17 thoughts on “SIDEBAR: the evidence”

1. You gotcha! Another IDF falsification!
   But, stop- Nikon D700 have been introduced on June 2008, and apparently can not been used to capture an image on January 2008?
   Never mind! let’s not give the facts to change your nice theory.

   Reply

2. There you are, nikkor1. Long time — where have you been?

   Do you have any “facts”, other than “it was a mistake on Flickr”?
   That was not sufficiently convincing. About when the camera model was introduced, I have no idea… Clever of you to find this June 2008 date.

   The IDF does not deny that this photo was originally posted as having been taken on January 27 2008.

   I was really wondering about what could have happened here — until I found a thumbnail of the top photo, on an archived page of the IDF photostream, dated January 27 2008. Yes, that Flikr page was marked and archived as created on the date January 27 2008. Only that photo was posted on that page.

   Now, that page is empty, the photo has been deleted, and the information posted above is all that remains…

   Could that page have been somehow mistakenly created on 19 or 20 August 2011, and then labelled January 27 2008, really?

   Reply

3. I’m here and there 🙂

   You are so biased, therefore you don’t even trying to explain this issue other then IDF’s falsification.
   Exactly the same allegation were running after Mavi Marmara incident:

   http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/04/mavi-marmari-photos-faked-by-israel-probably-not/

   “Digital cameras, like most digital devices, have an internal battery that keeps the clock running when the camera is turned off or when the main battery goes flat. Alas, they only last a few years. Once they’re dead, each time you swap your camera batteries the clock resets?—?typically to January 1 in the year of the camera’s manufacture.”

   Reply

   1. Yeah, this article is only about the IDF, and the evidence it presented…

      And yeah, we’ve heard exactly the same allegation before…

      You’d think the IDF would have done a thorough “lessons-learned” exercise, and preparation…

      Reply

4. Marian wrote:

   “Do you have any “facts”, other than “it was a mistake on Flickr”?
   That was not sufficiently convincing. About when the camera model was introduced, I have no idea… ”

   now you have:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D700

   Reply

   1. ‘Hmmm… This wikipedia article tells me: “The Nikon D700 has been tested by many independent reviewers and has generally received high marks. It achieved a top ranking in the DxOmark Sensor ranking and is currently ranked sixth behind the Nikon D3, Nikon D3S, Nikon D3X and two medium format cameras. The camera received several awards, including a Digital Photography Review “Highly Recommended” award” …

      And it says “The Nikon D700 is a professional grade full-frame digital single-lens reflex camera introduced by the Nikon Corporation in July 2008 and manufactured in Japan”.
      I guess you want me to believe that it was manufactured in January 2008 (on the 27th?), and introduced by the Nikon Corporation in July 2008. OK. Maybe.

      But, what about the IDF photostream webpage archive for January 27 2008 — now modified ??????????

      The Wikipedia page you linked to also tells me that this camera has a “GPS interface for direct geotagging“.

      And, Wikipedia tells me that “This page was last modified on 19 July 2011 at 04:52″… 🙂

      Reply

5. Biased, biased… really nikkor1, how can YOU say that?

   OK, so this camera’s internal batteries set the clock back — you are suggesting as a possibility — not to January 1, but to January 27 of the year 2008?

   But, please, what about the archived IDF photostream webpage dated January 27 2008? This webpage was not created by the clock’s batteries… And, the photo on this webpage, which is the photo in question, the top or first one in this post, was on that webpage in the morning, then removed by the IDF…

   It’s the webpage, and not so much the alterable information written on and about the photo archived on it, that convinced me.

   Coming back to your suggestion of any other possibility, which you back up with this link to crikey.com.au– [love the “In all likelihood” qualifier below] — here are some pertinent excepts from the comments:
   Exhibit A: Comment by Stilgherrian
   Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 2:16 pm
   …”When you first upload a photo to Flickr, it automatically sets the displayed ‘Taken on’ date to whatever date is
   recorded in the image file’s EXIF data as the capture date. However this can be wrong because the camera’s clock
   can be incorrectly set or, if you’re scanning old photographic prints from the 1960s, the scanner sets the capture date to the date you did the scan. Assuming the scanner’s clock was set correctly. Similarly, Flickr allows you to change the location data to something different from that recorded in the image file’s EXIF data. Why? One example would be a smartphone with GPS recording the photo’s location as wherever the phone was when it last got a decent satellite fix, as opposed to where the phone was when the photo was taken. In all likelihood, all we’re seeing here is the normal workflow for publishing sets of photos on Flickr. Step 1, batch upload the photos. Step 2, fix the broken metadata”.

