- May 28, 2003
- Reaction score
My idea? They'll discover a set of same-sized hematite skulls and realise that those canny pre-Colombians were into marbles!
you are right, it was egyption, but as the egyptions and aztecs had pyramids, it is a moot point.Lethe said:I thought that was an Egyptian picture, with the wire which looks as if it's leading to some sort of fuse box? Or is that something else?
These things do pick up explanations but people are wired, mostly, to remember the mystery, not the explanation so someone else has to say "Ah-hem, well, actually, look, it's not a mystery at all".Min Bannister said:Yup, I thought this was really old news as well.
Not so far as I am aware. If anyone knows better I'd be interested to hear. Though I suppose if its owned privately then what tests (if any) are done on it are entirely up to the owner.Lethe said:Ah, so the Mitchell Hedges one hasn't been proved to be a fake then? Or not yet anyway?
aerialsnake~ said:"Is it true that all the lights in Cairo went out at the time Carnarvon died, or is that just an urban myth?"
They indeed went out that night. TWICE.
But you have to understand that this was 1923 in what we would today call a Third-World country. The Cairo electrical system apparently failed a LOT at that time, especially during the nighttime hours - when all decent people would have been asleep anyway. <g>
By the way, in Greater Cincinnati, Ohio (including Northern Kentucky), the majority of private homes were still lit with GAS in 1923. Mass electrification of area homes occurred in 1927.
In my childhood (early 1950s) short power outages (say, 15-30 seconds) were still very nearly a daily occurrence. When they occurred people would shout "Shift Change!"
The first mention I ever saw of the Mitchell-Hedges Skull, in a late 1950s issue of FATE magazine, attributed MANY deaths to it. One of them was of a newspaper reporter who supposedely "mocked" the Skull, put his hat on it, made skeptical jokes about the thing's supposed powers and so forth....then walked outside and was immediately run over and killed by a lorry.gncxx said:"Why is it called the Skull of Doom, when nothing particularly doomladen has happened because of it? Why not call it the Skull of Mystery instead? No deaths have been blamed on it, as far as I know, unless anyone can tell me otherwise? "
JamesWhitehead said:"The fairy pics do not look at all like the work of children having a laugh, they were worked on in the darkroom. Above all the poses of the kids are studied."
This is PRECISELY why there are remaining questions concerning the Cottingley photographs.
The one thing the cousins famously forgot to include in their various confessions is a believeable explanation of how two young schoolgirls with a borrowed box camera managed to turn out fantasy photographs which would have been the envy of any British, American or European motion picture special effects artist of that day.
In other words, six decades after that 'infamous' Sotheby's sale and 75 years after Anna Mitchell-Hedges putatively discovered the Skull which bears her family name, the woman yet sticks to both her guns and her testimony and will probably die with the story on her lips. You sort of have to admire that consistency.naitaka said:"Mitchell-Hedges....claimed that his daughter found the skull in Central America but evidence indicates that he bought it at Sotheby's in 1943....Its full history is still unknown, though....Anna Mitchell-Hedges....still promot[es] the 'Skull of Doom' story."
annasdottir said:"The BM actually tried to buy it, but couldn't outbid Mitchell-Hedges, who bought it (there is documentary evidence of his purchase). It was sold by one Sidney Burney, who obtained it from somewhere or other (where is unclear) sometime in 1936. It was defintly the Mitchell-Hedges Skull that Mitchell-Hedges baught at Sotheby's. It is the one that he passed on to his daughter....To explain why he bought the skull when he had supposedly discovered it, he claimed that he had given it to Burney as collateral for a loan, which he repaid by buying it."
This strikes me as remarkably consistent with the theoretical scenario I outlined just above, without being aware of these new facts you kindly introduce here.
Is there the slightest evidence that Sidney Burney OBJECTED to Mitchell-Hedges' repeated assertions as being false? That WOULD be telling.
Two things remain: hundreds or thousands of Britons had to dispose of treasures during the Slump and in a few cases they were fortunate enough to purchase them back again, as Mitchell-Hedges MAY have been here. And after 60 or 75 years (take yer pick) Anna Mitchell-Hedges ain't changin' her tune.
