Crystal Skulls

Stormkhan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
3,894
Likes
57
Points
79
#91
My idea? They'll discover a set of same-sized hematite skulls and realise that those canny pre-Colombians were into marbles!
 

chockfullahate

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
418
Likes
6
Points
49
#92
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?
you are right, it was egyption, but as the egyptions and aztecs had pyramids, it is a moot point.

:mrgreen:
 

CygnusRex

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
533
Likes
2
Points
49
#93
If the skull has as strong a New Age following as has been suggested then scientific evidence is really irrelevant, belief will fly in the face of science.
A Turin shroud in the making

Incidentally, one of my clearest memories from reading the Arthur C Clark books that lead me into forteana was the stories of the crystal skulls
 

Min Bannister

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,629
Likes
3,331
Points
184
#94
Yup, I thought this was really old news as well. Thought it was well known that the skull in the museum was quite modern, the really mysterious skull being the Mitchell Hedges skull which is in a private collection somewhere. 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

That thread has been merged into this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SniperK2

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
426
Likes
17
Points
34
#95
Ah, so the Mitchell Hedges one hasn't been proved to be a fake then? Or not yet anyway?
 

skitster

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
104
Likes
0
Points
47
#96
Min Bannister said:
Yup, I thought this was really old news as well.
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".

Hence this new story, adding a bit more evidence and reseach to the subject.
 

Min Bannister

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,629
Likes
3,331
Points
184
#97
Lethe said:
Ah, so the Mitchell Hedges one hasn't been proved to be a fake then? Or not yet anyway?
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.
 

Stormkhan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
3,894
Likes
57
Points
79
#99
Bloody nice blokes, though.

If there's one thing Fortean-subject theorists don't like is hard evidence ... refuting their theories.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
What Exactly IS "Fake" About the Crystal Skulls?

The best of the world's "crystal skulls" (especially the Mitchell-Hedges) are among the most exquisite works of art ever created.

That REMAINS true whether the carving work was done by long-ago Aztecs or by some late 19th century European master jeweller. So the words "fake" and "fraud" here are essentially meaningless.

Is Michaelangelo's "David" a fraud because it didn't actually exist in David's day?

Indeed, had Michaelangelo originally claimed that he'd unearthed "David" from an ancient tell in Palestine would art historians describe the statue as a "worthless fake" because of that lie?

And (assuming the "modern creation" theory is accurate) there is no direct evidence that that 19th Century jeweller had even the slightest intention of creating a "fraud" instead of the genuine artistic masterpiece he DID create.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Re: re pharoahs curse

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!"
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Emps

Emps, is there a specific "Pharaohs' Curse" thread on FTMBs, and if so could you please hyperlink me to it? Such stories seem at least a little off-topic here on this "Crystal Skills" list.

I have DOZENS of "true" "cursed mummies" stories for that list, including at least some documentation for most of them.

And while I have debunked my share of such tales there are still others which I have resurrected from the skeptical graveyard.

Thanx.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Re: Crystal Skull of Doom

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? "
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.

NOW will you say your prayers? <g>
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
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.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
That Sotheby's Sale

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."
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.

So is there a solution to this dichotomy?

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?

Many Britons of high social positions were forced to part with treasured family heirlooms during the depths of the Slump (the American and Canadian Depression) and in at least some cases were able to BUY THEM BACK during the (relative) War prosperity of 1943-1945. (The same thing happened here in the States.)

So mightn't this have happened in the case of the Mitchell-Hedges Skull?

If my supposition is correct, Anna almost certainly gave her Dad permission to sell the Skull, since it was HERS. I also suspect that she doesn't especially like being reminded of the fact that during the Slump she was her family's main support, which is most likely why she has not herself publically discussed this.

On the other hand, has anyone ever bothered to actually ASK her about it?
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Again

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?
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
bagins_X said:
"I cannot belive that the British Musiem would sell any thing that good."
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.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
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
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Semyaz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
202
Likes
11
Points
34
Re: That Sotheby's Sale

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?
I agree that a lot of the evidence suggests that Mitchell-Hedges (re-)bought the skull at Sotherby's from Burney...

But does that really make it undisputed?? There is, of course, still Anna Mitchell-Hedges account that she found it in Belize...
 

Semyaz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
202
Likes
11
Points
34
annasdottir 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.
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 time

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 would explain the low price... Wouldn't it??
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
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.
 

Semyaz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
202
Likes
11
Points
34
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.
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

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Semyaz said:
The question is: Is there any way of proving whether Anna M-H found the skull in Belize or not??
It's worth noting that Anna's story here never wavered. It's her many critics who've been all over the map.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
21
Likes
0
Points
17
Didn't Hewlett Packard or someone do some testing on the M-H skull ?
something about it being mathematically perfect or something.

Also a guy called Nick Nocerino also had found at least two of them, there are various stories of their strange powers, I've also heard of one being used at a solstice at Stonehenge, where some African Priest or what ever performed some ceremony with it,
What i find curious are the reports of owners and others being able to communicate with them.
Fascinating stuff :)
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
57
Points
64
Yes, HP did. They also managed to get a holographic picture of a flying saucer to appear inside the skull, when shining a laser through.
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,600
Likes
14
Points
69
Dingo667 said:
Yes, HP did. They also managed to get a holographic picture of a flying saucer to appear inside the skull, when shining a laser through.
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.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
Am I correct that the Mitchell-Hedges Expedition to Belize is a matter of historic record?

Yes, I realize that Mitchell-Hedges wrote a book about it, but that's not exactly the same thing as outside verification.
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
57
Points
64
_Lizard23_ said:
Dingo667 said:
Yes, HP did. They also managed to get a holographic picture of a flying saucer to appear inside the skull, when shining a laser through.
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.

I had a book called "Crystal Skulls" and there was the actual image as a glossy print inside. Unfortunately I haven't got the book anymore [got chucked accidentally whilst moving for the upteenth time] but it was pretty much available everywhere at the time [about 2000]. If I find the time I'll have a look on Amazon, then we can take it from there.


OK, I am 99% certain it was this one:

www.amazon.co.uk/Mystery-Crystal-Skulls ... 879181541/

[EMp edit: Shortening link]
 

ProfessorF

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
323
Likes
3
Points
34
Dingo667 said:
Yes, HP did. They also managed to get a holographic picture of a flying saucer to appear inside the skull, when shining a laser through.
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.

Funnily enough, I bought a copy of the Mystery Of The Crystal Skulls by Chris Morton and Ceri Louise Thomas here (ISBN - 0-7225-3486-8) - I'll scan the plates if any one's interested.
 
Top