Apparently UNAM did NOT perform the dna analysis, instead they performed the carbon-14 dating. They re-released a statement (Spanish original, English from Google translate) from 2017. They note they will test any sample, but they don't come in contact with the source object, so they cannot speak to the nature of the original source. Carbon-14 dating, as noted in this article from Australia, would not be accurate if the source biology is from another planet, since carbon-14 dating relies on a natural cycle specific to Earth's atmosphere. Their sample dating would be accurate only if the material originated on Earth and was untampered.
Near as I can tell at the moment, the dna analysis was performed by Canada's Lakehead University at their Paleo-DNA Lab in 2018. The only notice I see on their news page is this article from 2017 this says the results of that time were 100% human dna. Because of the year, that article is not referring to the same samples mentioned to the Mexico Congress.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-Sep-14, Thursday 01:34 pm (UTC)Near as I can tell at the moment, the dna analysis was performed by Canada's Lakehead University at their Paleo-DNA Lab in 2018. The only notice I see on their news page is this article from 2017 this says the results of that time were 100% human dna. Because of the year, that article is not referring to the same samples mentioned to the Mexico Congress.
PDF summaries of the analyses currently under discussion are available at this page, which I do not consider a reputable source. I have seen the claim that the dna results were uploaded for public viewing. These are supposedly the links to 3 samples, although I have not yet identified the links from a reputable source:
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA869134
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA865375
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA861322