Fred Ross wrote:
Hockney’s buddy Falco knows full well that his work will not stand up to peer review, and did his best to ignore David Stork until Stork’s work and support was so overwhelming that he was supported by most of the optical scientists who I understand made mincemeat of Falco at their major conference this past October.
Another couple of things I find interesting are that in Hockney's book there is a big section of correspondence between the two (and others) and Falco's attitude in those letters certainly came off as someone much too dazzled with Hockney's celebrity, and that as far as I could see not a single painting proposed by Hockney as being done with mirrors and lenses was ever criticized by Falco's analysis. You would think that every once in a while the "science" would either be unclear or contradictory to the theory just by chance, but Falco's "analysis" sure looks to me as though it is prejudiced in favor of confirming Hockney's theory regardless of the facts involved. Even when confronted by such excellent scientific refutation as that provided by Dr. Stork, he just hangs on for dear life rather than accepting the idea that in at least one case the theory might not be accurate.
--Brian
