Talk:Crystal skull
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] = Skulls for sale
Anyone who wants one of the 13 known crystal skulls worldwide can get them here: http://www.mineralminers.com/html/crystal_skulls.stm Too silly for Wikipedia? Nah! Wetman 05:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
- Thanks. I guess the ones being mass produced and sold are part of the unknown variety ;-) -- Infrogmation 06:06, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Er... So what's the deal with these things?
This article seems a little vague and confusing... the introduction in particular reads like a fight between a new age-y editor and skeptical one.... What actual scientific information is there on these things? Apparently the "Mitchell-Hedges skull" comes from "latin America", but I already knew that. Do the others come from Latin America too? Wherabouts exactly? What is the actual history behind the discovery of these skulls? Do they all come from the same areas? Are they all now considered to be fakes as the Mitchell-Hedges skull and the "skull held by the British Museum" are believed to be? If not, why and how where the others made? What significance are the believed to have held to the people who made them? I'm only able to find a whole host of bizarre new-agey links on the net about this, and while thats certainly interesting, i'd like some concrete information to balance that with as well.
- Basically, they're a bunch of skulls made of quartz. They were made in Germany in the 19th century, sold by a Mexico-based French antique dealer named Eugene Boban and then, their owners started claiming they had occult or mysterious properties and origin. Of course, lots of gullible people bought into these stories, what with the "New Age" thing going on. It was the era when Erich von Daeniken started selling his preposterous UFO stories... And, of course, we had those "documentaries" on TV with that guy who played Captain Kirk from Star Trek as the presenter, uncritically propagating these stories. Oh well. Elp gr 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Mitchell-Hedges Skull
There is only one skull that is actually of an unusual origin, or at least that has scientific data backing up the idea that it was not created in a conventional way, or could even be created today. That is the Mitchell-Hedges Skull.
Most of the other 'skulls' are new age garbage, without any data showing them to be anything more than traditional Mayan carvings, or, more commonly, modern forgeries.
The original Crystal Skull was seen as a sacred object by a group of Mayan priests, and they created many quartz skulls to honour the real skull. Their skulls possessed none of the properties of the original.
- If it indeed is unusual and noteworthy, then Mrs. Mitchell-Hedges should have no objection letting scientists and experts examine it. Her steadfast refusal only leads to the conclusion that there's nothing unusual about it, save for the time that people have been believing it is "unusual". Elp gr 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More Info On Mitchell-Hedges
"Without doubt the most famous and enigmatic ancient crystal is the skull, discovered in 1927 by F.A. Mitchell-Hedges atop a ruined temple at the ancient internal linkMayan city of Lubaantum, in British Honduras, now Belize.
The skull was made from a single block of clear quartz, 5 inches high, 7 inches long and 5 inches wide. It is about the size of a small human cranium, with near perfect detail. In 1970, art restorer Frank Dorland was given permission to submit the skull to tests at the internal linkHewlitt-Packard Laboratories. Revealed were many internal linkanomalies.
The skull had been carved with total disregard to the natural crystal axis, ainternal linkprocess unheard-of in modern crystallography. No metal tools were used. Dorland was unable to find any tell-tale scratch marks. Indeed, most metals would have been ineffectual. A modern penknife cannot mark it. From tiny patterns near the carved surfaces, Dorland determined it was first chiseled into rough form, probably using diamonds. The finer shaping, grinding and polishing, Dorland believes, was done with innumerable applications of internal linkwater and silicon-crystal sand. If true, it would have taken 300 years of continuous labor. We must accept this almost unimaginable feat, or admit to the use of some form of lost technology.
Modern science is stumped to explain the skill and knowledge incorporated. As Garvin summarized:It is virtually impossible today, in the time when men have climbed mountains on the internal linkmoon, to duplicate this achievement...It would not be a question of skill, patience and internal linktime. It would simply be impossible. As one crystallographer from Hewlitt-Packard said, The damned thing shouldn't be."
If you had just clicked on that crystalinks link you could have accessed that information.
This information on Mitchell-Hedges is true, as confirmed by a former employee of Hewlett Packard, but the other skulls seem to be mostly bogus.
- And who is this former employee? We have no name, no citation, no nothing. If that former employee existed, we'd have his testimony in a textual work and there would be test results to back up all these claims - IF that former employee existed and IF those tests were actually carried out. But then again, Dorland does claim that the Mitchell-Hedges skull (the one that Mrs. Mitchell-Hedges won't allow to be tested and examined by scientists, for reasons quite obvious) came from Atlantis and was carried around by the Knights Templar throughout the crusades. Elp gr 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hewlett Packard story
- I moved the below from the article to here pending citation/source info, as it seems to be in dispute. -- Infrogmation 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, in 1970 the Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories (CITATION NEEDED!! And I mean a citation that goes back straight to Hewlett-Packard, and not some New Age demagogue who has a friend who has a friend who's an ex-employee of HP's main parts supplier) where it was put through extensive testing. They found that the skull was carved against the natural axis of the crystal, which has to be taken into account to prevent the crystal from shattering. This is true even today with modern methods of crystal carving which implement high precision lazers. Furthermore, they were unable to find microscopic scratches, which would indicate that metal tools were used to carve the skull. Art restorer Frank Dorland, who oversaw the testing, hypothesized that the skull was roughly shaped with diamonds and then detailed with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. This would require man hours equalling aproximately 300 years to complete.
- Finding a citation to confirm these tests is extremely unlikely. Elp gr 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I don't understand why these would be so troublesome to create. We've got lasers that can do very fine precision cutting...so !BAM! you've got a crystal skull...what's so mysterious or supernatural about that? 300 years? try a couple days.
- It was found sometime in the 20s or 30s. Only now (2006) are we barely getting close to being able to replicate it
Yeah, and the Coral Castle was built by a single man decades ago with simple equipment. The guy who built it accomplished incredible feats, such as precision drilling through a 9 ton slab of coral in the 1920's and 30's that can only be matched today by laser guided drilling. Just because the rest of humanity can barely understand how to do great things now, doesn't mean that things like crystal skulls and coral castles couldn't have been made in the early 20th century by a single individual with a unique understanding of what he is doing.
[edit] This is a bit one-sided
Regardless of whether the Mitchell-Hedges Skull was carved over the course of 300 years, was examined by the fine experts at HP, or was a gift from Ming the Merciless, there is substantial evidence that Mitchell-Hedges bought the thing at Sotheby's in 1943 for 400 pounds (Secrets of the Supernatural by Joe Nickell, John F. Fischer, Prometheus Books(1991))
[edit] Desambiguation needed
I found this page looking for Crystal skull, an album of Mastodon
- It's also a video game from Maxis (1996). http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/crystalskull/index.html
[edit] Basic Problem With This Page
I came to this page hoping to find out about what is actually known about the Mitchell-Hedges skull but found out very little. Not only "very little" but the Mitchell-Hedges skull seems to be conflated with the low-grade, inferior skulls. The Mitchell-Hedges skull is a work of exquisite craftsmanship, whereas the other crystal skulls are hardly better than something one would find in a giftshop. One can simply google "Mitchell Hedges skull" and find numerous images, which, when compared with the image of one of the low-grade skulls on the article page, show the vast difference between them. The Mitchell-Hedges skull really needs to be treated separately from the other skulls, and there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is known about the Mithcell-Hedges skull - even if almost nothing is known - and what is known about the other skulls, or reasonably assumed. To me, it is a complete mistake to group them together, and to apply what is known about the low-grade skulls, to the Hedges-Mitchell skull without very compelling reasons. A simple visual inspection and comparison of images of the skulls will back up my opinion here, I should think. (As an aside, the means by which the skull came into the possession of Mitchell-Hedges has no bearing on its origin and provenance, or how old it is, &c &c.) Hi There 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jacob Jachowicz?
Who the heck is this guy and this so called Star Protist cult? When I type this into Google all I get is pages regurgitating the text found on this page...so is there any evidence anywhere suggesting that either the cult or their leader are real?
[edit] This page is garbage
We have a claim that the skull was found in 1927 contradicted by evidence that it was purchased in 1943. Only the claim gets published. We have a claim that HP evaluated the thing in 1970 and zero hard evidence to back up that claim. 300 years of labor? Prove it. Where are the studies? Links please!
[edit] Comment left on article page by anon user at 138.116.138.170
Notes from a different person. I don't have the archeological knowledge to comment on the archeology, and I don't want to change the section therefore. However, I saw the Mitchell-Hedges skull on display at Lily Dale near Buffalo NY when I was still a teenager, probably more than 20 years ago. Anna Mitchell-Hedges was with it and lectured on its origins. When it was displayed a copy of a professional report, I recall it as being from a major company, I noted that at the time, and she mentioned it in her lecture, but I don't recall what the logo was, I presume however that it was the Hewlett Packard report mentioned... -- it was about 16 pages if memory serves -- was available for anyone to read who wanted to. Looking back today, as a tenured professional member of faculty at a major university, I must say, the report looked like any other report of similar type prepared on any subject - and there was no reason to think that it was a hoax as I recall it. The reason I take the time to post this (I came across this article as a cross reference from a cross reference from a cross reference) is that whoever wrote the section above that dealt with the report is either unaware of the actual existence of any report -- which would indicate poor research at best, not very thorough, or willing to undertake scholarly methods to vilify a theory or belief with which s/he disagrees which are not terribly professional, or at least don't seem terribly professional to me. I thought that was worth noting.