As I said, it would be interesting to see how they link member accounts to who actually was sitting at the pc, laptop, whatever when any of the linked posts were made.
It's not hard to spoof IP addresses.
I posted earlier I am happy for anyone to think I am any of the David's in the 260+ pages of them on dpreview. :-)
It's when you make statements like this Dan .........
"I am questioning your integrity and honesty because you have not told the truth on these forums on way too many occasions, and then run away when challenged on them, for me to just accept anything you post as being true."
Without looking in the mirror first. I'm nzmacro no matter where I go or Danny Young. Nothing has changed since I first got on the net. I don't need different nicknames.
You seem to be implying that anyone with past accounts and not declaring them is being dishonest. If so, I disagree.
It was always within dpreview rules (moderator Smaug01 can confirm) for members to have multiple accounts as long as they were not used simultaneously.
And if someone else created an account somewhere on the internet as either nzmacro or Danny Young would you consider changing your username to differentiate yourself from the other person?
Not interested in games with you as player and referee, but let us assume there is Someone with a Supposed Agenda (Swasa in short). Swasa processes processes your raw to the best of his abilities to make it look bad. Swasa publishes it here. Then he will be held to the same standard we try to hold you to. If he does not provide a realistically sized jpg with full and intact exif, he will be asked to provide that. If he does not, he will not be taken seriously [and thus failed his agenda], if he does but artefacts caused by his processing or weird or extreme settings can be shown he will also have failed his agenda. Either way he blows credibility
I must add that forging an EXIF is a child's game. EXIFs shouldn't be trusted, especially if coming from unverified sources and offered as a proof of anything.
As an aside, many years ago (around 2003?) a friend from the czech republic had a program to extract all the raw exif information from a jpg file. He'd worked out what everything meant for Minolta cameras and between the two of us we found some remarkable stuff stored in Canon cameras - way more than is normally published.
I have no idea what happened to him or his program - I last met him in December 2003 when we were over in Prague.
But I bet there's loads of stuff in a JPG or raw file that could prove its authenticity if one could be bothered to check.
A jpeg's exif data is too easily editable and so a jpeg on it's own proves nothing and would be laughed out of any court if it was the only evidence presented to claim ownership.
Having the raw file as well goes a long way to proving ownership.
As I have posted many times, anyone who knows what they are doing can download any image on the Internet and edit the jpeg's exif to make it look like they own the image.