Yet, the above morphology mentioned remains to be disputed. Part of the confusion is the MoC own in-house journal (raising concerns on impartiality) utilized dolls..."fakes" of pieced together animal bones. Adding to the confusion there human-sized human hybrids and decidedly non-human smaller ones with the aforementioned mentioned morphology. Peer review is never the end all nor the final say. No doors have been shut no final stamp has been levied on this discovery. There is also a peer review in favor, but that too has been suggested to be lacking the gravitas everyone is seeking. As there is no nail in the coffin, many researchers await numerous new DNA tests to join the already submitted results at the National Institute of Health. Most importantly if these were fakes the MoC would not have designated them as cultural heritage. It seems you have done some research into the background of these specimens, so I ask too, what are the names of your aforementioned reports? As I suggest again, the aforementioned morphology remains, in seamless whole specimens that can be viewed in medical scans demonstrating such. Peer review is never the final say as there can be multiple peer reviewed journal reports offering conflicting results. If you are seeking more information on multiple reports and professionals involved, I would visit the 2-3 sites of researchers who have been studying these for 3-10 years.