Well as long as we're on the same page. I don't mean to say that I can prove it is one piece using photoshop, I only mean to say that I don't think we can prove it's two pieces using photoshop. Looking at the photo, it looks like one piece - and I know from being on this site a little while that you know; once you start really looking at images, you begin to realize how often the way an image looks can be far from what it's actually an image of. At the same time, anybody who uses photoshop on a regular basis knows that it's ability to detect and separate contrasts are amazing but far from perfect.
As I touched on before and will elaborate more upon now, photoshop does indeed like to separate the two pieces with nearly every single filter at the most basic of levels. However, I feel that's only because of the two dark shadows and a shadowed or simply darker region that (on the 2d image) connects the two truly shadowed areas. Photoshop, as I've seen it wrongly do a million times says "It's dark over here, and it's dark over there - and it's somewhat similar in between, so I'll just assume they all bleed together" - that is, of course, a paraphrase - Photoshop says it much better than that.
Perhaps we're only talking semantics here and my choice of 'claim to bust' came across too strong. Also, taking into consideration the fact that you're far more the expert on this forum than I, I'm not going to disagree too much (going by a persons point value and what tags are associated with their avatar
). I don't mean that entirely sarcastically. So, suffice it to say, I value your opinion and don't mean to undermine your work contributed to this thread. I think photoshop is going to lead us to the wrong conclusion on this piece.
Of course, all those bits and bytes potentially wasted as I still don't see any symmetry.
I'm thinking
of passing around my Mexican hat! Till then, Photoshop it is!! 