   Exhibit B: Another comment on the post, this one by Michael R James
   Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 4:36 pm
   “The EXIF data is a bit of a red herring in that it can be changed within software later. And anyone providing
   digital images would know that. But it also is unlikely that a professional photographer’s camera would not be correctly configured, not only because they take a lot of care with their gear but it is important to properly archive and access the mountain (multi-GB) of data/images the collect“. [emphasis added here]

   Reply

6. Also love these comments on the crikey.com.au post:

   Exhibit C: Sancho
   Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 8:05 pm
   “Was the photographer IDF?
   Uniformity is the watchword of military organisations. It’s all but impossible to believe that a piece of digital equipment used by the IDF wouldn’t be set precisely and checked for accuracy before every deployment. Crikey recently hosted an article about the Pentagon’s exacting stipulations for chocolate brownie recipes, and now some would have us believe that a military force trained and armed by the Pentagon runs around documenting evidence of terrorism with unconfigured cameras”…

   And this one:
   Exhibit D: Socratease
   Posted Friday, 4 June 2010 at 4:38 pm
   “EXIF data is unreliable. It can be edited easily. Google ‘EXIF editor’.” [emphasis also added here…]

   Reply

7. Wow!
   to many text there!
   Could you please formulate concrete questions and I will try to refer it one by one?

   Reply

8. Asking for “concrete questions” is a standard put-down tactic, nikkor1 — not your usual gallant self !

   The questions are clear.

   I’m going out, have other things to do, back later…

   Reply

9. O.K.- somebody need to do this job for a motherland 🙂

   1. the origin of Jan 27 2008 date in EXIF data in the original image is clear: the person who grabbed the camera that day just didn’t verified that date setting was reseted to Jan 1, 2008 (default by camera) 27 day before it. Unfortunately, those photographers that are working in IDF spokesperson’s office (as most of all personal of this office) are just 18 yr. old regular serviceman, and as you mentioned, they should be hired professionals. This camera is office equipment and not personal camera, and the handling is not proper at all.
   So, “wrong” EXIF data in the image is a result of negligence and lack of professionalism.

   2. When image was uploaded to Flicker, another person (or the same one) used EXIF data and set picture data of capture to Jan 27, 2008.
   Now, you should understand how Flicker is working: if I will upload today picture and will set date when picture have been taken to 27 Jan, 2008, it will appear in archive on that day!
   This is not real archive, it just the way to represent images in some order! You can conclude that I’ve uploaded this image on that day.
   Therefore, when you asked in tweeter about “wrong” date, they modified image “data when taken” and relevant page in archive is gone! That’s simple- no conspiracy.

   In conclusion: that is most easy way to accuse IDF in an evidence fabrication, especially if it comply with your modus operandi

   Reply

10. OK.

    For the record, three different IP addresses have been used by God-knows-how-many-different-people writing under the name nikkor1 and posting comments here today.

    I do not know who they work for.

    But, they do take an interest in how the IDF is portrayed.

    Now, dear last nikkor1 just above, you say that the photos I have been writing about work for the IDF spokespersons office.

    Indeed, our experience as journalists is that most of the people working in the IDF spokespersons office are 18-years-old, with everything that implies. More often than not, we never get an answer… many journalists here don’t even bother, other than getting the perfunctory and pro forma denial, so they can pop it into their stories as a fig leaf of objectivity.

    Some of the IDF spokespersons, however, are adults with long IDF careers — and however overworked and tired they are, they have a responsibility to deal with this situation correctly, and professionally.

    Now you, nikkor1, give an explanation that fits some of the argumentation above, but without any real proof. You just say so. Wonder if you really checked, yourself? Or did you just write what somebody told you?

