this is not true. paleontologists don't have money for this
Becoming a paleontologist isn't like becoming some ascetic monk, the most infamous episode in Paleontology's history the
Bone Wars shows that off well when two very wealthy paleontologists not only threw their wealth around to try and get more and more fossils but also to fuck with each other's careers. They directly bought fossils from fossil hunters too. Currently today there's the
Burmese Amber issue, to which even Nature
published a paper in regards to the ethics of it.
That said, I did include "loan" in there too, which means that a non-professional paleontologist(or not even a paleontologist at all, just a collector) gives temporary access for the purposes of research.
if you're studying famous or rare fossils you already have tenure. it's not that hard to get.
We're talking about forged fossils that'd be new. If a fossil hasn't been described yet and it's not from a new site then it's a rare fossil. As for it being famous, it's the paper and description done of it that would make it famous. If you're the guy who's studying and writing papers on worms and in some expedition you just happen to find a cool worm then you're going to be the one researching it and not the guy with tenure who studies dinosaurs, regardless of your tenure status.
it's not convincing at all . it's only convincing because private collections have no obligation to give anyone access to the fossil to analyse it.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. Did you forget that we're talking about forgeries and the convincing part is how authentic looking the artificial ones look? If it's a forgery being pushed for some aim then of course they're going to give people access to it. There will be more convincing means to produce artificial fossils in the future too, this is work that's fairly recent and can definitely be worked further upon.
nigger this involves feeding animals with perfect food for years until the bones have the perfect mix of elements. you'd have to import the earth from the place you're bullshiting your dinosaur is coming from and growing all the food for your animal on that specific dirt, not using tap water, etc.
You really don't seem to understand that it's not hard to do. You just need an enclosed system and in the case of getting carbon that would pass the test(as in carbon without C-14) you just need some carbon that's old enough that you get out of the ground(and presumably without any neutron exposure), like coal or just about any fossil fuels. You could literally just buy some propane, burn it and capture the CO2 and grow some plants off of that and you have food to feed your subject(or if the plant is your subject then you're just about done).
For whatever reason you seem to think this, of all things, is the barrier to entry. Just to be clear, you wouldn't use radiocarbon dating on any fossil that's millions of years old. The other kinds of radioisotope dating that I know of aren't based on what's in the organism part of the fossil but instead the matrix it's in -- that is the rock it's encased in. You can just use that material from the time period you plan to have this hypothetical, fake fossil be from. No weird, enclosed ecosystem(which is overkill, you're just doing a scaled up and enclosed terrarium/aquarium) is necessary for that.
have you ever heard of a CT scan
Please enlighten me on how the CT scan is going to reveal the forgery
. These aren't scribbled on rocks that I'm talking about, they're artificial fossils that undergo a process to try and mimic and speed up one of the processes for fossilization.
don't be wary of that . the technology and the academic system in place is quite alright to prevent that.
You may be shocked to find that academics can... lie. Horrifying, right? Even physicists have tried to lie about making elements before, which is about as retarded as you can imagine when you propose you did X method to produce new elements and no one else can replicate it. Academics would want you to be skeptical though, just as academics are supposed to be skeptical.
I already listed, in that post before, known fossil hoaxes and if you want a plethora of fossil hoaxes from a paleontologist then I have a wonderful
wikipedia article for you
. Here's some quotes.
The
Himalayan fossil hoax, or simply the
Himalayan hoax, or the case of the
peripatetic fossils, is a case of
scientific misconduct perpetrated by Indian palaeontologist
Vishwa Jit Gupta of
Panjab University. Since his doctoral research in the 1960s and the following two decades, Gupta worked on the geology and fossil record of the
Himalayan region, producing hundreds of research publications that were taken as fundamentals to understanding the
geological formation of the Himalayas.
Indians even scam paleontology
. Mind you he was also able to convince colleagues to publish papers based on his hoaxing and lies.
Early in 1978,
Gilbert Klapper and
Willi Ziegler had suspected foul play as they noticed that Gupta's
conodont fossils were similar to those collected by
George Jennings Hinde from Buffalo, New York, a century before. Gupta's colleague Arun Deep Ahluwalia recalled that Gupta planted conodont fossils in 1980 to convince K. J. Budurov of the existence of the specimens in the Himalayas. Gupta duped
Philippe Janvier into describing a fish fossil as a new species in 1981, which Janvier later found to have come from China.
Gupta was careful in his research publications, asking eminent scientists to collaborate. He provided the fossils and the basic geological details, and allowed his collaborators to make the fossil identification, so that they became "unsuspecting partners in crime", as Bhargava lamented, or unwitting "partners in the deception", according to Bangalore Puttaiya Radhakrishna, editor of the Journal of the Geological Society of India.
2 decades of this kind of shit. Imagine if this man could properly forge his own fossils instead of just sourcing existing ones from elsewhere.
