The Supreme Court didn’t reject the measles case because it was a “faked image.” In this context, “composite nature of the evidence” refers to the challenger publishing six papers about the measles virus but he did not meet all of Lanka’s requirements in a single paper. That is why it is a “composite nature.”
For example, Lanka didn’t just want someone to prove the existence of measles, he also wanted the person to determine the size of it. The person challenging Lanka did all of those things but not in a single paper. It was spread throughout six papers.
The Supreme Court didn’t reject the measles case because it was a “faked image.” In this context, “composite nature of the evidence” refers to the challenger publishing six papers about the measles virus but he did not meet all of Lanka’s requirements in a single paper. That is why it is a “composite nature.”
For example, Lanka didn’t just want someone to prove the existence of measles, he also wanted the person to determine the size of it. The person challenging Lanka did all of those things but not in a single paper. It was spread throughout six papers.
Well then of course they put it all into one paper and claimed the prize, right?