    It’s clear that the IDF made a mistake. But I was told earlier, on Twitter, by an IDF spokesperson, that it was a mistake on Flikr. [see the timeline of @SachaDratwa — though probably he only wrote what he was told, without checking…]

    Wouldn’t you say that was disingenuous, if not misleading?
    Someone could even argue that it was intentionally misleading.

    Do you even know who took took the camera, who took the photo, and who uploaded it onto Flikr? Did that person, or those persons, tell you what they did. or didn’t, do?

    I do not know if what you wrote here is true — there is absolutely no proof, just an assertion written under what is a pseudonym, a clearly fake name.

    Since you are admitting mistakes were made, and since you are acknowledging a lack of professionalism, nikkor1, wouldn’t it be better just to stop at that?

    How do you think your concluding remark improves your case? Why are you trying to attack, and insult me by insinuation [what exactly do you mean by my “modus operandi”?]

    I asked questions. And I was right. There was a mistake, here, and a big lack of professionalism. Sneering, which is what you are doing in your last concluding sentence here, doesn’t obscure that fact.

    And, there are still a lot more questions…

    Reply

11. Marian, if somebody makes insinuation here- it’s not me.
    I answered to your concrete questions, and you, instead of constructively discuss it, immediately accused me in impersonation (I wrote here under nickname nikkor1 from several locations during the day: home, mobile, work. In all the cases I entered my email for identification).
    You not even tried to make minimal research about facts I’ve brought here, i.e. read Flicker FAQ, download original photo and see EXIF data (Jan 27, 2008 is still there). Nothing can destroy your paradigm about IDF conduct. In all attempts to explain that may be other reasons except of the IDF’s fraudulent behavior, you see only personal assault.
    Do you have any real proofs that IDF used staged photo in this occasion?
    Do you have any real proofs that IDF deliberately misleading in EXIF mistake?
    The questions are clear.

    Reply

    1. Nikkor1, your comments about “bias” and “modus operandi” etc. are insinuations…

       Concrete answers to your questions:

       No, I do not have any real proof that the IDF had a stock photo, of “terrorist props” [suicide vest, etc], taken either on January 27, 2008 or on some other date, which was then pulled out and re-used on 19 August 2011… but the question did present itself.

       As I already wrote, I initially thought at first it was just an ordinary mistake, made in a rush, with superior officers demanding the photo “proof” quick, quick, quick, early on a Saturday morning, not normally a working day in Israel. Or, maybe it was sloppiness, laziness, or even the certainty that the press and the public are just plain stupid, and — either because of their bias in favor of the IDF, or because of informed discretion — won’t ask too many questions, because those who do will surely be denounced as biased etc., and will soon be discredited and dismissed…

       But my suspicions grew, especially when I found the archived page dated January 27, 2008 [with. posted there, a thumbnail of the first photo shown in the post above.]

       I was told at midday Saturday, simply, that it had been a “mistake” on, or by, Flikr… without any further explanation.

       And no further information was forthcoming.

       Was this stuff — taken from a body, we were told — taken from somebody with no ID, with no identity? Still unknown?

       In fact, the first photo does look rather different from the two photos posted after I asked my questions. Maybe it’s due to a different light, a different location, a different camera, etc… Whereas, the stuff that was on the table in front of Avital looks different, newer, the colors are different. And the third photo looks just like what was on the table at the briefing Avital gave to some journalists on Friday. But the first photo seems different… and some stuff is missing, probably for eminently sensible reasons, as I wrote above. But, the explosive material was intact, and not detonated…

       I later asked Avital, on Twitter, about how many attackers had actually been killed — there was clearly confusion on Thursday and even on Friday; She replied that six had been “targetted” [does that mean killed?] Who were they? [from Gaza. no names or other info given…] Where were their bodies? [there is a cemetery for terrorists, I was told… Were they already buried???]

       Because there was a clear confusion, I then asked about the number of Egyptian military killed, what happened to their bodies, etc… but got no answer.

