The articles quote other sources, or are his summary of those sources.
This is just a quote from an article:
“in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents.”
You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place. So you’ve got it backwards. It’s “he’s lying because I say so” or “just assume he’s lying”.
The scientist wasn’t saying there’s no scientific estimates of collagen decay. That would mean no research had ever been done, which is obviously wrong. What he obviously meant was that the estimates must be wrong. That’s obviously an ASSUMPTION that he’s making.
Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content. Chances are they’re like your current contention. You make some assumptions or misrepresent something yourself.
Yes, I know. I have read many of Brian's articles and usually read his sources when I can. I have found that he regularly misrepresents what the original source said.
This is just a quote from an article:...You have yet to demonstrate where he’s deceitful on his contention about the decay of collagen in the first place.
The deceit here is subtle. He quotes a scientist saying "little intact collagen remains after 10-30,000 years." He then turns that into "[collagen has] a lifespan of 30,000 or so years." That's not what the scientist said--Brian just ignores that important adjective "little" (in other words, "some") and completely blows by the rest of the sentence, "except in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." Let's rewrite that statement a little: "some intact collagen can remain after 30,000 years, esecially in bones in cool or dry depositional environments." That kind of blows his conclusion apart, and an honest writer would have attempted to account for it.
Give me examples of where he’s misrepresented content.
I don't have time to go on that hunt right now. It's time-consuming: I have to read Brian's stuff, then follow his references, many of which are behind paywalls, then read the references I can get to to figure out what they're really saying, then compare that to Brian's version. I've done this a lot over the past few years, and I'm sure I'll do it again--but not today. Gotta go earn some money.