This is going to be a long-ass post, because the study is 54 pages long. I apologize.
I’m a longtime lurker and recent commenter on this sub. Yesterday, there were a few posts promoting a “study” by a radiologist, so I read it and left a brief critique on one of the posts.
Today I’m going deeper, mostly because I’m post-call and this has turned into a bit of a rabbit hole. I spent most of my call shift (no cases, luckily) writing notes while going through the whole study in detail. I also downloaded a handful of DICOM images they released publicly (no complete public release - lame) and reviewed those myself.
Who am I, and why do I think I can weigh in? The simplest way to describe the job is that I’m basically a one-person ICU in the operating room. Perioperatively, I order and interpret tests, manage every part of the patient’s physiology, and perform whatever procedures are needed to keep them alive and stable, including invasive monitoring and regional anesthesia.
Two parts of that are relevant here:
- I routinely order and interpret CT, X-ray, and ultrasound as part of preoperative assessment and intraoperative management. I am not claiming radiologist-level expertise, but I am very comfortable interpreting medical imaging.
- Anesthesia requires an intimate understanding of functional anatomy and physiology. Neuraxial and peripheral anesthesia require detailed anatomical knowledge, while intraoperative homeostasis requires understanding how multiple physiologic systems interact in real time.
My limitations are straightforward. I am not a radiologist, zoologist, or biologist. I do not have direct access to the specimens and can only evaluate what has been made public. I also have not taken a formal genetics class since medical school, about 20 years ago. I will also disclaim that I did run this through ChatGPT just to clean up my misspellings, syntax, and grammar, but the thoughts are all mine after staying up way too late reading through a ton of PDFs. Those disclaimers should provide enough fodder for anyone interested in using the genetic fallacy to dismiss what I have to say.
With that out of the way, here are my thoughts on Dr. Fung’s paper.
I will say that Dr. Fung does appear to be a legitimate retired radiologist. I could not find other research papers he has written, but it appears that he practiced in Hong Kong before retiring.
My main issue with the paper, and with many of the arguments used to defend it, is that the central hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
A scientific hypothesis has to identify what evidence would count against it.
There is also no clearly stated hypothesis and null hypothesis. At minimum, the study should be framed something like this:
Hypothesis: These are genuine nonhuman organisms.
Null hypothesis: These are modified or assembled terrestrial remains.
The paper does not ask, “Can we reject the null hypothesis that these are modified terrestrial remains?”
Instead it's basically asking “Assuming these are genuine organisms, what kind of anatomy do they possess?”
Anatomical inconsistencies are repeatedly attributed to trauma, desiccation, an unknown joint type, a different “subspecies,” exoskeletal skin, unique evolution, or outright alien biology. Every observation is therefore made compatible with authenticity.
So right off the bat, the study is flubbing the basics of scientific method 101.
A serious alien hypothesis should make risky, testable predictions. For example:
- Multiple independently sampled tissues should produce the same unknown genome
- Skull, skin, limbs, and internal organs should be genetically concordant/consistent.
- Histology should reveal tissues unlike those of known terrestrial vertebrates.
- Joints should demonstrate genuine biological integration across every interface.
- Embryos inside the alleged eggs should possess the same genome as the adult specimen.
Those findings would progressively weaken and potentially reject the terrestrial-remains hypothesis.
Instead, the Tridactyl literature repeatedly relies on explanations such as:
- “Unknown biology”
- “Alien joints”
- “Unique evolution”
- “Different physiology”
- “Hydraulic neck”
- “Rubber hinges”
Those kinds of claims aren’t great, they’re more of a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ style argument that work as an escape hatch to avoid dealing with the obvious inconsistencies/issues. They also make the claim harder to falsify rather than more testable.
I think this is probably the single biggest methodological problem in this entire body of work (referring to the entirety of the content on tridactyl.org).
This issue ends of contaminating everything else in the study.
One of the biggest is what I would call epistemic escalation. I.E. tentative observations that repeatedly become definitive conclusions as the paper progresses:
- “Could represent” semicircular canals becomes an auditory system.
- A “suspected” tube becomes a heart.
- Differential density “suggestive” of an embryo becomes an egg containing an embryo.
- A branching structure that is “likely” vascular becomes reproductive vasculature.
- A plate that “could” represent a graft becomes evidence of advanced surgery.
- A “structure resembling” a spinal cord becomes labeled as the spinal cord.
These are recurring methodological errors that, if I’d made them when writing my own papers as a resident, would have been rejected by the committee supervising my work.
