For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
-
EuDes
- 9500 or more caches found
- Posts: 111
- Joined: 27 February 05 9:30 pm
- Location: Melbourne Garmin Oregons 300, 650 & 750
Post
by EuDes » 18 February 12 10:43 pm
Good points
.
That being the case then, and assuming that the camera defaults to 01/01/2005, she should be able to figure out when the shot was taken based on the purchase/initial power-up of the camera. Given the small window of opportunity for finding GC1TZV4, that might at least lead to the 'other' cache being the one.
-
SamCarter
- 1400 or more caches found
- Posts: 650
- Joined: 13 March 07 10:32 am
- Location: Hobart
Post
by SamCarter » 18 February 12 11:04 pm
Except the other cache (assuming your "other" and my "other" are the same) doesn't fit either, as it was placed early in 2006
-
juc_cacher
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 01 January 10 10:23 pm
- Location: Jan Juc
-
Contact:
Post
by juc_cacher » 19 February 12 8:10 pm
Hmm..yes, good points indeed. The plot thickens.
-
jonnosan+2
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 20 September 11 10:29 pm
- Location: Leura, NSW, Oz
Post
by jonnosan+2 » 19 February 12 9:35 pm
I have no idea which cache you are refering to as the "other" but I don't see any firm evidence that would absolutely preclude Maggies-lens's first cache being published in early 2006. As reasoned above, the EXIF data is bogus, and the absolute earliest the pic could have been taken is July 2005, probably later, and it is possible that either
a) Maggies-lens has slightly misremembered the year of the find, and/or
b) the cache was dormant for a little while before being published.
