One thing our modern age has afforded us is the ability to test claimed cryptozoological finds for DNA results.
Yet, this brings along with it the issue of how such tests are conducted, by whom, how the samples were handled, etc. For example, advanced in DNA testing have actually led to the release of people who were incarcerated for crimes to which they were tied by the DNA testing of their day.
Thus, from claimed Bigfoot fur to alien corpses: it is all undergoing DNA testing—to whatever degree of legitimacy, and that is the question.
Following I will succinctly review certain contextually relevant points regarding the “Atacama Humanoid,” the Fairy Demon (by any other name) and some elongated skulls from Paracas, Peru. The skulls in particular will provide a good example of some of the problems associated with DNA sampling of such items. I chose these three because images of the extraction of genetic materials are available.
One case is that of the tiny skeletal remains of the Atacama Humanoid. Founder of the Disclosure Project and the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Dr. Steven Greer noted that he “traveled to Barcelona Spain in late September 2012 to obtain detailed X Rays, CAT scans and take genetic samples for testing at Stanford University” and “obtained excellent DNA material by surgically dissecting the distal ends of two right anterior ribs on the humanoid…These clearly contained bone marrow material, as was seen on the dissecting microscope that was brought in for the procedure” they also retrieved biological material from inside of the skull. Note that Stanford performed the testing but not the collecting of the sample.
Director of stem cell biology at Stanford University’s School of Medicine in California, Dr. Garry Nolan verified that this is a human “the mother was an indigenous Indian from the Chilean area and the haplotype is B2a” no word about the father. He guessed that it probably “died in the last century” which is plenty of time for all sorts of DNA contamination. It is said to have lived 6-8 years and have suffered an unknown disorder or syndrome.
The Atacama Humanoid on a common office desk, next to a pen that has been
handled hundreds of times and also being genetically contaminated by barehanded handling.
Beyond the contact with skin and potential contact with hair or even breath: unless every bit of equipment the body and samples came into contact with were properly sterilized then there was plenty of opportunity for multiple levels of contamination—circa a century’s worth. You see, even if you are testing the marrow which has never been exposed to air or being touched the fact is that unless the implement with which you are cutting the rib and extracting the marrow (and the slide unto which you are placing the bio-material, etc.) are properly sterilized then it is no longer a pristine DNA sample.
Dr. Steven Greer, et al., in Spain genetically contaminating
the sample via exposed skin and hair whilst taking samples.
This is another tiny corpse which was brought into the spotlight by L.A. Marzulli and Jaime Maussan who stated that the body was brought to him in July 2011 AD.
A guy in a lab coat, which means he is instantly legit of course (apparently molecular biologist Dr. Ricardo Rangel), noted (in slightly broken English as he is Mexican) “no match with DNA creatures related with mammal.” Marzulli noted, “I held this thing ten inches from my face.”
The body being exposed to skin at various stages of the research.
As per Dr. Rangel DNA testing resulted that it is 98.5% human. It turns out to be a very well made taxidermist’s puppet. Well, be that as it may: Marzulli himself has noted that it turns out to be a hoax and here he is giving a rundown of the situation.
Jaime Maussan and Ricardo Rangel presented another fairy demon thingy to L.A. Marzulli at the same time as the one in question but for some unknown reason it was completely ignored. However, if Rangel, et al., handled the one in question in the same way they handled the ignored one then they may both have been totally contaminated.
ELONGATED PARACAS SKULLS
As an FYI: when discussing elongated skulls note that the issue with certain ones is not the elongation itself but that some are missing cranial suiters.
In this case, I paid close attention to statements by Jennifer Raff who is a University of Kansas anthropology faculty member involved in ancient DNA Research who studies “the genomes of modern and ancient peoples in order to uncover details of human prehistory.”
I will review some statements in her Genetic mythologies: “Nephilim DNA” from the Paracas skulls, September 20, 2016 AD.
She focuses on instance wherein people “misuse genetics to legitimize pseudoscientific ideas.”
“Paracas” refers to the southern coast of Peru and the people who lived there circa 800-100 BC. A Paracas skull was found by Julio Cesar Tello in the 1920s AD and was kept in Juan Navarro Hierro’s museum. An anonymous geneticist having performed unstated procedures concludes that it “had mtDNA with mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far.”
