Lazy slackers shun misunderstood jokester

Readers Paul Milligan and Tom Pavluvcik have adjusted the photo of Jon Carry with the troops in Irak to make it clearer. Below is Pavluvcik’s version of the photo, which he tells us he created by increasing its “intensity.”
Revisiting the photo gives me the opportunity to recognize Charles Johnson for providing the definitive comment on it, in the “lazy slackers” heading I have appropriated from him. V the K’s Caption This! provides other worthy captions here. First runner-up to Charles’s first-place caption is V the K’s caption number 3: “Are these scrambled eggs, or someone’s idea of a botched joke?” Also weighing in is Ben of Mesopotamia with a report here.
JOHN adds: Various moonbats have questioned the provenance of this photograph on the ground that the EXIF data for the photo indicate that it was taken at 12:57 on January 9, 2006. Aha! say the moonbats. It’s a fraud! Only one problem: the photo couldn’t possibly have been taken on January 9, 2006. The EXIF data also say that it was taken with a ViviCam 8400, a model which wasn’t released until February 2006. Also, on January 9, 2006, John Kerry wasn’t eating with troops in Baghdad or anywhere else. According to the Associated Press (scroll down to entries for January 9), Kerry left on January 9 for a twelve-day trip to the Middle East. His first stop was London, but he didn’t have any appearances there until January 10, and that, according to the AP, was not with soldiers. At 12:57 on January 9, he was in transit between the U.S. and England, likely on an airplane over the Atlantic.
A much simpler explanation for the incorrect EXIF date information is that the guy who took the picture never set the time and date function on his camera. That’s much too benign, and too simple, for the moonbats, of course.
So, in other words, it’s another moonbat false alarm–much ado about nothing. Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, has talked with Scott Hennen, who confirms the photo’s authenticity.
FURTHER UPDATE: We’ll have more on the photo “controversy,” and perhaps on the psychopathology of moonbatism, tomorrow.
To comment on this post, go here.