The Crystal Skull

Originally posted by Harte
Show some evidence of this claim, please.

What claim? That these skulls have been held in museums? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Harte
Unfortunately, for you and your argument, no mesoamerican carvings that have been examined reveal carving done by "spinning a rotary tool."

So, why would they not use this faster, cheaper and easier method on their other sculptures, if they used it on these skulls?

Unfortunately for mankind, no civilization used any sort of constructed electrical device up until modern times. Yet, we find evidence that such devices existed in ancient times.

Why haven't we been using these devices for the past 2,000 years?

Who's to say this form of carving was "faster, cheaper, or easier" as you've stated.

It could be that this means of carving was very in-efficient - much like the so called "Baghdad Battery" and was abandoned by later generations.

Originally posted by Harte
The funny thing is, the Mitchell-Hedges skull is the one all the sites like "Worls Mysteries" claim has been shown (usually they say by Hewlett Packard) to be ancient.

Sorry, I didn't clarify my statement. I meant that the skull has been kept from modern testing such as was done in 1996 and 2004.

Originally posted by Harte
The claims are false - hence the authenticity of the skulls is false.

False claims have no bearing on scientific authenticity.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by legionromanes

 

Finding rotary marks around the skull's teeth took 70 years to come into existence?

I beg to differ; I find that statement extremely funny.

Your personal sense of humor aside, the fact is the marks left by these sorts of cutting wheels are microscopic and can be polished almost to the point of invisibility.

So, you're wrong here as well.

Originally posted by tyranny22When you set out with an agenda in mind, more than likely you'll arrive at the conclusion you're looking for.

This is what has happened with the fringers concerning these skulls.

There exist no "ancient" legends about these skulls. This supposed "mythology" around these skulls was all fabricated in modern times.

Harte

Alright. I'm done. This will be my final post in this thread.

Recent scientific data suggests that the markings found on the teeth of the skulls resemble current methods used for carving.

The opinion that these markings resemble current technology is the basis for these skulls being labeled fake.

Simply stated. Nothing but fact and plainly representative of both side of the argument.

Originally posted by tyranny22

There are dozens of artifacts recently discovered that have forced mankind to re-think how we understands the ancient world. Artifacts such as The Antikythera Mechanism, The Baghdad Battery and such places as the Gobekli Tepe have all caused modern science to re-evaluate the level at which we thought the ancient world operated.

thats right, thats the way science operates, it builds on already known facts when more evidence becomes apparent to change the paradigm. Its the people who start with a theory and then fidn the facts to fit it that are stymied

and haha very funny, yes it was 70 years because no one bothered because no one was claiming the skulls were anything but curious. That evidence was actually collected a long time ago but wasn't revealed until people started asking questions determined to prove that the paperback they read last week was 100% correct and that Aliens or an advanced civilisation completely vanished and the only thing they left behind was 13 completely differently styled pieces of polished quartz.

you don't think if these were the product of some lost group they would be all the same ?

weren't you claiming a few posts back that they so obviously must have been the result of that. Basically you're claiming that an advanced group would bother to sit down and carve skulls completely differently. We are more advanced than that. We have a miraculously far advanced thing called a production line. Amazing isn't it

No, I wasn't claiming that they were from an advanced lost civilization.

What I did offer was a theory toward stored information in the skulls, assuming that they were carved by an ancient civilization. I never said where I thought they came from. I was building off some else's theory that had posted prior.

I didn't come here to prove one way or another whether the skulls were authentic. However, I do disagree with the methods used by the science community to label these skulls as fakes. It's hardly scientific when opinion is involved in a study.

These skull probably are fake, but prove it scientifically. Don't give me someone's opinion that they're fake just because they used an electron microscope to arrive at their opinion. It's still just that: an opinion.

Originally posted by tyranny22
These skull probably are fake, but prove it scientifically. Don't give me someone's opinion that they're fake just because they used an electron microscope to arrive at their opinion. It's still just that: an opinion.

I'm sorry, but pardon me for preferring actual evidence from an actual scientific measurement tool like an electron microscope over some completely unverifiable story about what some "old native" supposedly told someone's daddy a hundred years ago when I attempt to decide what to believe and what not to believe.

You should know also that it is not science's aim, nor it's duty, to "prove" anything whatsoever, anytime, anywhere, anything. Science has never claimed to have "proven" anything at all, in the entire history of science.

Proof belongs in the realm of mathematics. The sooner people understand this basic fact, the sooner people can come to terms with why these silly claims are silly.

Harte

Remember, you're the ones that are forcing this opinion of the skulls being from ancient times upon me. It is not my opinion. I've never stated it as being my opinion. I simply elaborated on another person's theory - rather than debate that person. I don't come here for arguments, as others like yourself may do, but rather to lend to interesting conversation.

Since science is simply a practice, I don't see how it could prove anything. In the reference, "but prove it scientifically" I was addressing legionromanes or yourself ... not science.

