Because the photo was not taken by Xuky and she reported one date in her first post, and then another completely different date when she 'reconfirmed'. So, as you say, the actual date is not a big deal here, but the fact that she was given two quite different dates for the photo by her source is significant because it calls into question any other information she got from this person. So - Xuky getting a clear date from this person, and other photos from the same 'session' would be in favour of her claims (although to repeat, she herself thought it was a photoshop spoof when she first saw it).
There is a reason for the 'clean chain of custody' when you are claiming something extraordinary, and when, as we have seen with the date, the source is shown to have made a false claim about one straightforward aspect of the claim then information about other aspects of the source of the photo must be justified.
The bird in question is a very common bird, and when people take pictures of it they normally take multiple pictures (because it's small and moves around a lot). The 'before and after' photos would provide context and help to convince doubters like me that at least the person who was making claims about the spoon-bill had found this bird later from looking at a number of photos, rather than picking one photo from 'wherever' and then altering it.
Yes, I claimed this about the shadow. As I said, the differences might also be due to doctoring of the original photo. Any difference in angle to the sun is minuscule.
I agree that you are no expert, but still think that the border suggests alterations to the original actual photo.
It was me that said this about the evolution of the bill, but as a joke because it is so obviously wrong. If you really 'see no reason why the bird photographed by Xuky's friend might not be such a bird' then this invalidates for me, and I hope everyone else on the forum, anything you might say or think about this or any other issue.