Any forensic medicine / forensic anthropology experts / students here?

I don't usually seek narrow expertise relevant to a UFO research topic via ATS, but I thought I'd give a try...

Does anyone here in the UFOs and Aliens forum have any background in forensic medicine / forensic anthropology (whether as an expert or a student)?

I have a few questions that I'd like to briefly explore with someone with this background (e.g. in relation to calculating bone age from knee epiphyseal standards) before approaching a couple of specific experts. I'd like to be sure I've done my homework first to ensure my questions to those specific experts are as focused and precise as possible.

I hope someone can help.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Would you like to calculate living bone age, dead bone age, fresh, old or ancient?

Originally posted by dashen
Would you like to calculate living bone age, dead bone age, fresh, old or ancient?

A dead specimen, probably deceased several decades (but the time period involves some speculation).

(The various questions relate to four written expert reports on the human/humanoid that is the focus of the Sirius documentary that has prompted quite a few threads in this forum at the moment. I haven't seen much, if any, discussion of the conflicts between those written reports).

One relevant expert report refers to "knee epiphyseal standards" and "Calculated bone age (from knee epiphyseal standards)" and another report refers to "(age based on epiphyseal plate X-Ray density standards)". A third report gives a completely different view on age. (The debate is basically as to whether the specimen died as a foetus or was delivered and lived until it was 6 to 8 years old).

I can send you a U2U with links to the relevant (short) reports and a couple of questions if this is an area in which you have some knowledge.

I've read about determining age from whether epiphyseal plates have joined, but so far have not read any description of using knee epiphyseal standards to determine whether the specimen was born or had died while still a foetus. In relation to this issue I am looking for:
(1) An explanation (ideally in the format of a scanned page from a leading textbook) on calculated bone age (from knee epiphyseal standards;
(2) Any material indicating whether this is a suitable method to distinguish between an unborn/stillborn/newborn fetus (whether normal or abnormal, e.g. suffering from progeria) and a 6-8 child.

There are a couple of related short questions as to issues of forensic medicine/anthropology, just that's the main issue.

First, please be aware that I haven't coughed up the money to watch the documentary in question.

Forensic examination of paediatric skeletal remains to determine age is one of the better researched tasks which forensic medicine engages in, and I've heard examiners claim in conversation that they can determine the age of a child at death reliably plus or minus three years even though I've never seen what research (if any) validates that, and there's still some quite a bit more guesswork involved in it than I care for. The best marker of the age of skeletal remains is dental development. Absent that long bone diaphyseal lengths are the primary marker for infant remains, and epiphyseal fusion is the primary marker for children and adolescents, as long bones grow at a roughly predictable rate in utero, and epiphyses fuse in a roughly predictable manner as a child matures. That said, there is a published report in the scientific literature of a fusion line still being visible on radiograph in a seventy-year-old woman, so there is significant room for error in these techniques. . .

If the science is as good as the forensic examiners I've met seem to think, there shouldn't be a huge problem determining whether or not skeletal remains were those of a foetus/infant vs a six-year-old child. I glanced at an introductory textbook on the discipline available online through my institution's library (Cunha E, Pinheiro J, Schmitt A, editors. Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death. Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press; 2006.) but it didn't give specifics about what makers mean what: it just refers to the publications that do. If you've got something more specific to go on, I might be willing to look it up and help you out next time I have some other business in the medical library. (For the moment I'm not trudging up there without something to go on, and sending somebody else to do it seems too much like misappropriation of resources. )

Also, please note that most of the relevant techniques are valid for healthy, normally developing children/foetuses *only*. According to the above-mentioned textbook, "caution is advised when attempting to age fetuses with known or suspected congenital pathology." Also, if you're going on sequences and stills from a film, I think it's fair to say that anything anybody (even a legitimate subject matter expert) comes up with is *highly* suspect.

What are the specific questions you have?

Diogenes

Originally posted by DiogenesTheDogI glanced at an introductory textbook on the discipline available online through my institution's library (Cunha E, Pinheiro J, Schmitt A, editors. Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death. Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press; 2006.) but it didn't give specifics about what makers mean what: it just refers to the publications that do. If you've got something more specific to go on, I might be willing to look it up and help you out next time I have some other business in the medical library.

Many thanks for the book reference and your comments DiogenesTheDog. I've now looked at the relevant parts of that book, which has led on to the age determination chapters of a few other forensic anthropology books and other material.

Also, please note that most of the relevant techniques are valid for healthy, normally developing children/foetuses *only*. According to the above-mentioned textbook, "caution is advised when attempting to age fetuses with known or suspected congenital pathology."

Noted. This was implied in one of the relevant reports (hence one of my questions above) but the material in the book you cited, and the related material, have been helpful in confirming the dependence of the relevant standards upon the child/foetus not having congenital pathology (and, indeed, the significant effects of varying genetic populations, diet and other factors).

Also, if you're going on sequences and stills from a film, I think it's fair to say that anything anybody (even a legitimate subject matter expert) comes up with is *highly* suspect.

Understood. I'm proceeding on the basis of the content of the four medical reports I mentioned above, not stills from the documentary. The reports do not answer all questions. In fact, none of those reports address some rather basic details which must have been known to the authors of those reports but not noted in their respective very brief reports. The various textbooks and articles have been helpful in working out what needs to be clarified by the authors of those reports.

What are the specific questions you have?

The other questions I have are really for the authors of the various reports. Your post has been helpful in focusing those questions. If I get any answers, I'll let you know.

(Even if I don't get any answers from them, I've now made several pages of notes from relevant textbooks which I think will also help other people understand the various existing reports and focus minds on the absence of various matters in those reports which must have been known to the relevant report authors).

I hope you receive answers from the researchers. It is a complex case. I look forward to seeing your report.
peace,
AB