Did anybody else catch this special on sci fi? I thought it was pretty interesting.

Wrong board.

I thought it was bad. Pure BS.

The Indiana Jones special on the History Channel was better.

I didn't catch that one.

When was the last time that the Sci-Fi channel did anything that was good?

Ahem what about Stargate SG1,and Stargate Atlantis

Battlestar ... ummm what was the rest of it? It sucks so much.

Hey, lady! You call him Doctor Jones!



I am sorry - I couldn't resist!

I thought the crystal skulls special was interesting,but that's it.Just interesting.As for the new Indiana Jones movie,can't wait to see it

Movie was great, series...meh.


It's been awhile, how many supposed legit skulls have been found?

Depends on what you mean by "supposed."

No crystal skull has ever been determined to be "legit."

However, they all are "supposedly" legit - if you ask their con man, thieving owners.

Harte

Yes, after a few tests the Crystal Skulls were proven to be fake.


Link - Smithsonion/Crystal Skulls

Here is a pic i took of a crystal skull in the british museum.

an some more.

Moro Bumbleroot, that is the thing. These skulls are supposedly supernatural WHY would they have tool marks made by ancient peoples of central america? they wouldn't that is the worst come back going by the origins from the mayans they WOULDN'T have tool marks they were made by an older more advanced civilization than we have ever studied or thought about studying.

Thanks for the awesome pics Louie!!!!! and thanks for the link Moro!!!
The crystal skulls have always interested me, not because I thought they were ancient Mayan, but because I think the true origins of each one, would be even more interesting than the stories that are told about them.
What amazed me about them to begin with (yes, this will show my ignorance) was the size, I had no idea that there were chunks of crystal that large.

I think i can remmember reading something about how one of the skulls was carved against the grain what was that all about?

So the fact that they were made with modern tools actually solidifies in your mind that they are of ancient origin? Fascinating!



Well, if you think about it, if you're turning something pointy into something round, you're going to have to go against the grain at some point. Some people try to suggest that this is impossible even with modern abrasive tools. Which is of course ridiculous, people all over the world have been turning precious stones of all kinds into cabochons for millenia.

The only mystery surrounding the crystal skulls is how people still believe they're real.

Very good point.

Plainbob13... for some reason after seeing your avatar... I had to go to illwillpress.com

If you carve agianst the grain using quartz it cracks the belize skull was shown to be carved against the grain yet it is uncracked remmember that quartz is a very special stone with unique properities.
Im not saying that their real far from it i just want to know how exactly it was done

Was that thing even supposed to be real, the show on sci fi i mean. They had a documentary called the curse of the blair witch that played like a documentary on the events the blair witch writters based the movie on. Sort of weird a fake documentary pretending to be real. This one seemed to be the same sort of thing but for the next indy movie.

I thought there were several crystal skulls found already like 20-40 world wide anyway. What were they saying about 13 needing to be found? sounded like something from an indy movie.

Foamy is our Lord and Master!!!!

only thing interesting about the show i thought was, the picture of the alleged skull on the moon

Anywhere online I can see that picture?

The moon skull and they also brought up the face on Mars; to me it is just rocks with shadowing nothing more than an illusion.

It was ridiculous. And as already stated this is the wrong forum. It should be in Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History unless we are talking about the actual skulls of some cryptid animal.

It is pretty clear all of the skulls are fakes. Even if we imagine they have "modern toolmarks to prove they were made by an advanced civilisation", the problem is that NO crystal skull was ever found in real, scientific archaeological contexts. The were all purported to be archaeological find yet for all of the skulls now in existence, NONE were ever found by archaeologists. ALL were "discovered" by dealers making money selling these things.

So will the precise placement of crystal skulls stop some disaster predicted by the ancient Maya as the Sci Fi channel show postulated? Hardly. The real, ancient Maya doomsday illustrations actually depict a giant feathered serpent monster spewing out a flood to drown the earth. Maybe the idea is to hit it on the head with a crystal skull fired from a catapult (not that the Maya understood that technology)..

You stole my thunder, draconic chronicler. That's pretty much what I was just about to write. Well, as they say: you snooze, you lose.

The May-June edition of Archaeology Magazine pretty much comes to the same conclusion in its article about crystal skulls (by Jane MacLaren Walsh, beginning on page 36). I have little personal interest in the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica and even less in crystal skulls, but I'm an old Indiana Jones fan so naturally I couldn't resist reading it. And, to be honest, I rather enjoyed it.

