Crystal Skulls are "modern fakes"

Crystal Skulls are "modern fakes"

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

While this new study has led some to the conclusion that the skulls are modern fakes, or hoaxes, the content of the study leaves questions unanswered.

How can the investigative team be so sure that the skulls were not in fact crafted by some unknown civilization pre-existing that of the Mayans et al?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

it's funny how they don't mention the mitchell-hedges crystal skull that hewlett packard studied and could find no tool marks on. a bit misleading to then claim they are all fakes.

reply to post by optimus primal

---

a typical brain police action. nothing to see, move along.

Circular reasoning at its best. "Since they didnt have those tools back then, they must be fake".


I must be missing something here...what exactly, shows them to be fake?

That was my thought as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

I mean, its pushing the limit for the existance of rotary tools.

Especially in the 20s, who would waste time and money on creating a crystal skull after the shortage of cash after the first world war and around the '29 great depression?

I'm gonna see the new Indiana Jones action flick,
that should give me enough info. instead of some BBC article
that is engaged in a mutual back-scratching routine with either the
pop-culture spokespersons or in cahoots with the film industry in general...

(i.e. a promotion piece by the BBC)

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Unless the ancient Mayans had access to Alpine crystal and used carborundum as a polishing agent, the skulls are fake. Some were made in a southern German village in the late 1800's as bases for crucifixes. Others were made on order to French antique dealer Eugene Boban who often mingled genuine antiques with fakes. None can really be traced back to the Mayans or Aztecs.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Saying "they are fake because aztecs didnt have those tools" is a circular argument. One could also say "Since they produced that, they or someone else must have had the appropriate tools".

Yech... the effect would evoke a feeling of the Macabre
rather than the the Lord's sacrifice.

i realize that the crucifixion site was Golgotha (the skull)
but a clear crystal, human skull, in the round, is way too wrapped in
diabolical symbology to have a mix of a cross & a skull for normal Christians... of any era.



i recall that the 10 or so skulls, range in size from 4" to as big as 10",
some more detailed, but all are viable candidates for gazing or scrying practices... or exactly the opposite of mainstream religion based on faith & beliefs.
PS: a different array of 'tools' would be needed if one were to Grow the crystal skulls rather than sculpt and polish them

I agree. Even the article says that only two have been shown to be fakes.

So claiming that they are all "fakes" is a bit premature. Even further claiming that they are fake based upon which tools likely carved them is a bit of a stretch. The one that has the signature of carborundum is most certainly not an ancient artifact.

But saying that something is a fake based entirely on what tools may have been involved in the construct would render loads of ancient edifices and artifacts as "fake."

reply to post by St Udio

---

i've seen it in a (very) wealthy man's private chapel. there were two crucifixes in this tiny chapel with a skull at their base.

smells like illuminati spirit.

Now that makes it sensible...

Unique crystal skulls,
to serve as a type of eccentric "Fabrege' Egg" for the rich and esorteric cultists of the world

in so much that the 'skull' was meant to be predominant over the other plain symbol called a cross.... delightfully diabolical !