Then why put anything on the internet? My face might end up on the body of some gay hunk (for example), my pictures of my boots might end up on a foot fetish page, and my pictures of crashed ambulances might end up on a 'Crash Fetish' site. I am unlikely to recognise any childs head on a child porn image - because I don't look at them and I don't search them out. I'm not an expert, but why would they use image manipulation when they have their own victims photos? I mean, that is the whole point of abuse, that the victim is being abused, and as far as I know photoshopping someones head isn't 'abuse', it's definitely wrong, but it's not really abuse is it? Let me put it this way, if I put a picture on this site of (my fictional) child, would I be abusing them? Which is what Goggins seems to believe...