In 1970 the Crystal Skull was examined by experts at the Hewlett Packard Crystal laboratories. Their conclusions surprised even themselves. They found that the Crystal Skull had been carved out of an exceptional piece of pure crystal against the grain or structure of the crystal. This should have caused the crystal to shatter. More puzzling still, there were no tool marks to be seen. Not even microscopic ones.
What techniques did they use to attain these results?
Originally posted by zysin5
Now IM sure many skulls are fakes.. And the Vatican holds onto many of the smaller skulls.. But still there is one skull that at the time Hewlett Packard did tests on.. They where not able to come to up with a 100% answer.
Please send me a link on any new tests so that I can update my personal research..
Many thanks.
Here is my Source to my information at the time.
And I am talking about the Mitchell Hedge skull.. Not the others..
And I was just putting in some other information.. LIke Ive said in the past. I dont claim to know the truth.. I just seek the truth..
Hence if you have something up to date.. I would be more than happy to check it out! Not trying to prove anything here.. Just trying to share what I know at this time.. Which is not that much..heheh
Although it is an anthropologically accurate carving of a human skull produced by a scientifically advanced civilization, they admitted that we couldn't make it today and had no idea who had made it and for what purpose.
Im just going by what I have read.. So much info these days, Its an effort to stay on the up and up.
And for the record.. I really like it when skeptics come in and challenge these theories.. If they can not hold up to other sources. then its all good, and its why I am here.. To learn more.. So please by all means..
debunk my information, so that I can update my knowledge pool.
I did read your posts, however I would like to see more than just your own words.. I would like to see links and where you get your sources from.
You have a well thought out posts, but agin, they are in your own words.
I need more substance to come to any end to this thought pattern, as I added all my links and source material for you to check out.
[edit on 27-5-2008 by zysin5]
“There is doubt he found the skull in Lubantuum. Mitchell-Hedges did not travel alone: Dr. Thomas Gann accompanied him and he left, upon his return, an account of his travels. The publication is intriguing if only because none of the photographs show Anna, which suggests she was not even in Lubantuum, as her dad claims. For sure, travelling in those with a 17-year old daughter was not customary, but not necessarily extra-ordinary either, seeing her dad was a famous explorer. But it is remarkable that Gann’s account does not mention anything about the discovery of a crystal skull – a unique artefact, irrelevant of whether they felt it was highly prized or not.
As a consequence, another argument goes that the family did not have the skull until 1944, when Mitchell-Hedges bought the skull in London. Joe Nickell, in Secrets of the Supernatural, argues that the skull was bought from Sidney Burney, for 400 pounds. It is known that Burney had the skull as early as 1936. Nickell also uncovered a reference in a letter from Burney to the American Museum of Natural History, dating from 1933. Burney placed it up for auction in 1943 at Sotheby’s, where the Museum of Mankind wanted to purchase the object. Burney then withdrew it from auction and sold it privately to Mitchell-Hedges – reason unknown. Anna Mitchell-Hedges has stated that Burney had received the skull from Mitchell-Hedges as pawn: Mitchell-Hedges was in need of money to finance yet another expensive expedition. Burney thus decided to loan him the money, in return for the skull, which he returned to Mitchell-Hedges when the latter repaid the loan to him, though only after Burney had threatened to sell it at auction.
Nickell, however, remains sceptical. Mitchell-Hedges was a famous adventurer, who published his auto-biography in 1954, entitled Danger My Ally. It is the first time he speaks about the skull. Throughout the 1930s, in the various newspaper articles, he never mentions the skull. Why this silence for more than two decades? It is a major mystery why he would not mention what was one of his most intriguing discoveries.
Though Nickell has made clear that the accepted “facts” about the discovery of the skull are largely invented, the question remains as to who discovered the skull. It had to come from somewhere. In the reconstruction of events, Burney bought it from an Englishman, which is what he writes in the 1933 letter that Nickell uncovered, who had it in his possession for several years. “I did not discover anything more.””;
www.philipcoppens.com...
(The link above contains a lot about the theories over the skulls origins BTW)
So basically, there is a serious amount of well-founded speculation over Mitchell Hedges and his skulls- at the end of the day, you simply cannot trust his story of events completely even if you believe in the skulls being real, it is all very suspicious, there are many holes and unanswered questions in his story of events and a lot of evidence that are against much of what he has claimed in his story of events etc. If you type in “Mitchell Hedges auction” into Google.co.uk search you will turn up hundreds of results, I have decided to select the best one at first glance (as not to crowd the entire post up with links etc).
The main link to the recent news that according to the latest dating techniques and research, the skulls are fakes;
news.bbc.co.uk...
. 
