the telepathy thread

[Dhyaanee]

6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Wi-fi routers can detect motion

Do you think wi-fi is dangerous? So many mixed reports I can't decide.

[Dhyaanee]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Now a team from Microsoft Research wants to harness this unorganized ambient noise as an affordable way to control everything from the TV channel to room temperature. Their experiments demonstrate that human interaction with the noise is actually predictable."

I vote YES. Get rid of those pesky remotes cluttering up my end table.

[Rowan Amore]

22 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

People have been acting as antennae and/or absorbers since the dawn of radio. I think most of us have had the experience of affecting radio or TV reception in a room just by walking around. Touching an antenna often has a noticeable effect. Wi-fi routers can detect motion and are being used as security systems when the occupants are away.

Yes, Dad used us as an antennae attachment on many occasions.  "Stop!  Right there!  Now don't move!"

[Coffee Pancake]

20 minutes ago, Dhyaanee said:

Do you think wi-fi is dangerous? So many mixed reports I can't decide.

dielectric heating - basically you can use radio waves to warm things up (a microwave does this on purpose).

WiFi doesn't put out nearly enough energy at the right frequencies to do this.

A huge antenna for a local radio station .. yeah, maybe don't hug that while it's turned on, but even then .. it's a burn, not anything weird.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Interesting article that addresses some of that using the human body as both a transmitting and receiving antenna:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/make-human-antenna/story?id=13600329

"May 14, 2011— -- Electromagnetic interference is everywhere, coming from appliances and electrical systems.

Now a team from Microsoft Research wants to harness this unorganized ambient noise as an affordable way to control everything from the TV channel to room temperature. Their experiments demonstrate that human interaction with the noise is actually predictable."

New Tech Uses Electromagnetic Fields for Sensing

 

I wonder if they took into consideration those who have hearing loss or are fully deaf. Probably not. Even today it's rare in researchers into such things for the thought to even occur.

[Madelaine McMasters]

35 minutes ago, Dhyaanee said:

Do you think wi-fi is dangerous? So many mixed reports I can't decide.

There's been precious little credible evidence of deleterious effects from exposure to modest levels of RF energy. As Coffee notes, heating is the most likely route to tissue damage and it takes quite a lot to do that, more than wi-fi or cellular devices can manage.

It's also fairly easy to mitigate exposure to RF sources. Don't sleep with your phone or wi-fi router under your pillow. Don't place a router under a chair or sofa, where someone is likely to maintain close proximity for extended periods. Those are bad practices just from a wi-fi coverage standpoint, ignoring any safety concerns.

Use your phone on "Speaker" or with earbuds when convenient to minimize head exposure, but more importantly, to minimize musculoskeletal problems. Bluetooth emits far less RF energy than wi-fi or cellular, so wireless earbuds are not a concern.

Watch wi-fi signal levels (bars) around your home on handheld devices. If you're getting only one bar from your router, your router is probably getting only one bar from you. As a result, both your handheld device and the router will ramp up transmit power (the equivalent of yelling). It seems counterintuitive, but making sure you have good wi-fi coverage in those areas of your home where you do a lot of hand-held device noodling will actually reduce your exposure to RF energy.

All in all, I'd not worry about wi-fi. It's a tremendously useful technology that doesn't seem to present much risk, and whatever small risk there is can be mitigated further without much effort.

Everything I've said applies to the feared 5G cellular as well. The shorter wavelengths of 5G do not penetrate as deeply into us as the existing 2.4 and 5GHz frequencies of current generation wi-fi. I am amused by people who walk picket lines carrying "Ban 5G banners" while carrying phones that have been using the same frequency bands for years.

[Coffee Pancake]

Phone are magical black mirrors though, they can do no wrong!

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I wonder if they took into consideration those who have hearing loss or are fully deaf. Probably not. Even today it's rare in researchers into such things for the thought to even occur.

I expect the ubiquity of internet connected cameras will allow machine vision systems that understand sign language and can act on signed commands, providing text responses. Deaf people use existing smartphone and watches to great effect and so can already control systems such as are in my home with only a little extra effort. About half of the home automation commands I issue throughout the day are done via the touch interface on my iPhone.

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

A huge antenna for a local radio station .. yeah, maybe don't hug that while it's turned on, but even then .. it's a burn, not anything weird.