That not one crystal skull in existence can be tracked to its original, archaeological source, is of tremendous significance. With the science wholly removed, the artifact must be regarded with suspicion from the start. It's also telling that many of the skulls that have been scientifically analyzed, have shown clear evidence of modern lapidary tool marks. Other posters have mentioned much the same thing.

Is it possible one or two crystal skulls out there actually came from a Mesoamerican culture? Of course. But the logical mind does not make the stretch that the skulls came from aliens or are the vessels of great, mystical magic. If they are truly Mesoamerican in origin, we still do not understand their true meaning.

But for now they make for great cinema. I hope to see the new Indiana Jones movie this weekend!

Unfortunately, you may be disappointed. It seems the new Indiana Jones movie delves into this new age "archaeology" stuff, which many of the people on this site unfortunately adhere to. On the other hand the acting is great and they brought back the sense of action from the old ones. Regardless, it's worth seeing, especially if you're an Indiana Jones fan, like me. Regarding these crystal skulls however, they look fake, because they look too perfect. I'd imagine a crystal skull from the peak of Mayan civilization to look a bit different, perhaps a bit more like the shape of the heads of their sculptors and a little rougher in form.

- Regards, Bokonon

I saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull today! Whilst it was the least of the series, it was incredible good fun and overall an awesome flick I recommend to everyone. I was dissapointed at the lack of the witty conversations and comic violence of the other films though. Seriously this one has NO violence, bar a disturbing scene where some russian is eaten by ants (Well it's strongly implied that he's eaten *Cheers Madi*) and even that is PC.

Anyway the real crystal skulls? Neat little peice of handiwork. Nothing more.

Weren't those in Ripley's, as well?

I fully realize that Indiana Jones represents cult archaeology and is far removed from reality. The original movie was much the same (particularly the ending scene where the opened ark melts everyone's faces!). LOL Rest assured, however, I can distinguish fact from fiction. I know what to expect with Indiana Jones: entertainment. That's all I ask. I am also a big fan of television's Stargate shows but it's not as if I see any reality in them. They're just fun to watch.



That article I mentioned in Archaeology Magazine specifies that while certain Mesoamerican cultures did employ the human skull in their iconography, the crystal skulls do not bear any reliable similarity in style, material, or manufacture to known skull-iconography. Further, no Mesoamerican culture possessed the technical abilities to create such artifacts from crystal. Stone was the norm. Many of the known crystal skulls have holes running through their vertical axis, and even this is wrong: holes were drilled through the horizontal axis so that the skulls could be displayed on long skewers or, with statues of deities or rulers, on the belt.

The most probable explanation is that every single crystal skull is a fake. In my last post I admitted the possibility that one or two were real, but that was mere naivety on my part. LOL I'm switching to a more realistic view, the better I understand the situation.

That leaves the premise that aliens crafted the skulls, which some people believe, but I think we all know it's safe to dismiss that as outright nonsense and not befitting mature reasoning.

hey, careful Erich's wrath is coming your way!! and Sitchin is preparing a black mass to get you!

Bring it on!

All the evidence proves is that the skulls were made with machine tools...yet it still does not establish when or by whom. While the discovery by those wanting money is suspicious in itself, it in no way proves a fraud...unless one is to then accept that other artifacts have never been bought or sold, even recently.

Archeology still has it in their minds that all forms of technology advance in a linear format. Yet it is obviously not the case when even observing something as simple as masonry construction. For instance even a sample observance of the pyramids of Egypt shows some of their finest structures made early in Egyptian history with many later structures being of lesser quality...and some later on with greater quality.

This shows anything but a linear format to experiential development.

Considering how long lived our species is and how our brain size has not actually changed much, it is entirely possible that we have been technologically advanced numerous times in far antiquity, and then reduced to Stone Age life only to rise up and have the cycle repeat itself.

Even in Peru as we speak an excavation is still producing very different results to the previously accepted history of the progression of ancient Peruvian culture. At Caral they have found a series of Pyramids and structures with no defensive fortifications or weaponry, with the carbon dating of a woven stone carrier dating the site to 1000 years earlier than anything else. This means that the earliest Peruvian cultures were born of peaceful means and not warfare as previous believed.

