[Dimensio]

While the original intent may or may not have been intended to deceive, and I think it is likely that it was not intended as a deception, but the photographs should've been identified as being a model for visual demonstration.

Is there any indication that the photographs were presented as of moths in a completely natural setting?

Many "nature" photographs are deliberately posed because it's hard to find organisms in just the right position for a good illustration. That doesn't make it fraud.

[coconutt2000]

If you read what I wrote, I don't think that the photographs were frauds. What I'm saying is that the circumstances in which the photographs were taken should've been noted openly before this.

The problem stemming now from this revelation is that it completely draws attention away from the only part that mattered, which is the validity of the data.

[bornacatholic]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes. And when the fraud is exposed it is only natural to select for criticism those who uncovered the fraud. I credit that sort of behavior to evolving standards of truth.