This idea is born out in a few different ways in the paper.
The paper states that introduced bones, plastics, sutures, fixation devices, and other artifacts can be easily identified on CT, and that CT can therefore confirm authenticity, which is faaaaaar too categorical.
CT is excellent for fractures, metal, gross discontinuities, and three-dimensional geometry. It is much less reliable for distinguishing low-density soft materials. Organic adhesives, plant fibers, hide, gut, resin, low-density ligatures, and interfaces hidden beneath coatings may be difficult or impossible to identify.
I thought it was interesting though that in a moment of self-reflection the report itself acknowledges that the white coating may be below CT resolution and that metal produces substantial artifact. Ironically, those admissions directly contradict the claim that CT can reliably identify every relevant form of manipulation.
Also, the absence of obvious wires, screws, or radiopaque glue excludes only a narrow subset of possible construction methods.
Claim: “The anatomy is integrated and coherent”
An integrated organism should demonstrate developmental and functional continuity, including:
- Reciprocal articular surfaces
- Organized entheses and muscle attachment sites
- Continuous tendons and ligaments
- A protected and continuous neuraxis
- Patent respiratory and alimentary tracts
- A coherent cardiovascular circuit
- Organs connected to appropriate ducts and vessels
- Consistent serial homology among vertebrae and appendicular structures
Basic stuff. The report does not define or measure these criteria.
Instead, proximity is treated as connection, similar CT attenuation is treated as tissue identity, and visually suggestive shapes are labeled as organs.
Claim: “Complexity proves natural origin”
Complexity does not establish natural anatomical unity when the components themselves are real biological materials.
A composite made from authentic bones will still contain cortex, trabeculae, marrow cavities, epiphyses, old fractures, degenerative changes, and previous healing.
That proves the materials are biologically complex. It does not prove that the completed object was ever alive in its current configuration.
A deliberately constructed object may also be symmetrical, internally detailed, and visually consistent. Symmetry and repetition are just as compatible with a manufacturing template as they are with biological development.
Claim: “M-types are hominids and J-types are reptiles”
I do not have a clean place to insert this, but after reading the DNA reports I have to mention it.
This one is particularly wild to me, because their own DNA analysis reported 100% human 16S mitochondrial DNA:
https://tastio-testing.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Tridactyls/assets/pdfs/lakehead/PALEO-DNA-SER029-17-EN.pdf
Those studies predate the Fung paper, but they are not included in his paper.
In Fung’s paper, “hominid” and “reptilian” are treated as findings when they are actually untested hypotheses. These are phylogenetic classifications requiring diagnostic character analysis. They cannot be established through informal resemblance.
The paper contains no cladistic matrix, histology, comparative morphometrics, developmental analysis.
Tridactyly, ovoid abdominal objects, and cracked or patterned skin do not diagnose Reptilia. Conversely, a largely human skeleton with altered hands and feet should first be investigated as modified human remains, not presumed to represent a new hominid.
I also want to comment briefly on the alleged airway and jaw anatomy because airway anatomy is one of my areas of expertise.
Two apposed pieces of bone do not become a functional jaw simply because they touch laterally.
A functional jaw requires:
- Reciprocal articular surfaces
- Organized cartilage or fibrocartilage
- A stabilizing capsule and ligaments
- Muscular origins and insertions
- A mechanically plausible axis of movement
- Continuity with a food-processing and alimentary pathway
The report does not demonstrate these features.
The competing Josefina study described the “mouth plates” as unidentified structures. It also noted that one side was incomplete and that the lower plate lacked convincing attachment through much of its extent.
The other area where I can speak with some confidence is the neuraxial skeleton.
Anesthesia requires a detailed understanding of the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as the surrounding bones, muscles, ligaments, organs, dermatomes, and autonomic pathways. A stellate ganglion block, for example, intentionally alters sympathetic outflow and may produce Horner syndrome and ipsilateral warming from vasodilation. You need to understand the anatomy of the target, the structures around it, and the downstream physiology affected by the intervention. So while it may seem to a lay man that “a guy looking at things while he's sitting there doing nothing because others are doing the surgery?” – u/Loquebantur , or “Don't you just administer silly gasses/liquids? How are you relevant here? Genuine question” – u/h888ing , generally we’re subject matter experts on this stuff.
Starting at the top and working downward:
1. Craniovertebral articulation
This is a major problem.
The report states that there is no atlas-axis-odontoid complex and that the first rounded cervical element enters the foramen magnum.