Something as simple as this discovery shows that the entire wealth of knowledge and assumptions about the development of one culture in specific were completely incorrect. And the history books will now have to be rewritten. As such one can only wonder just how many other things we happen to be wrong about in other regards.

Many archaeological studies are rife with the acceptance of one set of evidentiary collections to the exclusion of all others as hoaxes or frauds(such is the case of the Inventory Stela). Even electron microscopic study of the blocks on the upper causeways above the King's Chamber of the Khufu pyramid have shown no crystallization, suggesting that they were cast in place like cement rather than cut from the living stone and brought up to be placed.

Even Christian history(according to theologists and even the bible itself) is full of errors and discrepancies that are still being meted out even today.

Nothing in history as we see it is a straight and cut clear line for all to see. Discoveries are being made every day. If ever we were to discover a prior remnant of a highly advanced settlement of mankind, would we even know what we were looking at or would we simply say that it was had at a later time and simply forgotten. The real issue I can see with actually finding anything that stretches that far back into antiquity, would be to what degree it has deteriorated and fallen apart.

Studies have shown that if mankind was to suddenly vanish off the face of the earth, our creations, our cities, our tools etc, would have rusted and fallen apart is less than 1000 years. There would be little to nothing left. Aside from finding a structure made out of limestone, would we really know what we were looking at?

Re the show on the SciFi channel, it was pretty telling that during most of the show they had comments by archeology professors and museum curators. But during the last half hour when the discussed the crystal skulls, we instead had comments by "spiritual teachers" and the like. A lot of New Age mumbo jumbo if you ask me!

Considering the extensive archaeology that has taken place since the skulls first appeared, some of these should have been found since those times if they were actually of mesoamerican provenance. There are a lot of unexplained analomies, but if there WERE genuine artifacts that bore machine marks indicating they are from an advance civilization, then why is it that NONE have ever been found by archaeologists? They ALL just turn up in the hands of antiquities dealers who 'claim' they are 'old finds' with no provenance.

Depending on soil conditions, even iron objects will remain in the groun a long time. I have found many iron objects over 2,500 years old. Cupric alloy objects sometimes don't deteriorate at all if they patinate well. I think by now we should have found at least one bolt from an alien space craft if so many of them came here........ unless they were some kind of bio technology.

perhaps that's what the dragons were....biotech spaceships! Genetically modified for comfort and inspiring awe for an otherwise diminutive alien species.
when they took offerings of food the little men inside shared it out.

Hey, stichin already said their spaceships were the "great serpent dragons of heaven" of the ancient hymns, though how a talking spaceship tricked adam out of eternal life in the Garden of Eden, I'll never know.

I agree with the assessment about mesoamerican relevance insofar as it relates to it's importance in determining it's fraudulent nature. My concern relates much to the desire of many archaeologists to simply discard any type of relic due to lack of supporting evidence to their theory of it being a fraud. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack...simply because they have not identified a potentially previously hidden form of material fabrication as yet undiscovered, does not in any way ensure fraudulence.

As for artifacts from antiquity identifying a potential advanced society/culture long lost...it is entirely possible considering our extensive biological traits(premature birth, socially evolved genitalia) mankind could have advanced numerous times going back even a million years. Any potential artifacts from such time immemorial would be hard pressed to locate but would prove to be very interesting a find should such discoveries be made. The concern being that discoverers may simply shrug it off as something more recent(unless it's method of preservation is indicative of it's age).

So does that make puff the Magic Dragon a space ship? I gotta get one of those then to commute to wk and back .LoL

And, once again, people just keep repeating this because they don't know what they're talking about. I know this has been beaten to death already, but it's time for this misconception to die out.

Actually, as far as stones go, quartz is pretty unremarkable, but while it does have some unique properties, magically shattering into dust when worked isn't one of them. In fact, history is full of carved quartz objects. Like this. Quartz crystals don't grow in Ottoman style vase shapes, so cutting against the grain is a requisite.

Also, when you go to the jewelry store, and see the cases full of amethyst and citrine, those are quartz crystals colored by impurities inside them. Those shapes that they are in are not natural, and carving against the grain is a requisite for achieving them.

One would think this would be common sense, but I guess it's easier to keep parrotting the same old line, even if it is completely inaccurate.

Wally,

Touche!

What took you so long?

