Replies

Nope:

The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx fossil specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that

- the feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
- the surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas;
- slightly elevated “blobs” appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab;
-the feathers show “double strike” impressions.
-Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
- Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
=Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
= An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.

“These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.”

Sources
= Watkins, R.S.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C.; Watkins, J.; Rabilizirov, R. & Spetner, L.M., 1985a. Archaeopteryx - a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
-Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx - a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
=Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx - more evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
-Hoyle, Fred, Wickramasinghe, N.C. and Watkins, R.S., 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise — and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
= Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra, 1987. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
-Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M., 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.