When I was in just entering engineering school Dad invited me to lunch with an old engineer who told us stories of his days doing research for the military decades earlier. He was interested in the effects of microwave energy on people, and arranged an experiment where he sat in a chair while being blasted by a radar antenna. He had a thermometer in his mouth to measure the anticipated rise in body temperature and stopped the experiment when he reached the desired 2°F goal. Although he could feel the "fever" coming on, he suffered no other effects.

I didn't understand much else from that lunch conversation, and felt quite the idiot as a result. After lunch, I confessed my newly discovered stupidity to Dad, who gave me a wink and said "I didn't understand a word he said either, Maddy."

That old engineer was Otto Schmitt, inventor of the Schmitt Trigger.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

All in all, I'd not worry about wi-fi. It's a tremendously useful technology that doesn't seem to present much risk, and whatever small risk there is can be mitigated further without much effort.

Everything I've said applies to the feared 5G cellular as well. The shorter wavelengths of 5G do not penetrate as deeply into us as the existing 2.4 and 5GHz frequencies of current generation wi-fi. I am amused by people who walk picket lines carrying "Ban 5G banners" while carrying phones that have been using the same frequency bands for years.

But then even a cursory google search of 5G health issues brings up multiple sites and recent studies wherein is mentioned the medical problems from RF signals:

"A vast literature published over the past sixty years shows adverse effects from wireless radiation applied in isolation or as part of a combination with other toxic stimuli. Extensive reviews of wireless radiation-induced biological and health effects have been published (Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Belpomme et al., 2018; Desai et al., 2009; Di Ciaula, 2018; Doyon and Johansson, 2017; Havas, 2017; Kaplan et al., 2016; Lerchl et al., 2015; Levitt and Lai, 2010; Miller et al., 2019; Pall, 2016, 2018; Panagopoulos, 2019; Panagopoulos et al., 2015; Russell, 2018; Sage and Burgio, 2018; van Rongen et al., 2009; Yakymenko et al., 2016; Bioinitiative, 2012). In aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, these reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in: • carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors), • genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), • mutagenicity, teratogenicity, • neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), • neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, • adverse impacts on the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems. From this perspective, RF is a highly pervasive cause of disease!" 

 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ Full Text: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf

That's quite a list of "non-events" for wireless but then I suppose with all the other types of pollution that are surely going to kill us, it is rather inconsequential. 🤔

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But then even a cursory google search of 5G health issues brings up multiple sites and recent studies wherein is mentioned the medical problems from RF signals:

"A vast literature published over the past sixty years shows adverse effects from wireless radiation applied in isolation or as part of a combination with other toxic stimuli. Extensive reviews of wireless radiation-induced biological and health effects have been published (Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Belpomme et al., 2018; Desai et al., 2009; Di Ciaula, 2018; Doyon and Johansson, 2017; Havas, 2017; Kaplan et al., 2016; Lerchl et al., 2015; Levitt and Lai, 2010; Miller et al., 2019; Pall, 2016, 2018; Panagopoulos, 2019; Panagopoulos et al., 2015; Russell, 2018; Sage and Burgio, 2018; van Rongen et al., 2009; Yakymenko et al., 2016; Bioinitiative, 2012). In aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, these reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in: • carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors), • genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), • mutagenicity, teratogenicity, • neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), • neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, • adverse impacts on the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems. From this perspective, RF is a highly pervasive cause of disease!" 

 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ Full Text: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf

That's quite a list of "non-events" for wireless but then I suppose with all the other types of pollution that are surely going to kill us, it is rather inconsequential. 🤔

We absolutely know that electromagnetic radiation can have deleterious effects. A few minutes of laying unprotected in the sun, or a UV emitting tanning booth, will expose you to more harmful radiation than all the things you do for the rest of the day. The dose makes the poison.