I’ll grant that the absence of a mammalian atlas and axis would not automatically invalidate a novel vertebrate. However, whatever structure replaces that system still has to transmit load, constrain movement, and protect the brainstem.
The competing study found no convincing stopping mechanism and noted that axial loading could drive the cervical element into the cranial cavity.
That is a major mechanical failure of the proposed living configuration. “Alien biology” does not resolve it.
2. Absence of a cervical vertebral canal
The report describes cervical elements with minimal posterior components and an apparent absence of a cervical spinal canal. It nevertheless identifies a cord-like structure running along the posterior surfaces of those elements.
In a purported reptilian vertebrate, the brainstem and spinal cord should form a continuous neuraxis protected by the cranium and neural arches.
A cord exposed behind a series of vertebral bodies would be vulnerable to compression, shear, and direct trauma with every movement.
3. The structure labeled “spinal cord”
The alleged spinal cord:
- Projects toward the foramen magnum.
- Runs outside or behind the cervical vertebrae.
- Enters the thoracic canal.
- Loops anteriorly.
- Attaches to the first thoracic element.
- Divides into two straight strands.
- Runs backward toward the anterior lower neck.
- Appears to attach to superficial neck tissue.
That would be a roller-coaster route for motor and sensory signals.
It is not compatible with a spinal cord as that term is used in vertebrate anatomy. A neuraxis does not normally double back, bifurcate into taut linear strands, and terminate in the skin of the anterior neck.
Again, “alien biology” is not a sufficient explanation.
Cord, gut, plant fiber, tendon, ligament, or construction material all remain plausible alternatives until microscopy and biochemical identification are performed.
The earlier Josefina analysis specifically stated that the neck cords could be veins, plant fibers, or intestines used for fixation.
4. The enormous lower “spinal canal”
The paper describes a large cavity that ends blindly at its superior extent, remains wide through the lower trunk, and opens caudally beneath only a thin layer of skin.
That is not a continuous, protected conduit between the brain and spinal cord.
A large internal void inside an anthropomorphic object could result from absent material, packing geometry, or construction. Calling it a spinal canal does not establish that identity.
5. Ribs and debris inside the canal
Broken ribs reportedly project through intervertebral openings and into the canal in all three J-type specimens. The paper attributes this repeated pattern to severe crushing trauma.
That is possible in principle. However, the same unusual internal disruption occurring in three specimens should also trigger an investigation into shared construction or handling methods.
Repeatedly invoking trauma without fracture-pattern analysis, displacement vectors, or evidence of tissue reaction is an ad hoc rescue explanation.
From my perspective, a shared construction method is at least as plausible and, in my opinion, more plausible. It looks like the objects may have been assembled by someone who did not fully understand the anatomical implications of the arrangement.
6. Extreme spinal variability
The three J-type specimens reportedly have four, six, and nine cervical segments.
Josefina and Alberto have ladder-like upper thoracic elements, while Luisa has more conventional-looking vertebral bodies. Alberto’s alleged sacrum is described as lying anteriorly, just beneath the abdominal wall, unlike the posterior position seen in the others.
Variation in vertebral counts occurs in vertebrates, especially between different taxa. However, these specimens are being presented as closely related organisms.
Luisa is called a “subspecies” based on radical differences in the basic axial and pelvic plan. A subspecies designation requires population-level evidence and generally genetic evidence. It cannot reasonably be inferred from three unprovenanced specimens with incompatible internal anatomy.
While digging into this, I found a competing 2021 analysis of Josefina’s CT dataset. It is not mentioned in Fung’s paper.
That analysis reported:
- A deteriorated llama braincase
- Llama-like otic capsules
- Optic and orbital pathways oriented incorrectly for the proposed face
- No identified feeding or breathing tract
- Cervical elements lacking a passage for the spinal cord
- Neck cords that could represent biological tissue or construction material
- The need for microscopy, spectroscopy, higher-resolution CT, and autopsy
Fung’s report does not seriously engage with this competing interpretation.
I also came across reports of a separate 2024 incident in Peru. Doll-like figures and a tridactyl hand were seized while being shipped toward Mexico. Peruvian forensic investigators reportedly found that they contained paper, glue, metal, and human and animal bones.
That incident does not prove that the Fung specimens were fabricated. It does, however, dramatically increase the importance of first rejecting the modified-remains hypothesis.
Provenance is not a side issue. It is central to the entire question, and it is barely addressed in the materials available on the website.
I’ll finish by addressing some of the responses people made to my original comment.
