in the photo is clearly blind. This blatantly contradicts Matt's earlier post where he distinctly said he did not look like a blind person, as the damage to his eye was on the inside - specifically the optic nerve - not on the outside. Noone would notice. Well, I certainly noticed. So we have two versions here which totally contradict each other. SG, you don't see a problem with that?
However, as I have already said, I lean towards believing the photos are genuine.
As for proof of anything, there is none; we can only decide for ourselves what we believe to be plausible or implausible. There is no need to condemn people for taking either stance - we are all perfectly capable of making up our own minds, based on how we understand what is posted. Some people have the ability to ignore a long list of blatant contradictions (or totally disregard them as they do not feel they impinge on the veracity of the story), others fail to spot the contradictions because they forget what was previously posted, and then there are those who take them into account when assessing the veracity of posts.
SG, did you ever make posts where you doubted the veracity of Latin's "stories"? Or beachlover's? If I recall correctly, you did. If so, then why don't you extend the same right to the doubters amongst us, who are doing exactly the same? You obviously regarded some of their posts as implausible, as many of us do about Matt's.
We should all just be left to agree or disagree. I'm happy to leave it at that.