Raymond Rogers on November 8, 2004, wrote:
Al Adler reduced and decolorized the image layer on fibers with diimide. The color was removed completely. The fiber that was left was colorless and the surface was smooth. The smooth surface implies that no conjugated-double-bond structures in the cellulose were reduced.
Al Adler mounted image fibers in plastic and cut sections normal to the length of the fibers. He did not see any color in the cellulose. . . . There are many flakes of color in the adhesive and many discontinuous zones of color on fibers. The “ghosts” are obviously flakes of color that were pulled off of image fibers. I would state it as, No color can be observed in the cellulose below the impurity layer. . . .
The very first sentence of the Valencia List of image characteristics contradicts this. That’s fine if there is sufficient factual evidence. I’m not aware of it.
If the very first sentence of the list is controversial and possibly wrong, how credible will this list seem?
Dan, your last question says it all ! I think this list should have been done much more carefully because right now, there’s some ammunitions for the skeptics in it…
It is a basic law of science: thou shalt not invoke ‘consensus’ to make your point.
And another law of science, even more important (in my opinion) : You should not include a hypothesis that is far from being proven in a list of “facts”.
I have no problem with a ‘Consensus’, someone has to break all the “A” graded points down to actual scientically proven and testable points. The only problem here is that instead of making it simple, as in taking all 87 A graded points and eliminating those that are not so A grade, i.e. some visual interpretations. They decided to make up their own. Rogers thin impurity layer is on the A list as A4. So it should not have been eliminated…simple.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
My 2 cnets,
R.
Sorry should read as; My 2 cents, ;-)
R