I just want to emphasize the usefulness of MLFSOM as a educational
tool. I made numerous figures showing principles and problems of
data collection using James' program. I can also assure you that in
order to use it properly, you need to know something about image data.
I only scratched the surface and I think it would be hard work to fake
the images in a way that later expert forensics would
not readily provide evidence. Also, there are 'watermarks' available from
cryptographic methods that are even 'post-processing' resistant.
Regrettably, as long as demonstrated forgeries and irresponsibly
ignorant mistakes and their cover-ups have no consequences whatsoever,
the temptation will remain.
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] fake images
After consultation with Ton Spek, I should correct my last email.
It turns out that my 'watermark' was not clever enough, because
PLATON - his program used to make the picture that I had randomly
picked as an example - can emulate the XP watermark (the way of
shading the ellipsoids which I intended to be different from the
'genuine ORTEP') rather well, and had indeed done so in
the picture in question. However it is technically an 'ORTEP
clone' (like XP), not an 'XP clone'. I am using 'clone' to mean
that one has intentionally created the 'same look and feel' as
an existing program, not to imply that the same code is used.
This shows how difficult it will be for James to include an
unforgeable 'watermark' in his calculated frames, though I would
still encourage him to try. Being able to emulate the experiment
so well is wonderful for debugging the programs used to process
the frames, but it will surely make fraud more difficult to