Anomalous DNA connected to an abduction event — “crazy” details aside the DNA sample is potential evidence of a now known form of 2 mother gene editing

I want to focus on the science of this case because it’s very interesting. It’s easy to ignore this hair sample because of the story that goes alongside it. I’m skeptical of the story myself. However, the gene analysis is what’s important because it’s VERY hard evidence and it’s interesting to say the least.

The hair sample in question was reportedly obtained in 1992, analyzed in 1999 and a book was published in 2005 discussing the investigation.https://www.amazon.com/Hair-Alien-Forensic-Evidence-Abductions-ebook/dp/B000FCKCRE/

I’ve only read a synopsis of the full story, but bought the book and skipped straight to the gene analysis because I realized it sounded like technology we now have today. If your not familiar with gene manipulation (or even if you are) I suggest you check out the trailers to the 2 Netflix documentaries below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIIVh7H6nvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1UkCfDnn6c

What I find interesting about the analysis is that it shows 2 different mitochondrial DNA and there’s high confidence that it’s not contaminated. This potentially indicates genes from 2 mothers. We now know how to take mitochondrial DNA from one woman and edit it into a baby’s DNA to create offspring with DNA from 2 mothers. This can be done to target specific genes to prevent disease or to choose hair/eye color that is otherwise impossible (designer babies.) Not only were there odd matches of sequences that are super rare, but there was mitochondrial DNA of two kinds. Even more interesting, there were two deleted genes for the CCR5 protein which provides immunity for AID’s and resistance to smallpox. Basically, it has all the signs of a designer baby.

Even in 1999 the biochemist working on the hair sample speculated that it could be from genetic engineering. I did some digging and found one source that claims this was first done in the 90’s but was banned.
https://www.britannica.com/science/three-parent-baby

This article claims first case was 1996.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/the-brave-new-world-of-three-parent-ivf.html

Most sources I find say it was first done in 2016.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/

I found a paper on it’s ethics from 2014.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278475/

My point being that the hair sample in question very well may be an example of this technology pre-dating the public literature. This technology is now widely known and designer babies are now a thing despite bans in some countries. It’s not a stretch of the imagination that this kind of work may have happened earlier than publicly acknowledged considering the controversial nature of it. Below are more sources on the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_replacement_therapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5783712/

I don’t want to diminish the story of the witness that obtained the sample. I’m not calling him a liar. I am speculating that perhaps this sample could be evidence of early examples of this technology. The timing is conspicuous. Or perhaps the explanation is far stranger. I’m not pretending to know.

The author of the book mentions the analysis never could’ve been done without the PCR method invented in 1993 by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis. Apparently this man is quite the character and had his own high strangeness event in 1983 where he encountered a red light that turned into a talking raccoon then experienced missing time. He recounts it in his autobiography.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004AM5R0W/

I digress. The hair sample is anomalous even without all the strange stories. In 1999 the weird results of the analysis would’ve been easy to not fully appreciate because 3 parent mitochondrial DNA manipulation was not yet widely known to be possible. I personally think 21 years later this case is worth re-visiting and perhaps the sample is worth a second analysis.

If you enjoy my research please follow me on Medium as there is much more to come.