As with Covid-19 remedies, much of the RF health effect research is poorly done. That shouldn't be surprising. Twenty years ago, there was a lot of hand wringing over DNA damage caused by low level microwave radiation, of the sort you'd encounter from the just emerging wi-fi or the higher frequency cellular bands. The DNA damage was seen in petri dishes containing uncoiled DNA (uncoiled so it could be sequenced for damage detection). It apparently hadn't occurred to researchers that uncoiled DNA segments both act like quarter wavelength antennas (the most efficient kind!) at microwave frequencies and are exceptionally fragile. When coiled into balls, that same DNA is millions of times shorter than RF wavelengths and doesn't notice them directly, but rather jostles about a little more vigorously as the temperature rises due to RF heating. Hot tubs raise body core temperature further and faster than any RF source you'll ever encounter. Even UV light (wavelength about 100x the size of coiled DNA) doesn't shake DNA molecules enough to cause massive damage. But it does cause just enough to raise your chances of getting skin cancer. (As I have, twice. I also endured minor radiation burns to treat breast cancer).

There are other sources of electromagnetic radiation to be concerned about. It might be that blue light emitted in disproportionately large amounts by LED bulbs has some effect on our sleep patterns that's ultimately detrimental. That said, staying up late, hunched over a phone or keyboard, posting in the forums rather than getting a good night's sleep might swamp the effect of that blue light.

Life has a noise floor of risks. When we find something spiking well above it, like Covid-19, it's worth addressing. But, to go digging in that noise floor to declare emergencies is potentially harmful. I'm all for continuing research into the detrimental effects of the things we do, but always with an eye towards comparing risks against the noise floor and the benefits, and certainly with an eye towards doing the research well.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Silent Mistwalker]

4 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I expect the ubiquity of internet connected cameras will allow machine vision systems that understand sign language and can act on signed commands, providing text responses. Deaf people use existing smartphone and watches to great effect and so can already control systems such as are in my home with only a little extra effort. About half of the home automation commands I issue throughout the day are done via the touch interface on my iPhone.

Except we don't all use sign language. Many of us read lips because we do still have some hearing. With my issue I can't hear the majority of the beeps and whistles used on electronics because it is a higher frequency than what the tinnitus and high frequency loss allows me to hear. 

I can't afford a system like that. I'd have to replace every appliance I own. Not ever going to happen. 

You know the beep sound the microwave makes when it stops? I can't hear it. Not even if I am standing right over the microwave. And for some strange reason they always decide to go with high frequency sounds I can't hear. That's my beef.

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Except we don't all use sign language. Many of us read lips because we do still have some hearing. With my issue I can't hear the majority of the beeps and whistles used on electronics because it is a higher frequency than what the tinnitus and high frequency loss allows me to hear. 

I can't afford a system like that. I'd have to replace every appliance I own. Not ever going to happen. 

You know the beep sound the microwave makes when it stops? I can't hear it. Not even if I am standing right over the microwave. And for some strange reason they always decide to go with high frequency sounds I can't hear. That's my beef.

If you can point to buttons on your phone/tablet and see whatever results, you can control everything in my house. I do it that way as often as I do it by speaking. I also have little buttons around the house that have been programmed to invoke specific scenes. I have one on my bedside table that shuts the house down for the night, lowering the bedroom blinds, ensuring I haven't left a garage door open, or a heater running, etc. I have another in my family room/theater that turns off any lights that spill into the room, and turns on the projector.

I'm an early adopter, so all these things are more difficult to set up than they will eventually be. I could talk your ear off with all the horror stories of stuff not working, but it is getting better.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

If you can point to buttons on your phone and see whatever results, you can control everything in my house. I do it that way as often as I do it by speaking.

Point to what buttons? What phone? What would I control with it if I had it? What is it? lol Does it require Alexa or something because if it does, nope. Can't afford it. There's a world of difference between living in a tin can and living in an actual house. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Point to what buttons? What phone? What would I control with it if I had it? What is it? lol Does it require Alexa or something because if it does, nope. Can't afford it. There's a world of difference between living in a tin can and living in an actual house. 

Well, it also works on the computer. I know you have one of those, you're here ;-).

There are days I wonder if it was worth embarking on this home automation journey. You get to enjoy a life free of the vexing complexity of my home!

ETA: Affordability is improving rapidly. My emergency backup kid has gone the Alexa route. He's got a mix of new and used gear (put on the market by people who gave up trying to make it all work). He's got softball sized speakers all around his house. I think he said his average cost for them was about $20 each.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Well, it also works on the computer. I know you have one of those, you're here ;-).

There are days I wonder if it was worth embarking on this home automation journey. You get to enjoy a life free of the vexing complexity of my home!