It's obvious that this thread is now trolled by those that seek argument for the sake of arguing. The thread is yours. Enjoy.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Remember, you're the ones that are forcing this opinion of the skulls being from ancient times upon me.

no thats actually what the new agers are claiming after its been proved they weren't

Originally posted by tyranny22
It is not my opinion. I've never stated it as being my opinion.

uhuh

Originally posted by tyranny22
If we take this into consideration, we have to think of ways that ancient civilizations may have accessed this information. My best guess would be either light or sound, since these rule our everyday lives and operate on frequencies, as most of the universe seems to. But, taking if even further, I'd guess that if there is information encoded in these skull, they probably locked it with a password or some sort of protective measure. I would further posit that the protective measure would be the combination of light and sound.

you've been saying it all the way through the thread

Originally posted by tyranny22
I simply elaborated on another person's theory - rather than debate that person. I don't come here for arguments, as others like yourself may do, but rather to lend to interesting conversation.

nope you "assumed that what you had heard about them being ancient was correct. your words, not mine

Originally posted by tyranny22
What I did offer was a theory toward stored information in the skulls, assuming that they were carved by an ancient civilization.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Since science is simply a practice, I don't see how it could prove anything. In the reference, "but prove it scientifically" I was addressing legionromanes or yourself ... not science.

you don't see how science can prove anything, I think I would have to search long and hard before I could find another claim as blinkered as that one.

Originally posted by tyranny22
It's obvious that this thread is now trolled by those that seek argument for the sake of arguing. The thread is yours. Enjoy.

theres only been one troll in this thread
normally the troll is the first person claiming it of others, anyone else noticed this paradigm.

Those crystal sculls have all been proven to be a hoax from the late 19th century.

Those crystal sculls have all been proven to be a hoax from the late 19th century.

The following article suggests early/mid 20th century.

From the Smithsonian:

www.si.edu...

With a high-tech microscope, scientist exposes hoax of 'ancient' crystal skulls
By Donald Smith

They were relics of a lost civilization, hand-crafted by wizards, or possibly extraterrestrials. They could cast spells, conjure spirits, cure illness and foretell the future.

At least that’s what a lot of people believed when a number of humanlike skulls carved out of rock crystal began causing a sensation in the art and antiquities world some 60 years ago.

Actually, they aren’t ancient at all. And now, the archaeological detective who applied space-age methods to expose the true nature of these strange objects is developing a way to help museums around the world separate real artifacts from modern fakes.

“Crystal skulls have always been questionable,” says Jane Walsh, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. “Nobody has ever excavated one. But they are in a number of major museums, including our own. That’s how we first got involved....

Curses, gods and devils

Tall tales concerning the crystal skulls first began circulating in 1943, when F.A. Mitchell-Hedges, a colorful British banker-turned-adventurer, and his adopted daughter, Anna, made a startling announcement. During a 1920s expedition deep into the jungles of Belize, Anna discovered, tucked away under the altar of a Mayan temple, a crystal skull with supernatural powers. Or so they claimed.

Dubbing it “The Skull of Doom,” Mitchell-Hedges began producing it to entertain guests at social gatherings. According to him, it had been made 3,600 years ago. Mayan priests wielded it to invoke gods and devils. Its curse could bring misfortune and death.

As more skulls were “discovered” by others, the fanciful accounts escalated. Some said the things came from the lost kingdom of Atlantis, which had received them from space aliens. Others said the skulls had accompanied the Knights Templar in the Crusades. The objects emitted strange lights and sounds, depending on the alignment of the planets. They channeled spirits. They talked....

A dead giveaway

At a table behind her desk at the Natural History Museum, Walsh takes out a small stone carving, then picks up a device that looks like one of Martha Stewart’s glue guns. Walsh squeezes a quarter-size dollop of oozy black silicone onto a section of the carving. Within a few minutes the material hardens. She peels it off and holds up a perfect mold of the carving. Not only are the tiniest details revealed, but they pop out in relief, enabling Walsh to examine them more closely.

After receiving a super-fine coating of gold to reflect electrons, the mold is placed in a vacuum container to have its portrait made by a scanning electron microscope. At magnifications of 50 to 100 times, even an untrained observer can quickly discern patterns made by ancient tools versus modern ones.

Scorings made by pre-Columbian tools look uneven and messy. Modern stone-carving and polishing implements leave uniform marks that look like more like brushed steel. The reason is that abrasives that were used to make genuinely old artifacts—ancient craftsmen typically used sand—tended to move around as the tool dug into the stone’s surface. Modern abrasives that are permanently affixed to engraving and polishing tools leave neat, even rows.

Another dead giveaway is the use of wheeled tools—used, for example, to inscribe the lines between teeth on a skull. These lines show up as arcs where the wheel has bitten into the stone. As far as anyone knows, wheels were unknown to pre-Columbian Americans.

Modern fakes

Walsh took the Smithsonian’s crystal skull to London, where it and two similar skulls owned by the British Museum were subjected to the microscopic treatment. Sax and Walsh compared these skulls to several carved crystal artifacts from Mexico known to be authentic and to a crystal skull known to have been carved in modern times.

“We discovered that all of the crystal skulls had been carved with modern coated lapidary wheels using industrial diamonds and polished with modern machinery,” Walsh says.

