Talk:Crystal skull

National Geographic shows Mitchell-Hedges skull a fake

In "The Truth Behind the Crystal Skulls" episode, National Geographic did numerous tests on the Mitchell-Hedges skull, many of which (especially the tool marking comparison between the original and a machine-created replica skull) showed the skull to be a fake. There was also evidence of Mitchell buying a crystal skull from Sotheby's before the expedition, with similar characteristics to the Skull. This page should probably be edited for the new information, however I'm loathe to do so in case I miss-reference something and the whole batch is taken for bad information. The closest NG website I could find with this information is http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/archaeology/crystal-skulls/ but it doesn't talk about the extensive tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.149.114 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Page needs more documentary of other crystal skulls

As it stands this page largely focuses on the Mitchell-Hedges skull (Which may or may not be a forgery) and largely ignores the several OTHER skulls in the world of likely more legitimate origin. Also many of the details presented are inconsistent.

The british museum skull and the Mitchell-Hedges skull, to my knowledge, are NOT the same skull, in which case the photograph is labelled incorrectly. The two have been compared to each other and it is speculated due to very close dimensions that one was copied from the other (The Mitchell-Hedges skull having greater detail and a detatchable jaw, the British Museum skull having more in common with South American sculpture, suggesting either the more detailed Mitchell-Hedges one is the original, or the individual copying it from the museum skull added detail) The discussion of the origin, both the claims by Anna and her adoptive father, and the documentary evidence is ot presented in a consistent format, and does not mention the claims by Mitchell-Hedges that it was placed with Mr Burney as collateral on a loan, and subsequently returned to him by Mr Burney upon paying back the loan (A claim yet to be proven, but which would give a consistent timeline, and which mention of would present a possible explanation for the inconsistencies in its past). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.244.34 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So Where is it now?

???

= 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)

Desambiguation needed

I found this page looking for Crystal skull, a song by Mastodon

• It's also a video game from Maxis (1996). http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/crystalskull/index.html

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!

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.

Unclear ...

Hello.

-edit- talking about the part about the Mitchell-Hedges skull ...

As a new reader for this article, I'd like to point out that it is unclear wether the skull was actually tested at HP at all. It is said at one point that HP never confirmed that any of thoses tests happened. However, later in the article, I read that

"In an attempt to find out if the crystal was pure crystalline quartz and not glass or another mineral, Hewlett-Packard submerged the crystal in Benzyl alcohol, which has the same diffraction coefficient (Garvin 75). The skull became invisible inside the tank, showing that it was indeed pure crystalline quartz. By exposing the submerged skull to polarized light, the Hewlett-Packard team also showed that that the skull was made from a single left-handed growing crystal (Garvin 75-76)."

Those sentence are in a very affirmative form, suggesting that HP did indeed ran some test. And I wondered if none of the tests where confirmed, of only parts of them. I had to read the discussion to clear that point.

I would be good to repeat that the information is not confirmed.

Also, if any source is available, it would be good to mention that Mitchell-Hedges refuses to have the skull tested again.

External Links

These are a bit of a mess. I am removing some according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. If anyone objects to a particular removal could they please discuss it here? Thanks.