Mitchell-Hedges may very well have "paid too much" for the Skull in 1943 but mightn't that have been because he was buying back his DAUGHTER'S property?
As Sir E. A. Wallis-Budge pointed out more than 80 years ago in connection with the stories then circulating about the supposed "cursed mummy" of the "Priestess/Princess of the College of Amen-Ra" being sold by the British Museum to the New York Museum of Natural History in early 1912 and being shipped aboard the Titanic, any Museum keeper who sold Museum property without a specific Act of Parliament in hand would go to the slammer for a VERY long time, even if there was no slightest hint of fraud or embezzlement involved and all the cash received went directly into the coffers of the Museum itself.bagins_X said:"I cannot belive that the British Musiem would sell any thing that good."
With all respect, I found this six-page thread extremely interesting and valuable and thank you very much for linking to it. I've added a number of comments there just this evening, especially relating to the undenied fact that Mitchell-Hedges purchased the Skull which bears his family name at a Sotheby's auction in 1943 - thus, claim the Skeptics, Mitchell-Hedges could not possibly have had possession of the Skull beforehand, so his entire story of finding it in Central America is entirely fraudulent. I give my reasons for believing that that Sotheby's sale may not be fatal at all to Mitchell-Hedges' claims.min_bannister said:"[T]he really mysterious skull being the Mitchell Hedges skull ....There is a thread here on it which is very frustrating as all the links which might be interesting are broken and the posters have written only something like 'here is the answer to the whole mystery' without summerising what it was. So you might not want to read it then."
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... stal+skull
I agree that a lot of the evidence suggests that Mitchell-Hedges (re-)bought the skull at Sotherby's from Burney...OldTimeRadio said:Try this - does the undisputed fact that the Skull was purchased from Sotheby's in 1943 prove that the family had not PREVIOUSLY owned it?
Apparently, Mitchell-Hedges bought the skull from Burney for only £400... Does anyone know what the BM bid was??... cos I would have thought that it would have been more... even considering economic rates at that timeannasdottir said:It was NOT sold by the British Museum. The BM actually tried to buy it, but couldn't outbid Mitchell-Hedges, who bought it (there is documentary evidence of his purchase). It was sold by one Sidney Burney, who obtained it from somewhere or other (where is unclear) sometime in 1936.
This would explain the low price... Wouldn't it??annasdottir said:To explain why he bought the skull when he had supposedly discovered it, he claimed that he had given it to Burney as collateral for a loan, which he repaid by buying it. So why didn't he simply give Burney the cash instead of waiting for it to be auctioned, possibly at a higher price than the loan?
This course of events seems to be the only one (that is suggested) that does not contradict any of the information (that I know of at least)!! The question is: Is there any way of proving whether Anna M-H found the skull in Belize or not??OldTimeRadio said:How abouit the following for a tentative scenario?
1. Anna finds the Skull in Belize, as she herself has always claimed.
2. During the Slump (Depression) of the early 1930s the Mitchell-Hedges family finds itself in stormy financial waters. Anna tells her father to sell the Skull, which belongs to her, and pay off his debts.
3. During the relative prosperity of World War Two Mitchell-Hedges reclaims the Skull for his daughter.
Nos. 2 and 3 seem to have been exactly what happened, and the Skull had to have originally come from somewhere.
It's worth noting that Anna's story here never wavered. It's her many critics who've been all over the map.Semyaz said:The question is: Is there any way of proving whether Anna M-H found the skull in Belize or not??
Do we have a source for this? Looking online I can't find any first hand report from HP and various possible dates (betwen 1964 and 1972) for when this investigation took place, along with various claims and refutations of what was supposedly found out during the analysis.Dingo667 said:
_Lizard23_ said:Do we have a source for this? Looking online I can't find any first hand report from HP and various possible dates (betwen 1964 and 1972) for when this investigation took place, along with various claims and refutations of what was supposedly found out during the analysis.Dingo667 said:
The 'flying saucer' image is seen when the skull is viewed looking up into the cranium from the neck, if you follow - instead of looking at it face on, you rotate the skull back 90 degrees.Dingo667 said: