Additional concerns about the
Hernàndez-Huaripaucar, Zúñiga-Avilés et al. 2024 paper.
As earlier, I'll refer to the remains under discussion as "the specimen", but feel this is an inadequate term for what are almost certainly human remains primarily from one individual.
There are a couple of potential in-paper contradictions concerning the anatomy of the specimen, specifically relating to features which seem to diverge from normal human anatomy.
This should raise concerns, as the paper claims to be
External Quote:
...a detailed, complete and accurate description of the biometric physical characteristics
(
it clearly isn't) and the areas of divergence from "standard" human anatomy are essential to the author's claims.
-External quotes from the above paper unless otherwise indicated.
Re. the feet;
External Quote:
...all seven tarsal bones are complete (calcaneus, astragalus, scaphoid or navicular, cuboids and the three cuneiforms)
(My emphasis), but contradicted by:
External Quote:
...a different morphology and anatomy is revealed at the level of the calcaneal bone (which forms the heel of the foot), characterized by the absence of the large posterior protuberance that the calcaneus possesses.
The calcaneus is the heel bone. The author's CT confirms that the calcaneal tuberosity- the 'posterior protuberance'- is missing
(author's Fig. 5, right foot, below left; representative intact foot, below right).
By claiming that the specimen's calcaneus is
complete, the authors are either making a gross error, or are implying that this calcaneus is intact and normal for this specimen (on what knowledge they can base this belief is not indicated) as opposed to being a damaged / deliberately "modified" standard human calcaneus. Which must be more likely.
Additionally, despite
External Quote:
...all seven tarsal bones are complete (calcaneus, astragalus, scaphoid or navicular, cuboids and the three cuneiforms
it would appear that a tranche of foot bones is missing; I
think the cuneiforms.
I
think this structure
(labelled 5 below) is a metatarsal; could be wrong, opinions appreciated.
(L to R) Normal right foot, Specimen right foot, (Ignore the dotted red lines.) Normal right foot
Again, sort of semi-informed guessing: The image is a sagittal plane CT through the
middle of the right foot, which is why "3" in the CT of the specimen- I think the navicular- has a different shape to "3" in the diagram, and appears to be in a different spatial relationship with "1" and "2". The specimen's "3" is reasonably similar in cross-section shape and location to the (apparently) equivalent bone in the "representative intact foot " CT image above right (second image in post).
External Quote:
At the level of the toes, four phalanges are also seen on each of the three toes, when in normal humans it is only three per toe.
It's hard to see if there are more than
two phalanges, in the CT image, let alone four. Maybe the small curving extremity at the point of the toe. (Although I could be wrong about "5" being a single structure, a metatarsal).
Another potential in-paper contradiction:
External Quote:
four lumbar vertebrae (L) and a sacrum (S) are observed; emphasizing that in a normal human there are five lumbar vertebrae.
And
External Quote:
At the level of the pelvis, a disjunction is visualized between the fifth lumbar vertebra (L5) and the base of the sacrum
If there are only four lumbar vertebrae, there can't be an L5, the
fifth lumbar vertebrae.
The authors contradict themselves.
Figure 6, left; Fig. 6 vertebrae labelled, right. T7 is low density or partially absent, the authors recognise this. S2 also present, maybe S3/ part of S3? (C1 has a different shape to other vertebrae, only sections of the anterior, posterior arches are visible, which is normal for a mid-sagittal CT).
It
does look like there are only 4 lumbar vertebrae (standard human=5), unless what I think is S1 (1st sacral vert.) is L5.
(Again, opinions welcome).
Standard human spine, courtesy of Stephen McGillion's
Wessex Spinal Surgeon website.
However,
External Quote:
Due to the presence of a large lesion and perforation of the perineum region and pelvic cavity, it is observed that such extensive lesion involves the terminal part of the spine, so the coccyx and the distal part of the sacrum, exactly the last two sacral portions (S4 and S5) are absent.
Meaning: It's got a sodding great hole in its jacksie, so some of its spine fell out or something.
The specimen is normally referred to as a mummy, and may well have been processed some way post-mortem (e.g. the diatomaceous covering). If the damage to the pelvic/ lower spine area was sustained at the end of life, or during processing of the cadaver, it might be possible that those who processed the remains attempted some sort of "repair" re-inserting some bones (conjecture on my part).
Another possibility is, along with the hands and feet, disreputable people have deliberately made alterations to normal anatomy in order to pass off the specimen as something which it is not,
something that we know happens thanks to other Metabunkers, see this thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alien-bodies-at-a-mexican-uap-hearing.13163/
The author's Fig. 4 shows a computerised reconstruction from CT of a hand, with its three fingers and extra phalanges.
(An initial impression of mine added).
External Quote:
...no spaces or steps being observed in the distal portions of the tarsal region by a supposed amputation of the first and fifth metatarsals;
Actually, in Fig. 4 there appears to be a large step above the tarsal region; see above. Maybe a hamate bone?
Maybe it's an unrelated piece of anatomy included in the scan due to the specimen's posture; either way you'd expect the authors to explain its presence.
I don't know if the slightly lighter colours in three of the bones- either additional metacarpals, or phalanges- is significant
(the image is a false-colour model)
Tridactyl hands with long fingers are a feature of some known fake (or at least seriously suspect) "specimens" that might have a similar provenance, Re. the "Alien Bodies at a Mexican UAP Hearing" thread linked to above:
If DNA were harvested from the phalanges and metacarpals of the Hernàndez-Huaripaucar, Zúñiga-Avilés et al. specimen, I think it's unlikely that it would demonstrate that all the bones were from one individual (we don't know if useable DNA would be present even if this were allowed, though).
External Quote:
...an elongated skull and an increase in cranial volume. (30% greater than humans)
External Quote:
Specifically, it is the cranial vault that presents an atypical growth and development, with an approximation to the dolichocephalic biotype. On the other hand, the cranial volume is 30% greater than that of a normal human.
The author's Fig. 2:
Hernàndez-Huaripaucar, Zúñiga-Avilés et al. claim they are comparing the specimen to Homo sapiens.
The fact that the specimen probably represents the (modified) remains of an anatomically modern Homo sapiens isn't considered- they are
literally dehumanizing the remains (a reason I'm not overly keen on my own use of "specimen").
Despite the claim that the cranial volume is 30% higher than a typical human,
No figure is given.
This is bizarre. Describing their resources the authors write (my emphasis),
External Quote:
. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer can also perform volume measurements on three-dimensional structures, which is very useful in computed tomography (CT) images where volumes of tissues, organs or lesions can be identified and measured
There is a strange possible twist to this: Looking at the caption for Fig. 2 (above), it says
External Quote:
Note. Skull/Face Ratio Esp. M01: 1/1.3 (30% higher); Skull-Human Face Ratio: 1/1
(Figure 2's title claims that it is a comparison in
volume- the 2D images, without measurements, can only show area).
(1) Why are the authors even bothering with a skull: face ratio? [probably neurocranium: face; the face does include skull!]
(2) They are comparing the face of a desiccated set of remains (very little fluid or fat, dehydrated musculature, wizened skin tissues) with the face of a living person.
In addition, the CT image in Fig. 3 that has this caption is lacking the nose that the authors have described! The nose is obviously a feature that adds to the area of face in profile/ mid-sagittal plane.
(3) The specimen's image is a sagittal plane CT scan; the "standard" human is an X-ray and clearly shows soft tissues unlike the CT of the specimen. The authors are not comparing like-with-like (at least not in Figure 2).
So if the "skull; face" ratio is based on the (2D) images in Fig. 2, or comparable images, it is deeply flawed.
If the supposed difference between the skull: face ratios between the specimen and comparator
(claimed 1:1.3
v 1:1, "30% higher") is the basis for claiming the specimen has 30% greater cranial volume, it is very strange
(in fairness, the authors do not explicitly state this).
Although a volume is not given, two dimensions for the neurocranium can be found in Figure 1:
This makes the omission of volume even stranger.
Approximate length, 10.9 cm, and depth, 14.39 cm are given. N.B. the depth is not perpendicular to length, making it longer than it should be.
There's no great precision; three of the end points are within the skull wall not on its inner surface, one end point doesn't quite reach the skull inner surface.
It's difficult for us to estimate an irregular volume with only two dimensions.
However, the authors have described the skull as having
External Quote:
...an approximation to the dolichocephalic biotype.
i.e. long and narrow. If the specimen is this individual, or broadly similar, we can see there isn't much broadening of the skull posterior of the face- in fact it appears to narrow.
The breadth of the cranial vault is likely to be less than its length.
So, if we use the on-screen axes of measurement to visualise a box around the cranial cavity, rather generously allowing breadth to be equal to length we can get a very approximate estimate of volume
(making no claims to accuracy or completeness here!)
External Quote:
The capacity of an adult human cranial cavity is 1,200–1,700 cm3
Wikipedia, Cranial cavity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranial_cavity
-Admittedly my method for estimating the volume is incredibly crude- I'm sure most here could come up with something better. But even using the author's depth measurement and allowing a breadth equal to length (almost certainly too high a value), the specimen's cranial volume is likely to be well within the anatomically modern human range, not 30 percent greater.
Radiocarbon dating of the specimen dates it to the time of the Nazca culture. The Nazca people practiced mummification (also partial burials in arid areas where some natural mummification processes could occur)
and artificial cranial deformation.
We know- and the authors know- huaqueros have exploited these remains in the past.
Hernàndez-Huaripaucar, Zúñiga-Avilés et al. (2024), instead of drawing the most obvious (and probably correct) conclusions about their specimen make extraordinary claims based on their own questionable interpretations. They deny the human origins of the remains.
External Quote:
...the most transcendental of the findings revealed, is that it would be validating ipso facto by the existing physical evidence, that the ancient pre-Columbian cultures coexisted with another intelligent humanoid biological species (Hernàndez-Huaripaucar 2023).
The Nazca people were fine artists, making recognisable ceramic animals and anthropomorphic figures. They did not model tridactyl humanoids.
For all their talk of social bioarchaeology, the authors ignore the culture they profess to be interested in, and appear to willingly misinterpret the desecrated remains of its people, in order to promote their own involvement in a contemporary mythos imported from elsewhere.