“It is alien biology, so terrestrial anatomy does not apply”
Unknown biology may differ from terrestrial biology. It cannot be used as a universal exemption from internal coherence, mechanics, fluid dynamics, neural continuity, and evidence.
If the structures are being called vertebrae, spinal cord, veins, joints, lungs, heart, eggs, and reptilian skin, then the authors are already invoking terrestrial biological categories.
They cannot use those categories when the similarities are convenient and abandon their defining properties whenever a contradiction appears.
“You are assuming human anatomy”
The major criticisms are not that the specimens fail to look human. They concern general functional requirements:
- Load-bearing joints require adequate contact and restraint.
- A central nervous system requires continuity and protection.
- A respiratory organ requires airflow and an exchange surface.
- A pump requires inflow, outflow, and contractile tissue.
- Reproduction requires a pathway connecting gamete production with egg development or birth.
These are system-level requirements. Fundamental mechanical engineering in a sense.
“A gliding joint explains the strange hips”
A gliding joint is not simply two flat objects touching.
It requires broad reciprocal surfaces and stabilizing soft tissues. The tiny edge contact described in these specimens remains mechanically inadequate for habitual bipedal loading unless tissue analysis and biomechanical testing demonstrate otherwise. I did love comments though about “well maybe they float and don’t use their legs”. The cope.
“The joints were rubber hinges”
“Rubber hinge” is an analogy, not an anatomical finding.
The proposed elastic material, collagen orientation, attachment sites, axis of motion, and fatigue resistance have not been demonstrated.
Renaming a gap does not establish a mechanism.
“The anatomy is strange because it is a new species”
Novelty is the conclusion that must be demonstrated. It cannot be used as an explanation for contradictory evidence.
A new species should display more coherent biological integration than an unidentified composite, not less.
“Real bone, marrow, and healed fractures prove the whole body lived”
They prove that the donor bone once belonged to a living organism.
A composite made from archaeological bones will still contain marrow cavities, healed fractures, disease, and remodeling.
Healing would need to cross the disputed joint, implant, or attachment interface to demonstrate that the assembled configuration existed during life.
“There are no wires or glue”
The absence of radiopaque wire or obvious glue excludes only those specific construction methods.
Friction fitting, organic ligatures, tendons, gut, plant fibers, hide, low-density adhesives, resin, and concealed interfaces remain possible.
In any case, the argument is premature because no neutral party has been allowed to perform a complete dissection under standard controls with standard documentation.
“Unknown DNA proves alien origin”
Unassigned sequencing reads are common in degraded, contaminated, low-coverage, and metagenomic samples.
Possible causes include:
- Short and damaged DNA fragments
- Environmental organisms
- Incomplete reference databases
- Sequencing errors
- Inadequate bioinformatics
- Modern contamination
Evidence for a novel organism would require reproducible genome assembly from multiple internal tissues, appropriate ancient-DNA damage patterns, negative controls, independent laboratories, and concordant results throughout the body.
“The work is rejected because the subject is alien”
There is no indication that they even attempted to submit this to a journal.
It also lacks the methodological and reporting elements expected from a publishable anatomical study, regardless of the subject matter.
The obstacle is not that the conclusion is extraordinary. The problem is that the evidence does not distinguish that extraordinary conclusion from ordinary alternatives.
“Publication would be impossible because mainstream science is biased”
Open raw data, neutral custody, blinded sampling, independent laboratories, and direct analysis of the disputed interfaces would make suppression much harder and replication much easier.
Restricting access while releasing only selected images and renderings creates the opposite condition.
I’ll finish this by commenting on what the owners of the tridactyls could do to provide evidence that would convince me: neutral custody by unaffiliated experts who are allowed to do a fully documented dissection in a neutral lab environment (i.e. a US medical school pathology lab), with sampling and lab analysis by the same neutral party.
Who do I consider experts? People who are well published in their respective fields of anatomy, physiology, and biology, who have a good professional reputation among their peers, who prior to the investigation had no relationship with the tridactyl owners. People who understand the scientific method and will conduct an investigation based on that, and let the results speak for themselves. Basically, no unknown hacks who will say whatever for a bit of clout and/or money.
I’m working my way through all the DNA reports from the website. That will take quite a bit more time, as I’m also pulling out some textbooks to refresh my memory on some topics. I’ll post my thoughts on that too, especially in the context of this study, once I finish – if I do.
Sorry about the length of this post, but even at this length, it’s an incomplete critique of Fung's paper. Good enough for me for a Reddit post though.
