Oh stop complaining, you vacuous sealion.
Given the Gish Gallop of ludicrously flimsy articles you have been spewing on this thread, it is hardly surprising that we do a level of triage on them, so that we only waste time on the semi-serious ones.
The initial, prima facie, conclusion was that Fanti’s article was (i) “insane” (in that it was trying to support a ludicrous conclusion), (ii) poorly-substantiated (in that its hypothesis was explicitly “incomplete and needs further development”), and (iii) published in a less-than-reputable journal.
That was enough to ignore it as ‘most probably worthless’.
Then you, ignoring those earlier issues, decided to raise this piece of shite again.
As a consequence, it was discovered that its author has no relevant expertise whatsoever! (A fact that you have carefully avoided addressing.)
Then yesterday, out of boredom and morbid curiosity, I took a closer look at that paper’s ‘evidence’.
It was even worse than we expected. Fanti’s ‘evidence’ is utterly worthless!
We have not so much been ‘discussing’ it so much as impeaching it (and pointing at it and laughing).
The ‘blood crust’ sample is (by my estimation) at least 50% inorganic contaminants (mostly gold), with no reason to believe that the remainder contains any measurable amount of blood – so no reason to expect nitrogen to be there in the first place.
(I would also note that you have also carefully avoided addressing these issues.)
Even for somebody with no relevant expertise, this paper would appear to be blatant academic malpractice.
I have to ask:
Bill, why do you repeatedly bring up such blatantly abysmal sources?
Are you too ignorant to tell the difference? Or are you too dishonest to care?
Did you even carefully read the Fanti paper before repeatedly inflicting it on us?
I think we’re entitled to answers to these questions.