The argument against the 2008 photos, according to the web site linked to, was that it was actually a physically real toy airplane. The 2'nd and 3'rd reports jm listed give no landmarks at all, and were of the same probable toy with different cameras, a Canon and a Z20. Other than the photos ultimately being futile due to misidentification, there was nothing to suggest that they were cgi.
If as you say, this 2010 report was from the same location as the original 2008 report (which I'm not convinced of yet) and shot with the same Z5, that says nothing about the 2'nd and 3'rd report. It could easily have been other shutterbugs in the neighborhood.
So according to jm's post, what we have here is the 1'st and last photos probably being from the same camera at the same location. But they don't show the same flying object, the two are clearly very different when looked at closely. And no one can find the evidence that they were cgi. They don't look it.
The 2008 photo looks like a fine picture of a toy airplane, without detectable evidence of manipulation, and the photographer said that the EXIFs got mangled by the battery failing partway through the shot, which hasn't been tested or disproven.
The 2010 looks like if it were cgi then the photographer belongs in hollywood, because it's better work than any movie. They even did a low-light noise pattern on it. And you said it's EXIFs are fine. There is nothing that says a photographer can't misidentify a toy airplane and later shoot something real, that they are spoiled for life. So other than a theoretical unknown perfect cgi and EXIFs maker, there's no evidence. But if there is such software, and it's existed since at least 2008,then that means that all UFO photographs can never ever be valid in the eyes of any sceptic who doesn't want any photos to be real.
I don't want to argue. It appears the subject is at an impasse until someone goes there and does an interview. Until then, I have nothing more to say for or against.