L.A. Marzulli had follow up tests conducted which were “completely legitimately and under strict anti-contamination protocols…performed on a culturally modified cranium from a ‘private collection in Oregon.’” In this case, the lab was named and their report were made available in Marzulli’s book Nephilim Hybrids: Hybrids, Chimeras, & Strange Demonic Creatures. As Jennifer Raff notes, the lab “cautioned him extensively about their concerns regarding contamination of the sample” which was collected by Brien Foerster. Marzulli noted, “The lab told us the sample may have been contaminated. However, I was there and watched the proceedings, and the hair that came off of the skull while Joe Taylor was unwrapping it was put immediately into a collection bag.” Marzulli stated, “this artifact had been handled by numerous people over the years, and we have come to understand that just breathing on it can contaminate it.”
Still from Marzulli’s video with Jennifer Raff’s notations.
Note that she notes that “Some exposure of the face is unavoidable”
as this photo of her working in the field shows.
Ultimately, “anonymous technician who did this work recovered mt haplogroup U2e1 from the remains” yet, there “no discussion of the laboratory methods” in this case yet, “the sampling procedure is documented in this video.”
Raff notes, “the individuals attempting to sample DNA from this mummy made some attempt to cover themselves, but it’s entirely inadequate…There is exposed skin on every individual in the room…they start squirting water all over the mummy, claiming that because it’s distilled, it won’t introduce contamination. Wrong. All water used in ancient DNA work has to be purchased from vendors who guarantee that it’s certified DNA free.”
As noted above, she wrote, “Some exposure of the face is unavoidable…I don’t stick my face directly over the tissue I’m sampling…the sample (bone) is immediately put into a sealed, sterile bag, and not opened again until it’s inside the sterile ancient DNA isolation laboratory. Then it’s thoroughly bleached and UV irradiated to remove surface contamination.”
Moreover, “Using a Dremmel tool, he says they drilled into the skull, ‘cleaned the area’ with compressed air, changed drill bits and then drilled out powdered bone from the skull. Blowing compressed air into the hole will do exactly the same thing that squirting water does: introduce DNA. No bleach or UV were used to decontaminate either the tools used to collect the bone sample, nor the sample itself.”
Also, the skull is seen to be “extremely shiny” which may denote “some kind of varnish on them. If that’s the case, there are likely layers of contaminating DNA deposited on the surface of that bone, effectively sealed in by that varnish. The technician who did the DNA extraction and work on the samples notes the same thing in his or her report.”
Thus, the “surface of the skull…could be contaminated…There is also no way of knowing how much contaminant DNA can leech into a sample from the surface. It is also possible that the tools used to remove the powder were not sterile and contained exogenous (outside the sample) DNA.”
Also note that “it is standard for ancient DNA researchers to sequence their own DNA, and that of the archaeologists, biological anthropologists, and anyone else who may have handled the remains, in order to rule out that any results might be inadvertent contamination from them. Marzulli, Foerster, and others involved have never done that. This is important because the laboratory detected two different mitochondrial haplogroups in the samples Marzulli sent: T2b, and B4. It’s impossible to know whether either haplogroup was introduced by the persons involved in sampling.”
L.A. Marzulli stated, “The bottom line is that mitochondrial DNA was found from the powder and it was haplogroup T2b” about which Raff replies, “which is not an autochthonous [indigenous] Native American maternal lineage” yet nevertheless, “Marzulli completely ignored the finding of haplogroup B, which is quite common in South America” and so does not result in that, as he puts it, “the Paracas people “arrived roughly 3,500 years ago.”
For some interesting work on elongating skulls, see Dr. Valerie Dean O’Loughlin Effects of Different Kinds of Cranial Deformation on the Incidence of Wormian Bones, p. 14.
Also, Vera Tiesler’s The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications: New Approaches to Head Shaping and its Meanings in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and Beyond.
Thus, while the end-all of evidences is often thought to be DNA evidence, there are a myriad of ways that the results could be misleading—and what is made of them by any given person is another issue still.
Continue reading →