Harte

Homo sapiens sap. has not been immutable in the form we posses now for a hundred thousand years, let alone a million. There is no indication that early (archaic) forms of H.sap. made an evolutionary leap into the modern form at any time in our prehistory except for the one divergence that lead to us now, and no indication exist in archaeology of any technological development (apart from primitve spears etc) by those early archaic humans.

Any technological development (comparable to our own up to the point of having machines capable of such work as the crystal skulls) of modern humans within the last few tens of millenia would have left some archaeological evidence apart from these fantastical 'finds' (such as the crystal skulls) and the lack of such evidence is indeed evidence itself that such a past technological society never developed.

Don't get to carried away Harte old boy firstly there's nothing made of quartz in the examples on the provided link, Rolled gold,yeah,marble,yeah,even narwhale tusk,yeah. quartz NO!!
and i'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about ay wally boy or prehaps age has rendered you senile oh and does the navy use amethyst or citrine in it's
sonar systems no, why because its a different type of crystal lattice on the molecular level. They actually use fused quartz which is pure quartz melted at high temperatures note the key words "Pure" and "melted"

Also in my post i said cracks as in micro fractures nobody said anything about quote shattering into dust i know your both old and the elderly are prone to embellishment but try to fight the urge
please provide a picture of a ottoman style vase cared out of pure clear crystal and do try to get it right this time

From what I understand is there was a man that said he they were fake
and that he could produce one identical to those that were found.
But he apparently hasn't and ether way if they are fake or real.
It's still a marvel.

I suggest you use the "search" function at the site wally provided. Insert the word "quartz" and see how wrong you are.

Here's one way:

Carved Praesum (impure quartz) lidded jar

Another:

Carved from a single crystal

Here's another one


The site says this is carved from "crystallized quartz" - Egypt - 11th century AD


No, it's actually not. There is a certain amount of impurity causing the variation in color, that's all. Such impurities, BTW, should cause stones like citrine and amethyst to be even more prone to cracking than "pure" quartz. Yet, these stones are consistently and continuously being carved into various shapes and faceted in various ways.


I don't see what this has to do with these somewhat modern carved skulls. They are not "melted." Are you about to claim they are?


Here's what you said:

I don't see "micro fractures" anywhere there.

You asked how it was done. It was done with a grinding wheel and a polishing wheel with polishing compound.

You can either believe this or choose not to. But there is a variety of carved "pure" quartz jewelry available on the web. None of it exhibiting fractures, "micro" or otherwise, at least to the naked eye.
Here's some on ebay

Here's a carved quartz pendant from a jewelry site

Next question.

Harte

well you live and you learn although i went to a artist forum and half said that you can carve against the grain but they also pointed out that if you do you are left with a imperfect model where as at least the beleize skull is perfectly carved so youve explained jack s@#t
Now here's the kicker do i personally beleive that the skulls are "real" hell no i know there fakes but do i beleive that you will spend hours and hours tralling through the internet trying to prove a redundant point hell yes , the only thing that i truely wanted to know is how pedantic you can be . Check out the crypto section and you'll see that i am a dyed in the wool "SKEPTIC"

P.S the is no other question only "CHECK and MATE"

What does "perfectly carved" mean?
Nothing, that's what.


I already noted that you posted your belief that the skulls were not real. Yet I also note you hold on to some strange belief that they might have somehow been carved in some manner that cannot be explained - due to the bogus crap somebody has fed you concerning carving "against the grain" of a quartz crystal.

Now I will tell you what they mean by that.

If you go back and read critically what the fringers claim about these skulls; you will see that, without specifically stating it, they are only be talking about "carving" quartz with a mallet and chisel. It is in this way that they get by with claiming that you can't "carve" quartz "against the grain."

You'd be hard pressed to carve quartz with the grain without fracturing it, if you use a chisel.



I have stated my reasons for continuing to explain what simple-minded people consider to be "unexplained" or "unexplainable" in a plethora of posts here at U-M (and several other boards.)

I'll leave it to you to find these explanations I've given and read them.

If you do, you'll see that I'm not being pedantic at all. In fact, I'm just being consistent with my stated goals.

The truth is, I couldn't care less less what you personally believe in this or any other matter (nor what any other poster believes, truth be told.)

It is not my goal to merely explain the fraud to you and you alone, IOW.

As an aside, I find it ironic that you are such a skeptic regarding Cryptids. I myself am far more open to the existence of such creatures than I am to any ridiculous ancient astronaut, ancient advanced civilization or Atlantis theory.

Harte