The story then moves to the University of South FL where a box of bones discovered in museum storage in Fiji arrives. The people who did the analysis are identified. The skull is too fragmented to do digital reconstruction. DNA analysis is performed and proves to NOT be a match with DNA donated from a living relative of AE (not identified).
I'm not familiar with any of them, especially the archeologist.
The story then moves to the University of South FL where a box of bones discovered in museum storage in Fiji arrives. The people who did the analysis are identified. The skull is too fragmented to do digital reconstruction. DNA analysis is performed and proves to NOT be a match with DNA donated from a living relative of AE (not identified).
But what's the source of this information? Nobody from the University of South Florida is interviewed or quoted. Yesterday I checked with National Geographic. They say they are still processing preliminary forensic analysis of the skull. They have published no updates but hope to have a conclusive report as new data comes in.
The problem with the Science Channel segment is they make the assumption the skull is female and is the skull found on Gardner in 1940, therefore a negative DNA match with an Earhart relative proves Earhart did not die on Gardner. In truth, the skull may or may not be female. On the skull, the area used to identify gender - the glabella (bone ridge between the eyebrows) - has clearly been reconstructed with plaster of Paris or some kind of plastic.
There is no reason to believe the bones in the museum are the bones found on Gardner. The museum has no record of where they came from and there is no record of the bones Hoodless examined being sent to Tarawa. In short, there is no reason to think the bones are anything but the bones of a local Gilbert islander like the rest of the bones in the museum. I don't know whether they've tried to match DNA to an Earhart relative or not, but if they did it's not surprising that it came back negative.I'm not familiar with any of them, especially the archeologist.
She's not an archaeologist. "Dr." Brenna Hassett has a Masters in fine art (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/brenna-hassett-ahrc-researcher-co-investigator).
That's what I have taken away from the recent shows and articles which discuss testing of the "found" skull. There is no way to disprove the skull, because there is no chain of custody from Hoodless' tests to today. Any negative result does not mean it was not her skull found on Gardner. It just means that it could be the wrong skull among many.
On the flip side, without chain of custody, does a match prove that she was the castaway on Gardner? I can predict that many will argue no. Some will even try to do their conspiracy gymnastics and link the bones on Tarawa to burial in Saipan or wherever.
Has anyone ever tested DNA from coral?
A similar problem exists with the Shroud of Turin. Chain of custody was lost for a thousand years, however, authenticity advocates point to microscopic examination which shows pollen indicating that it was present during springtime in the vicinity of Jerusalem, among other evidence.
Has anyone ever tested DNA from coral?
I don't think coral has DNA but Penn State might be able to date the coral on the artifact by looking for elements that weren't present in the environment before 1945.
Of course coral has DNA. We could test 2-2-V-1 and it would probably show coral DNA. Whether or not it is datable through DNA I doubt, but pre and post war elements could probably be reasonably done.
Andrew