No. It's not fake at all.
But the interesting thing is, those antievolutionists who claim that Archaeopteryx is fake (specifically that the fossil impressions of feathers are faked) claim that the creature is really just an ordinary dinosaur, i.e. a reptile, and not a bird at all. At the same time antievolutionists who accept Archaeopteryx as a legitimate fossil creature (feathers and all) claim that it's 100% a bird, and not a reptile at all.
Funny thing, isn't it Bray, that antievolutionists are certain that Archaeopteryx is in no way transitional between reptiles and birds, but they can't agree which one it is, a reptile or a bird!
How would you explain that? And how would you explain that in conjunction with your denial that Archaeopteryx is transitional between reptiles and birds?
After all, what better definition for a transitional fossil could there possibly be than one for which a case can be made to put it either in group "A" or group "B," whereas those groups are utterly discontinuous and non-overlapping with respect to living organisms? And indeed Archaeopteryx DOES have both distinctive characteristics of reptiles (which no modern bird possesses) AND distinctive characteristics of birds (which no modern reptile possesses).
And if you unreservedly deny transitional status to just such a fossil, then haven't you moved the goal post so far back that you've put yourself out of the game entirely?
The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx 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.
Guess it is a fake after all, just like all the missing links. I'll keep my faith in The One True God not some Honey fossils. Stone the Infidel!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Nice observation. I'd never noticed that about the positions they take.