"the contested belief that little robin was a dino many moons past."

IS a dinosaur (right now, actually) and this is only contested by a couple of workers, and I think these might be ornithologists not palaeontologists. These workers still have their papers read and peer-reviewed, but their interpretation if the evidence is considered seriously flawed.

so, are you saying that they are getting at how science has formerly been mistaken about how long soft tissue can last......or still hoping to come up with something to evidence its endurance

If I get your gist here, you're asking if we are seeking evidence to prove how soft tissue, which we previously thought couldn't survive more that perhaps hundreds of thousands of years can actually last tens of millions, perhaps more?

No we're not. We discover the presence of soft tissue, develop a hypothesis about how it served and then test that hypothesis. If the evidence points to the fact this (for instance) a microbial film, then all well and good, if it's soft tissues from a dinosaur then great, if it's a flawed experimental methodology then fine. What the evidence is doesn't matter, we just want to find the truth of what's happened. There is no desire to tip the results one way or another, or what's the point of engaging in the process of discovery?

"that is, other than we "know" they were 65+myo and therefore the current experimental science must need revising to accommodate the "discovery""

To do that would be against the very core principles of scientific endeavour and would be dishonest. We would all be liars of we did this, and not engaged in the process of discovery.

Do you think we are all liars pete?