I don't see any implication that the officials were being untruthful. The
article (and the sub-headline) simply points out that the photograph made
the planes look close together even though officials stated they weren't.
The quoted explanation thoroughly debunks the illusion of proximity.
Attributing the explanation to the quoted officials--rather than flatly
stating it as fact--is just careful journalism.

(In any case, an article's headline is generally written by a copy editor
rather than by the article's author, so you can't infer the author's intent
from the headline.)

--Gary



The article appears to have been re-written since I saw it last night.
Previously the section titled "Exaggerated Effect" was not there. In
the old version I definitely don't think that the illusion was
thoroughly debunked. Perhaps the version I first saw was simply brief
and not intentionally biased against the officials. But consider also
that they put the article on the front page of the website which means
that, at least originally, they didn't realize that the photo was a very
commonplace illusion.

- Ray

***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray