[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.

[Dimensio]

What I'm saying is that the circumstances in which the photographs were taken should've been noted openly before this.

Except that this kind of thing happens all the time. Unless the photograph is presented an if it is supposed to be of an event occuring within nature, without interference, then it's a fairly common practice because of the problem of making non-human subjects stay still and in any optimal posing. The photographers in this situation had no way of knowing that creationists would leap upon an occurance of an extremely common practice as "proof" of fraud.

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.

Trust me, rabid antievolutionists always find an excuse to ignore the validity of the data.