Comment: Wait a second...

(See in situ)


Wait a second...

There's so much superfluous jargon added to the exif data of the original picture (found here: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8331/8436110735_e822c23e69_o.jpg), but for some odd reason the exif data says it's a "599999900% blow-up of the 1 × 1 (0.0 megapixel) original". So how much fishiness can we expect out of the rest of the exif data? I'm figuring at least the location data and the date taken.