Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

The point I wish to make again is that Brownian motion comes from the molecular activity and mobility of the medium. When the medium is air or water, we know how molecularly active they are. 

"Water molecules (H20) are always bonding with one another, switching partners, like dancers."  

However, when the medium is gelatin, as in film emulsion, it is not as molecularly active as water- far from it. Being made of complex proteins, it's much more stable than water. 

I mentioned that viscosity of the medium reduces Brownian motion. Well, gelatin is very viscous.

Temperature is another variable, where higher temperature increases Brownian motion. Here is an experiment in which film was deliberately kept in a hot car before shooting. That should increase the Brownian motion, right?

The first image is the control, and the second shows the effect of heated film.

So, you can see that in the second picture,  with the heated film, the colors got muted and there is less contrast. But, there is nothing that can be called a photographic defect or anomaly. There is nothing like this:

Do you realize that the black woman's hair didn't look like that? This was her:

So, her hair was up in a bun. It wasn't like this:

Do you want to attribute that to Brownian motion too? How far do you want to take the insanity?

It appears that James Norwood has removed his original comment lauding Judyth Baker and urging me to read her and learn from her. Now, he says that the point is that it was Jim Fetzer who endorsed Judyth's article.

But, James: You know Jim Fetzer is a supporter of Judyth Baker. And, the regrettable fact is that she has swayed a lot of people. But, you're not one of them, are you? You know better, don't you? So, why didn't you think twice before lauding a scientific claim of hers? You're not a scientist; you're a humanities guy. But, you could have done some researching to find out if there is any truth to her claim before endorsing it.  That was lazy, James; very lazy. 

No, James. Brownian motion does NOT create anomalies in photographs. You can't come up with a single photo expert pointing to a photographic anomaly and saying, "You see. That photographic anomaly was caused by Brownian motion." 

It was a VERY dumb claim coming from a blowhard, James, and you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. But, you have written about Judyth Baker, haven't you? How could you not know better? How could you cite her as an expert with authoritative knowledge- ON ANYTHING?  

Hey, it's not brownian motion; it's clownian motion.