Einsteinians are pathological liars but, for various reasons, tell the truth sometimes. This is totally inconsequential - in the post-truth world lie and truth harmoniously coexist. Still I'm going to present Einsteinians' most important revelations.
Here is the truth about Eddington's 1919 hoax, plus six subsequent hoaxes:
Bradley Schaefer: "The original Eddington experiment (measuring the gravitational bending of light for stars near a totally eclipsed Sun) in 1919 was one of the most famous and important experiments in all physics, becoming the iconic proof of Einstein's General Relativity (GR). The Eddington experiment has been run successfully for only 7 eclipses, last in 1973, never getting much better than ~10% measurement accuracy."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AAS...23010302S
Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. [...] As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him."
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
Discover Magazine: "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth."
http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html
Brian Greene (6:47) "Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAJn0D4y5ic
Pentcho Valev