It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't

NY Times ^ | January 24, 2006 | NICHOLAS WADE

[darbymcgill]

What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists

Nothing to see here... "scientists police themselves"... move along.... "would have been found in peer review".... eventually....

Move along.... quickly... hurry up....

[aruanan]

The first time I saw someone "cleaning up" their gel about ten years ago now I was shocked.

Yeah, I asked my thesis advisor about cleaning up a spotty western blot. He said the spots gave it character.

[metmom]

In talking with friends the actual thing nowadays is that one can't believe anything in any journal necessarily.

And creationists are criticized for expressing skepticism about the latest scientific pronouncements? Yesterday's science it today's *creationist lies*; thinking of the *most mutations are harmful* issue. So scientists are willing to engage in fraud; imagine that.

[Mamzelle]

bumpmark

[tallhappy]

He said the spots gave it character.

Absolutely.

[pollyannaish]

Actually, no.

Some photographs have always lied. It is just easier now. Remember fairy photography from the early days?

In any case, all photography excludes information. That is not a lie, but it does create a certain kind of distortion.

[Elsie]

At least it doesn't have LEECH's!!

[Elsie]

It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't

Hey!!

I thought this was gonna be a Pamela Anderson thread!!!

[R. Scott]

That is not a lie, but it does create a certain kind of distortion.

Not exactly a lie, but an untruth?
Double exposure, real “cut and paste” (using an X-ato blade and paste) and other means have been used since photography was invented – but as you posted, “It is just easier now.” It was so difficult to do that it needed a real expert to present a useable picture, and “photographs don’t lie” was an accepted phrase. I haven’t heard it used since PhotoShop.

[RunningWolf]

Bump for later. I have looked at the dino-bird fossil images close up, will post them here with what notes on what I see.

This cleansing the bands up with photo manipulation is outrageous and should throw the whole science into turmoil.

Wolf

[editor-surveyor]

I agree, and this revelation shoud be the end for Ichenoumon posting his spam here.

[RunningWolf]

My guess is that there may be more than 1 percent of the data manipulation in some form, and that this sort of thing has bled into several areas of scientific theoretical research. I would guess it is more concentrated in some fields than others. I wont mention them but you can figure it out.

Even one percent though (of data manipulation) is enough, when the one percent is placed for maximum effect.

Wolf

[Doctor Stochastic]

Note that none of the "Creationist Scientists" nor "ID Scientists" caught this. It was caught by peer review and efforts of other scientists.

[editor-surveyor]

Note that none of the "Creationist Scientists" nor "ID Scientists" caught this

First, that is a blatant lie. They have been complaining about the credibility of evolution promotors work for years; and second, none of your media shills would bother to print it in any visible location.

[supercat]

Double exposure, real “cut and paste” (using an X-ato blade and paste) and other means have been used since photography was invented – but as you posted, “It is just easier now.”

Although there are devices that can flash arbitrary images onto photographic negatives with resolution matching the emulsion grain, such equipment is rare (and is probably designed for use with special-purpose film as opposed to normal camera negative film). So even with today's technology I'd think it difficult to fake a camera master. Maybe someone has equipment to fake a roll of Super8 Kodachrome, but I'd tend to think that an unedited roll of film likely shows what it claims...

...to the extent that any photographic rendering can. Even if a photo or movie is unaltered, there's no guarantee that it actually shows what is claimed. A photo of the President with someone may in fact be a photo of an impersonator with that person. Photos often have limitted authenticating value, even when provably unaltered, because reality may not be what it visually seems to be.

[FreedomCalls]

[R. Scott]

I am leery of any photographic evidence that doesn’t include the negative, and with the move to digital cameras, negatives are rapidly becoming relics. Even professional photographers are starting the switch.
I am reminded of the often shown film of Hitler dancing a jig at the news of the fall of France (?). It turned out it was just him taking a step and having that clip repeated several times.

[caffe]

"There have certainly been frauds on the evolution side of the debate, but it's very far from the rule"

Excuse me, the evolutionists marxists are guilty of more fraud than Clinton..

[js1138]

The best way to authenticate a digital image would be to calculate a checksum using a crc32 or similar algorithm on the file right from the memory card. Store this in a secure place. The crc could be recalculated at any future time to match the original.

Any digital information could be secured from undetected change this way. It's done all the time -- every time you use a computer for anything.

[Dimensio]

Excuse me, the evolutionists marxists are guilty of more fraud than Clinton.

We're talking about scientists who study evolution, not "evolutionists marxists" in general. While some who accept evolution may be marxists, many are not.

But since you've gone ahead and made the loaded claim, perhaps you could provide an example or two.