I push one button to turn my cp on... two if you count the monitor. lol

Exactly. The more of that sort of thing you have the more complicated life gets. No thank you! My life is more than complicated enough as it is! There is a lot to be said for keeping things "simple". 😊

[Innula Zenovka]

Are the Active Denial System so-called "heat rays" that the US military have for crowd-control an example of this principle?

[Madelaine McMasters]

24 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Are the Active Denial System so-called "heat rays" that the US military have for crowd-control an example of this principle?

Yep. Notice the difference in tissue penetration depth between the 12.5cm waves of a microwave oven's 2.4Ghz and the 3.2mm waves of 95GHz. You really don't want to go cooking important internal structures. Heating the body's largest organ (skin), filled with pain receptors, does seem preferable to hurling metal objects deep inside, or entirely through, the body.

Millimeter waves are also used for imagining in the TSA's body scanners.

Next generation wi-fi will use millimeter waves at 57-71GHz.

Automobile safety systems also use millimeter waves. Those little dots spaced about the bumpers of late model cars are actually radars. My SUV has 13 of them!

Only the Active Denial System uses high power levels.

ETA: Coffee mentioned this dielectric heating effect in a previous post. Here's a description...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

Some of you may have read about these mysterious "attacks" on US diplomats, mostly in Cuba.

https://apnews.com/article/health-government-and-politics-51ebd4f82664aacc5394c1863cd6a5f2

This might be a demonstration of the deleterious effects of excessive RF exposure.

There's been no confirmation yet, but it shouldn't be too difficult to instrument an area, like the White House, with microwave detectors that would capture evidence of a high power directed energy attack. At radio frequencies, it's difficult to focus a beam as narrowly as one might a laser. Scattering of energy off objects in the vicinity would, I think, allow fairly casual placement of detectors.

Like it or not, an experiment is being performed here and we should learn what we can from it.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Arielle Popstar]

 

[Love Zhaoying]

6 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Voice is easier, cheaper, more natural, interactive, and powerful than gestures.

I saw "Harry Potter" wand remote controls are still out there, controlled by gesture. 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Exactly. The more of that sort of thing you have the more complicated life gets.

I have 12 Alexa's, 3 different types throughout my home. I am currently buying retro clocks and tube radios to put in every room..maybe use instead of Alexa, on occasion for radio etc. Get off my lawn!

[Silent Mistwalker]

56 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I have 12 Alexa's, 3 different types throughout my home. I am currently buying retro clocks and tube radios to put in every room..maybe use instead of Alexa, on occasion for radio etc. Get off my lawn!

No U! 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 7/9/2021 at 9:49 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Plenty of stories about sightings in different parts of the world from over the years and even some grainy pictures. The soft bit's were initially spotted by Mary Schweitzer's research on a dinosaur bone. By all rights they should not have been there but they were and since then, quite a few other researchers have found similar soft bits in other specimens. In past it was determined these sort of bits should have lasted no longer than 30,000 years so finding it as part of a dinosaur from 65 million years old is a bit of a contradiction.

It was never "determined" that soft tissue bits can't be preserved for millions of years. That was theory. That theory is being overturned by mounting evidence that some bits of soft tissue are preserved intact, while other bits are replaced over time by extremely stable polymers that maintain soft tissue's morphology or "look". The apparent contradiction is being resolved quickly in favor of the classic long view of the fossil record.

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissues-preserved-polymers/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1

On 7/9/2021 at 9:49 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Scientists have scrambled to come up with a plausible justification to account for it once it was determined to have definitely been bits of the T-Rex vs contamination. Last I looked at it, they have come up with some justification from cross linked iron molecules capable of lasting much longer then originally thought

I suppose a scramble is the logical and desirable result of science encountering something unexpected, like Mary Schweitzer's evidence and theory. Metal catalyzed protein oxidation is pretty well understood, but the people who know all about that were studying living creatures, not dinosaur fossils.

From 1990, fifteen years before Mary Schweiter's work...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0891584990900065

Now that the two camps are communicating, Schweitzer's work is being vindicated. I expect more preservation mechanisms will be discovered over time. Nature had billions of years to bury stuff. We've only been digging with good tools for a few decades.