       Richard Silverstein has an astonishing photo on his Tikkun Olam blog, here, which he says shows Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the site of some of the attacks, in the Eilat area:
       

       The soldier whose face is not obscured, standing next to Barak, is said to be one of the Israeli military snipers who was killed that day — in fact, he was killed just 30 minutes after the photo was taken, according to Silverstein… Yet, here, they looked relaxed, laughing…

       The IDF Spokespersons’ unit has posted an account of some of what happened on August 18, entitled “A Day in the Life of Captain Z., Explosives Ordnance Disposal Officer”. In it, Captain Z. tells us: “After arriving at the scene, our force noticed that one of the terrorists was wearing an explosive device. We immediately cleared MADA, the Israeli medical services, away from the scene. After a closer inspection, we saw that numerous explosive devices were located nearby. We got to work, using a remote control robot to defuse a bomb that was strapped to one of the terrorists. Suddenly we were hit by fire coming from the west … All the while, shots continued to fly. We were glued down to the floor for nearly two hours, returning fire and waiting for the scene to calm down. Finally, our soldiers, together with aerial support, managed to kill the rest of the terrorists, allowing us to continue with our work. The work is slow, careful work…but we finally managed to get out at around midnight”. In the meantime, despite efforts at first aid, one of the two Israeli military snipers who had been shot [maybe the man shown in the photo with Barak, in this comment] died. This account is posted here.

       Now, the information you presented as an explanation, nikkor1, is an assertion, without real proof that that’s what really happened in this case.

       It is almost identical to the argumentation made over a year ago, on Ibn Kafka’s blog on June 2, 2010, here, by someone posting comments using the pseudonym Omri, who writes, among other things:
       Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:34 , Omri a dit:
       These pictures were taken by a Nikon D2Xs camera. The internal clock on these starts in 2006-01-01, according to
       the manual. So, the cameraman in the IDF changed the batteries 2 months ago and did not reset the time.
       ——————————
       Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:57, Omri a dit:
       And the 2003 images were taken by a Pentax Optio 550 camera, which have a default system clock time of 2003-01-01.
       ——————————
       Le juin 2, 2010 à 8:59 , Omri a dit:
       Amazing what you can find by looking in the user’s manual of a camera.
       ——————————
       …
       and so on.

       How can it be — now, all this has happened all over again!

       Do you really expect that everyone should know — or should have to do all the research possible — about how the IDF organizes its photostream on Flikr? [Do you seriously maintain that this is in the public domaine?]

       Are are we all supposed to know how the IDF just rushes out to every emergency without checking the timestamp on the batteries of the cameras it uses to document major events — such as a “multipronged terror attack”?

       Is everyone supposed to be able to check the EXIF coding? I can’t do it, myself — and I don’t expect everybody else can do it either. Do I think the IDF was deliberately misleading in the coding? No, I think the IDF did not realize they were making this mistake. It was changed — whether or not it was “corrected” — after the mistake was called to their attention.

       If people don’t do this every time they look at photos the IDF puts out as “evidence”, you will then feel free to accuse people of bias, or of having some unspecified but clearly bad “modus operandi”, if not worse?

       You don’t think it’s up to the IDF to do the job right?

       The IDF made a mistake here. This is not contested [except that the blame has been put first on Flikr, and then on some 18-year-olds]. But, then, the IDF should give a credible and transparent explanation, which has not yet been done.

       Now, as to nikkor1, there have been at least 13 or 14 different IP addresses using this name — and the “voices” have not all been the same, from the attitude to the command of English. So, it would be surprising now if you, the person who answered me yesterday, was the only one writing to me all day {over a period of many hours}… though it is possible.

       As to your email address — there is no real name attached to it. And, it’s in a Russian domaine. I have no idea who you [and all the other nikkor and nikkor1s really are, or who you work for] — but, do you seriously think I believe you are a Russian, or in Russia?

       Reply

12. Nikon D700

    Reply

13. Marian, don’t fall into the paranoia: I’m a real person, and I’ve wrote all the comments by myself and on my behalf.

    1. About different IP addresses: most of israely internet providers uses dynamic IP addressing, that’s why each time I open internet connection I get new IP
    FYI:
    http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static

    2. About my email: of course it’s not my primary email – privacy, you know. But we exchanged some emails about a year ago (if you remember that).

    3. I’m not in Russia – I’m in Israel.

    4. About my English: it’s improving! Each time I’m reading your posts I encountered new idioms: you have great language!

    Reply

14. Nikon D700c8

    Reply