Walsh is now working toward a collaboration with the British Museum to develop a database of scanning electron microscope images—taken of both authentic and fake carvings—that can be accessed via computer by other museum professionals. She is trying to raise $25,000 for the project, to be spent mostly on travel to London and Mexico City to make molds.

In the meantime, the Smithsonian’s crystal skull, a heavy object with a splotchy whitish complexion, resides inside a plain beige metal cabinet in Jane Walsh’s outer office. No one has ever heard it say a word. It passes the time in silence, staring sightlessly, one presumes, into the darkness.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by grover]

reply to post by legionromanes


You offered this statement of mine as being proof that I believe these skulls to be ancient:

Originally posted by tyranny22
If we take this into consideration ...

Here's a crash course on what a couple of these key words actually mean:

if (f)
conj.
1.
a. In the event that:
b. Granting that:
c. On the condition that:
2. Although possibly; even though:
3. Whether:
4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish: If they had only come earlier!
n.
A possibility, condition, or stipulation:

con·sid·er (kn-sdr)
v. con·sid·ered, con·sid·er·ing, con·sid·ers
v.tr.
1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as.
3. To form an opinion about; judge:
4. To take into account; bear in mind:
5. To show consideration for:
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22

Unfortunately for mankind, no civilization used any sort of constructed electrical device up until modern times. Yet, we find evidence that such devices existed in ancient times.

Why haven't we been using these devices for the past 2,000 years?

Who's to say this form of carving was "faster, cheaper, or easier" as you've stated.

It could be that this means of carving was very in-efficient - much like the so called "Baghdad Battery" and was abandoned by later generations.

From your link:

Sceptical archaeologists see the electrical experiments as embodying a key problem with experimental archaeology; such experiments can only show that something was physically possible, they say nothing about whether it actually occurred. Further, there are many difficulties with the interpretation of these artifacts as galvanic cells:

* the asphalt completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design;
* there are not any wires or conductors with them;
* no widely accepted electrical equipment is associated with them. (Controversial stone reliefs depicting arc lights have been suggested, however the voltages obtained are orders of magnitude below what would be needed to produce arc lighting);
* an asphalt seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient however for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use).

Some observe that the artifacts strongly resemble another type of object with a known purpose – namely, storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris. Those vessels do not have the outermost clay jar, but are otherwise almost identical. Since it is claimed these vessels were exposed to the elements, it would not be at all surprising if any papyrus or parchment inside had completely rotted away, perhaps leaving a trace of slightly acidic organic residue.

The wiki article fails to mention that only one of these devices was found assembled, though it does mention the "problem"of the inability to draw current from the device because of the way it was assembled.

I suppose you could call this "evidence" of knowledge of a galvanic cell. It's slim, but it's evidence.

The exists no evidence of any use for the cell though.

As an aside, and in the spirit of your previous statement:

I find that statement extremely funny

Let me just say that I am alwaysamused when a poster says:

Alright. I'm done. This will be my final post in this thread.

And then proceeds to post three more times subsequent to that flame out.

It's even funner when a post subsequent to the "farewell" post states:

It's obvious that this thread is now trolled by those that seek argument for the sake of arguing. The thread is yours. Enjoy.

And then still posts after the second "goodbye"!!

Harte

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Harte]

Also the "batteries" were not dated to an ancient time. I believe they came from the 6th century AD (Going on memory)

reply to post by Harte


I really had hoped that it would be my last post. Don't make false claims about my statements and I won't post again ... I promise.

Keep it up.

You're making it very apparent to everyone reading this thread who is trolling.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by Harte

 

I really had hoped that it would be my last post. Don't make false claims about my statements and I won't post again ... I promise.

Keep it up.

You're making it very apparent to everyone reading this thread who is trolling.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by tyranny22]

Calling everyone that disagrees with you a troll won't get you far.

Eventually, you become what you hate.

Harte

You're right about that last statement.

However, you're wrong about why I said you're trolling. I didn't say that because you disagreed with my opinion. I encourage everyone to have their own opinion and express it freely.

You started trolling long before I came into the conversation:

Originally posted by Harte
When I went to see the King Tut exhibit, Tut told me not to listen to anything that any crystal skull said.

He says they're a bunch of liars.

Harte

And I'm sure if I search other threads, I'd find just about the same type of attitude in your posts.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by tyranny22]

Oh no the dreaded humor troll.....

Come meet the CRYSTAL SKULLS!!!:

More Info use LINK:
www.crystalskullfestival.com...

World Mysteries Conference

09-09-09

The Awakening

A Meeting Of The Minds

2012 and the Mayan Prophesies

SPEAKERS AND THEIR SKULLS

HUNBATZ MEN "NAGAKU"

CECE STEVENS "BOB"

BILL HOMANN "MITCHEL HEDGES"

KIRBY SEID "SHA NA RA"

DAEL WALKER "RAINBOW"

Jamie Maussan "ROSIE"

Jane Doherty "MAYA"

Sherry Whitfield Merrell "synergy"

I have several crystal skulls. From the size of a softball to the size of a golf ball. I dont know why but when i have the small one in my pocket i feel great. I get them straight from a carver in Brazil. He does Awesome work.
I never leave home with out my little one. Its like my good luck charm.