On 7/9/2021 at 9:49 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

a question noone seems to be asking is if these bio bits are being found on a 65 million year old fossil, why are they not being found on much more recent bones like Mammoths and other megafauna that died only 10-15,000 years ago.

I imagine the reason scientists don't ask why soft tissue isn't found in recent fossils is that it is.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mammoth-remains-intact-ligaments-emerge-siberian-lake-180975431/
https://www.livescience.com/woolly-mammoth-skeleton-poop-siberia.html

I'd have to go digging in my attic, but I'm pretty sure I have some mammoth hair up there somewhere.https://www.teachersource.com/product/mammoth-hair

But, I think you really might have meant "why don't they find those iron catalyzed polymer replacements in more recent fossils?" That's likely a matter of not looking for them, yet. The focus so far seems to be on discovering the mechanisms by which soft tissues are preserved, either intact, or indirectly by replacement with morphologically similar polymers. I'm not aware of anyone looking for those replacement polymers in more recent fossils, like mammoths, but I imagine it'll happen if it hasn't already. If iron is catalyzing polymeric replacement over time, it's gotta start somewhere. If we're lucky, we'll find enough fossil evidence to show a progression from intact proteins in mammoths to the mix of intact fragments and polymer replacement material found in dinosaurs.

On 7/9/2021 at 9:49 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Here are some links pro and con for backround though they do not necessarily support my own thinking on it. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery https://www.icr.org/article/6084/  https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

The Discover Magazine article about Mary Schweitzer is 15 years old, and the link to more recent work you provided below it, as well as the links I've provided, bolster her old Earth soft tissue hypothesis. She's rather peeved by young Earth creationists misappropriating her work to advance their agenda.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt

Note that Dr. Schweitzer was herself once a young Earth creationist, and was swayed by evidence to abandon that belief.

On 7/9/2021 at 9:49 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

One for modern sightings though some google searches will turn up plenty of other sites though not from "official" science sites . https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/07/mysterious-living-dinosaurs-of-the-wild-west/

https://s8int.com/2020/11/28/eyewitness-accounts-do-dinosaurs-still-exist-page-3/

Here are the closing two paragraphs of the first article you linked as evidence for modern sightings of dinosaurs...

"There is also a glaring, almost complete lack of any real evidence, even circumstantial, besides the eyewitness reports. One wonders where all of the tracks are, and why there aren’t more purported photos besides the very, very few that are questionable at best and clearly faked at worst. The only photo that might possibly be any good is the one of the Tombstone Thunderbird, if we could see it or indeed find it or even know it existed at all. It seems that considering the history of sightings of pterodactyl and mini T. rex type dinosaurs going back all the way to the Wild West days, as well as the number of reports over such a large area, that we would have found at least something. Instead, we are left with mere amazing accounts and a handful of poor photos. It is meager by any cryptid’s standards. If some sort of living dinosaur or new species of large, bipedal lizard is out there, then we seem to be very far from ever confirming it. It does not necessarily mean that they don’t exist, just that this total void of potential evidence, coupled with the sheer audacity of the claims, seems to hamper the credibility of the notion, even among cryptozoologists.

So do dinosaurs similar to pterodactyls, velociraptors, and T. rexes roam the wilds of the American Southwest? It is a tantalizing, even romantic idea to be sure, while at the same time almost seemingly absurd. Yet what of the rich history of sightings and folklore of these alleged creatures? With so many accounts, it seems that something is going on, whether it is living dinosaurs or not. Is this all misidentifications of known animals? A new species? A complete farce? Or are there really dinosaurs surviving into the present day right under our noses? It is hard to say. One thing that is certain is that it seems one does not have to go to the deepest jungles of Africa or South America to find reports of dinosaurs still roaming the earth."

The second article you linked recounts stories of giant bird sightings. I've lived around bald eagles and turkey vultures all my life, and I can't count the number of times neighbors or friends have vastly overestimated their size. I often get a good measure mid-day when their shadows glide across my lawn. They're big. They're impressive. I wouldn't want to tussle with one. But they're just big modern birds.

If "modern sightings" are evidence of dinosaurs, they're also evidence that Mary's Virgin Birth was no big deal...

https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It was never "determined" that soft tissue bits can't be preserved for millions of years. That was theory. That theory is being overturned by mounting evidence that some bits of soft tissue are preserved intact, while other bits are replaced over time by extremely stable polymers that maintain soft tissue's morphology or "look". The apparent contradiction is being resolved quickly in favor of the classic long view of the fossil record.

