![](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/01/23/science/fraud2_500.1130.jpg)
How to Spot a Fraud You'll have to go to the actual Times' webpage. i.e. URL = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=1 , to click on the link so that the captions can be read. 56K dialup beware. It's one of those huge astronomy graphics that displace the format when browsing comments.
1 posted on
01/23/2006 10:05:39 PM PST by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: neverdem
5 posted on
01/23/2006 10:11:00 PM PST by
coconutt2000
(NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
To: neverdem
Gonna need a sharpeyed guard dog to spot that
![](http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~trm38/webpage/English/side%20effects/eagle%20dog.JPG)
8 posted on
01/23/2006 10:25:04 PM PST by
Oztrich Boy
(Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
To: neverdem
![](http://www.casperkitty.com/pol/BILL.GIF)
I downloaded the above picture to the left from whitehouse.gov on February 16, 1996. I wonder what brightness and contrast adjustment will do to it...
![](http://www.casperkitty.com/pol/NEWBILL.GIF)
Is that a leash?
9 posted on
01/23/2006 10:26:27 PM PST by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: neverdem
I'm glad the NYT is all over this scientific fraud thing. Wouldn't want the public to be misled, now would we?
(/sarcasm)
12 posted on
01/23/2006 10:35:07 PM PST by
Rocky
(Air America: Robbing the poor to feed the Left)
To: neverdem
14 posted on
01/23/2006 10:39:34 PM PST by
lowbridge
(All that is needed for evil to triumph is for "RINOS" to do something)
To: neverdem
![](http://www.gilanet.com/wallace/copy0.jpg)
Piece of cake. But the bottom left photo must have been at lower resolution than their original. Couldn't get the backbround right.
To: El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; ..
17 posted on
01/24/2006 12:11:34 AM PST by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
At least these are for real:
![](http://junior.apk.net/~mnovak/jackalopes/pics/lope25.jpg)
18 posted on
01/24/2006 12:22:13 AM PST by
Gamecock
(..ours is a trivial age, and the church has been deeply affected by this pervasive triviality. JMB)
To: neverdem
Remember when photographs didnt lie?
24 posted on
01/24/2006 4:06:50 AM PST by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: neverdem
some authors had yielded to the temptation of Photoshop's image-changing tools to misrepresent the original data. Cookbook for Flim-Flam
The pressure for cloning's so great
That a researcher might take the bait
And "doctor" his finds to mislead weaker minds.
Which proves -- greed is a strong human trait
25 posted on
01/24/2006 5:04:38 AM PST by
syriacus
(GOVERNOR Jay ROCKEFELLER tried to wrest regulatory control of surface mining FROM the Fed Gov't.)
To: neverdem
The NYT: "We are learning new technologies so we can prevent future boo-boos..."
Give this one to the NYT. It would be better for their case to imply that image fraud happens more on TV.
![](http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding03.jpg)
To: neverdem
The advent of scanners really allowed this sort of abuse.
Journals should only accept photos -- but the trend is the opposite, purely e-submissions.
That's as it should be, tbut integrity of data is harder to guarentee.
In talking with friends the actual thing nowadays is that one can't believe anything in any journal necessarily.
29 posted on
01/24/2006 7:02:15 AM PST by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: neverdem; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; betty boop; ..
What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists. This is where we get evolution from.
30 posted on
01/24/2006 7:30:02 AM PST by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: neverdem
Not surprising. In my photos I've used the Photoshop contrast tools, but these are applied to the entire image, not just to part of it. I've removed fluorescent debris that would detract from an otherwise good image. I've removed lanes in a DNA gel photo (because they were on the gel but not part of the experiment or not relevant to that particular portion of the experiment), but not bands within a single lane. I think a basic rule should be this: if one adds something that isn't there to make it appear that it is or removes something that is there that invalidates the claim being made, then it's fraud; otherwise, it's cosmetic.
Making a composite photo of, say, several different exposures to show what's actually there across the field when there's not enough range within any exposure to show everything is okay if it's stated right up front. This is done in astronomy. Some very faint dust bands may show up only after a very long exposure which overexposes other parts of the field, obliterating detail. Combining various portions of the field at various levels of exposure to reveal the most detail is okay to do if you're stating that you're doing it and detail how it was done.
35 posted on
01/24/2006 8:01:35 AM PST by
aruanan
To: neverdem
44 posted on
01/24/2006 10:16:13 AM PST by
Mamzelle
To: neverdem
It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't
Hey!!
I thought this was gonna be a Pamela Anderson thread!!!
48 posted on
01/24/2006 11:52:12 AM PST by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: neverdem
Note that none of the "Creationist Scientists" nor "ID Scientists" caught this. It was caught by peer review and efforts of other scientists.
53 posted on
01/24/2006 3:36:13 PM PST by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: neverdem
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.
59 posted on
01/25/2006 11:06:08 AM PST by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
71 posted on
08/31/2006 11:40:52 AM PDT by
Coleus
(I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic "adult")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson