Some time ago Philip Ball published in his journal Nature impressive camouflage of Arthur Eddington's 1919 fraud:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-20.html
Philip Ball: "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/09/arthur_eddington_was_innocent.html
However camouflaging Eddington's fraud is obviously not enough and Nature strikes even harder. The paper below should have been called: "Forget about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate!":
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n8/full/nphys1042.html
Nature Physics 4, 583 (2008)
Mark Buchanan
"Could Galileo have worked out the principles of the modern theory of relativity? Could he, even in the mid-seventeenth century, have derived the Lorentz transformations, the existence of a fundamental limiting velocity, and the equivalence of mass and energy? The idea sounds preposterous, especially as the limitations of the principle of relativity as Galileo did conceive it only appeared at the dawn of the twentieth century. After all, it was Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism and his explanation of the electromagnetic nature of light, along with the Michelson–Morley experiment, that set the stage for Einstein. Could special relativity have been developed, even in principle, by someone who knew almost nothing of light? Just possibly, the answer is yes. That's the provocative view, at least, of physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum of The Rockefeller University in New York, who suggests that Galileo, if he'd had access to some modern mathematics, might well have followed his own intuitions about the relativity of motion to a theory of relativity in something akin to today's form. What makes Feigenbaum's argument doubly interesting is its emphatic conclusion that the logical foundations of relativity have absolutely nothing to do with light, but follow quite independently from basic logic and symmetry considerations."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com