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissues-preserved-polymers/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1

I suppose a scramble is the logical and desirable result of science encountering something unexpected, like Mary Schweitzer's evidence and theory. Metal catalyzed protein oxidation is pretty well understood, but the people who know all about that were studying living creatures, not dinosaur fossils.

From 1990, fifteen years before Mary Schweiter's work...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0891584990900065

Now that the two camps are communicating, Schweitzer's work is being vindicated. I expect more preservation mechanisms will be discovered over time. Nature had billions of years to bury stuff. We've only been digging with good tools for a few decades.

I imagine the reason scientists don't ask why soft tissue isn't found in recent fossils is that it is.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mammoth-remains-intact-ligaments-emerge-siberian-lake-180975431/
https://www.livescience.com/woolly-mammoth-skeleton-poop-siberia.html

I'd have to go digging in my attic, but I'm pretty sure I have some mammoth hair up there somewhere.https://www.teachersource.com/product/mammoth-hair

But, I think you really might have meant "why don't they find those iron catalyzed polymer replacements in more recent fossils?" That's likely a matter of not looking for them, yet. The focus so far seems to be on discovering the mechanisms by which soft tissues are preserved, either intact, or indirectly by replacement with morphologically similar polymers. I'm not aware of anyone looking for those replacement polymers in more recent fossils, like mammoths, but I imagine it'll happen if it hasn't already. If iron is catalyzing polymeric replacement over time, it's gotta start somewhere. If we're lucky, we'll find enough fossil evidence to show a progression from intact proteins in mammoths to the mix of intact fragments and polymer replacement material found in dinosaurs.

The Discover Magazine article about Mary Schweitzer is 15 years old, and the link to more recent work you provided below it, as well as the links I've provided, bolster her old Earth soft tissue hypothesis. She's rather peeved by young Earth creationists misappropriating her work to advance their agenda.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt

Note that Dr. Schweitzer was herself once a young Earth creationist, and was swayed by evidence to abandon that belief.

Here are the closing two paragraphs of the first article you linked as evidence for modern sightings of dinosaurs...

"There is also a glaring, almost complete lack of any real evidence, even circumstantial, besides the eyewitness reports. One wonders where all of the tracks are, and why there aren’t more purported photos besides the very, very few that are questionable at best and clearly faked at worst. The only photo that might possibly be any good is the one of the Tombstone Thunderbird, if we could see it or indeed find it or even know it existed at all. It seems that considering the history of sightings of pterodactyl and mini T. rex type dinosaurs going back all the way to the Wild West days, as well as the number of reports over such a large area, that we would have found at least something. Instead, we are left with mere amazing accounts and a handful of poor photos. It is meager by any cryptid’s standards. If some sort of living dinosaur or new species of large, bipedal lizard is out there, then we seem to be very far from ever confirming it. It does not necessarily mean that they don’t exist, just that this total void of potential evidence, coupled with the sheer audacity of the claims, seems to hamper the credibility of the notion, even among cryptozoologists.

So do dinosaurs similar to pterodactyls, velociraptors, and T. rexes roam the wilds of the American Southwest? It is a tantalizing, even romantic idea to be sure, while at the same time almost seemingly absurd. Yet what of the rich history of sightings and folklore of these alleged creatures? With so many accounts, it seems that something is going on, whether it is living dinosaurs or not. Is this all misidentifications of known animals? A new species? A complete farce? Or are there really dinosaurs surviving into the present day right under our noses? It is hard to say. One thing that is certain is that it seems one does not have to go to the deepest jungles of Africa or South America to find reports of dinosaurs still roaming the earth."

The second article you linked recounts stories of giant bird sightings. I've lived around bald eagles and turkey vultures all my life, and I can't count the number of times neighbors or friends have vastly overestimated their size. I often get a good measure mid-day when their shadows glide across my lawn. They're big. They're impressive. I wouldn't want to tussle with one. But they're just big modern birds.

If "modern sightings" are evidence of dinosaurs, they're also evidence that Mary's Virgin Birth was no big deal...

https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102

The virgin birth study made me LOL.