Remember the photos that surfaced almost immediately following the Israeli commando attack on the Mavi Mamara? Poles, knives, pepper spray, etc. This was "evidence" the people on board were prepared for a military skirmish with heavily armed commandos.
No one bought it and most everyone assumed those were weapons of convenience used in a vain effort at self-defense. That would be good news compared to what is now being reported by Edward Teller at FDL:
Proof has surfaced today that many of the so-called "evidence" photographs being distributed by the Israeli government as examples of terror weapons on board the Gaza aid flotilla date back years:
The bulletproof vest photos on the Israeli flickr page are dated February 2006.
The axe photo was taken in 2003.
The pepper spray photos – 2003
How can they be sure, you ask? Good question. Let me introduce you to EXIF metadata...
Digital photos contain a wealth of information. Not just pixels with pretty colors.
Metadata is a term for the descriptive information embedded inside an image or other type of file. Metadata is becoming increasingly important in this age of digital photos where users are looking for a way to store information with their pictures that is portable and stays with the file, both now and into the future.
One type of metadata is the extra information which almost all digital cameras store with your pictures. The metadata captured by your camera is called EXIF data, which stands for Exchangeable Image File Format. Most digital photo software can display EXIF information to the user, but it is usually not editable.
The metadata tags defined in the EXIF standard cover a broad spectrum:
Date and time information. Digital cameras will record the current date and time and save this in the metadata.
Camera settings. This includes static information such as the camera model and make, and information that varies with each image such as orientation (rotation), aperture, shutter speed, focal length, metering mode, and ISO speed information.
A thumbnail for previewing the picture on the camera's LCD screen, in file managers, or in photo manipulation software.
Descriptions and copyright information.
You can download EXIF viewers and look at your own work to see what this is all about.
Long story short: Israel is providing "evidence" that is -- at best -- suspect, or possibly fraudulent. By fraudulent I mean, taken from some other incident. The fact that ALL the dates are off really raises legitimate questions about ANY of the images being legitimate. Now we know another reason they confiscated everyone's phones, cameras, etc. They are going to work overtime to fabricate evidence if possible and destroy it if they can't manipulate it.
UPDATE: in comments it is claimed the date on the image does not jibe with the date the camera was released. However, what is really being claimed is the date on the camera doesn't jibe with the date the camera was announced in the US markets. That does not disprove the validity of the EXIF data. The fact is this evidence is tainted and subject to question. It would never make it in a court of law. Which is why Israel will never let this be investigated independently.
As I state in the comments:
The commandos took pictures.
That means they had cameras.
That means they brought them along during an assault.
Why bring cameras?
To collect and record evidence.
So far so good.
Except.....
If you are going to collect and record evidence, you have to maintain the chain of custody.
This is simple. For example,
- Someone issues the camera. That means they can testify that when they gave it to you, the images were not there. That is important.
- You check to see someone initialized the camera, set the date/time stamp. That is important.
- You use the camera to collect evidence.
- You return the camera for processing.
If skeptiq is to be believed, they didn't bother to initialize ANY of the camera dates. I could see one guy screwing up, but ALL of them? So now we are supposed to believe these guys can't even do the most basic thing correctly, but they are the world's best commandos?
That argument strains credulity.