https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-perver t-paleontology-excerpt/

Can't even tell if you're quoting YouTube comments or doing your EH thing. :-)

If by "doing my EH thing" you mean thinking critically and presenting sound arguments supported by reason and evidence, then yes, I am doing that.

One doesn't even have to speculate about potential nefarious activities here. *The story itself* admits that this "fossil" was found - not in the field, where it could be properly catalogued and dated - but in a public market, by a Chinese researcher, being sold as tourist jewelry. This reeks of classic Chinese paleontological-BS, and EVEN IF this so-called "fossil" is truly what it purports to be, the real story here wouldn't be "amazing scientific discovery made by Chinese researchers", it would be "modest scientific discovery ruined by the improper handling of finds".

But hey, if you guys want to trust Fox News and their shoddy reporting instead of trusting science, go right ahead.

if anyone thought you were anything other than a really boring and unfunny joke account before, they have put that behind them now.

Sorry EH didn't read.

Yes, I looked up the paper already. While I appreciate it being peer-review, it doesn't actually go into any great detail about either the *provenance* or the *dating* of the alleged fossil. Dr Xing et al. state that the amber is from Kachin province and date it to the Cretaceous period - yet it is not clear how they determined that the amber came from Kachin specifically (did the street vendor whom Dr Xing purchased this from just happen to posses all the proper documentation?), and the reference which Dr Xing cited states right in its abstract that the dating of Kachin amber is "ambiguous".

I'm intrigued by your mouse-tail hypothesis, however, and would love to hear more!

Well, obviously I'm not the expert here. But a good skeptic, like someone who detects art forgeries, should also be able make an independent analysis based on familiarity with the subject matter - in this instance, the difference between birds and dinosaurs; authentic fossil vs. crafted forgery and so on.

In this particular example, a hypothesis is needed for how someone might manage the feat of forging microscopic feather details that do not resemble the structure of any living bird. That would be fascinating, indeed.

Interesting coincidence, I've been re-reading all my old National Geographics and just recently went through the whole Archaeoraptor saga. I will say this, when National Geographic makes a big mistake, they own it.

Amber4ever chat logs inspired my girlfriend to get in to IRC trolling in my senior year of college.