Sealand skull photos released

[Piney]

Piltdown!

Lapiche

[Globerunner]

Hi. I'm also from Denmark and I've never seen or heard anything about the skull mentioned in the news, tabloids or anywhere...

Being very interested in the subject I'm sure it would have caught my attention!

Nothing on Google either... Even searched danish archaeological reports and nothing is mentioned.

I work with Photoshop every day at work, so its easy for me to see when a photo is manipulated...

But there are skilled people out there who can make it so not even I can tell the difference!

Scientific data or a UFO in my backyard would be the only thing to convince me.

[cluey]

I too googled in danish but after translating the first 2 pages of results and finding nothing relating to the article I'm thinking this is a hoax of some kind. also I would say the image is of a model the very straight line down the middle + the ones across the brows while reminiscent of the areas where a skull fuses together look like the joins of a multi part model.

I would have suggested some1 emailing the "Veterinarian High School in Copenhagen" I'm assuming it meant to say the Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences within in the Life Sciences Faculty at the University of Copenhagen but I guess that was too much to write down (or it was being intentionally vague as the whole think is a hoax)

wow.....you can credit yourself with reading 2 pages of danish before realizing it's un related,lol........

[xXHellkittiesXx]

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

[Raina]

That was a great photo shop job Siarra and what you came up with looks creepy. However just because something is easily photo-shopped by those with skill doesn't mean that the original skull photo was photo-shopped. I mean, I can photo shop a picture of me drinking a coke instead of Pepsi pretty easily but that doesn't mean I never drink coke and have pictures of the event.

Not being able to find anything other than the article here, in relation to the skull, and the fact that the original author isn't being helpful with further pictures, links or stories makes it very hard to believe though.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Raina

[Siara]

That was a great photo shop job Siarra and what you came up with looks creepy. However just because something is easily photo-shopped by those with skill doesn't mean that the original skull photo was photo-shopped. I mean, I can photo shop a picture of me drinking a coke instead of Pepsi pretty easily but that doesn't mean I never drink coke and have pictures of the event.

Not being able to find anything other than the article here, in relation to the skull, and the fact that the original author isn't being helpful with further pictures, links or stories makes it very hard to believe though.

That's a good point. It doesn't disprove it but it also doesn't prove it.

[psyche101]

The eye sockets seem exceedingly large. By chance any medical experts in here? Hoping someone can help me out with the following:

Apart from the anomaly of what appears to be perfect symmetry,

Would teeth be so perfect, and if real, does that indicate the donor ate the same things Humans do?

And

The human eye is about the size of a golf ball, comparatively speaking, the eye sockets on this would be at least baseballs. How much room would be left in this skull for a fully functioning brain?

Cheers.

[psyche101]

That was a great photo shop job Siarra and what you came up with looks creepy. However just because something is easily photo-shopped by those with skill doesn't mean that the original skull photo was photo-shopped. I mean, I can photo shop a picture of me drinking a coke instead of Pepsi pretty easily but that doesn't mean I never drink coke and have pictures of the event.

Not being able to find anything other than the article here, in relation to the skull, and the fact that the original author isn't being helpful with further pictures, links or stories makes it very hard to believe though.

But what Siara's expertise has spelled out to all of us us is, it can be done here on earth, and really, quite easily. All "ET evidence" is. It would be really nice to find something completely Alien to us.

I think it would be nice if one of these so called researchers got a fact straight before bleating 1950's sci fi rhetoric to the world. Is it so hard to get some real testing done and eliminate imaginative interpretations before releasing such to the world?

After the Star Child, I fail to see why people in general are not more vigilant with regards to these items and claims.

[zenfahr]

Hey Siara, did you also photoshop the strange alien looking lab tech too!! I think THAT guy..... yeah that guy!!

[Siara]

Hey Siara, did you also photoshop the strange alien looking lab tech too!! I think THAT guy..... yeah that guy!!

LOL... he was standing in the right position and the light was falling on his face and shirt at the right angle. It saved some time. Maybe I should have photoshopped him to look a little less... um, geeky.

[Toke Hanson]

Just received this per e-mail from Mr. H.H. Loyche:

"Dear Mr. Toke Hanson,

You may on behalf of me post the following at Unsolved-Mysteries.com

Dear all at Unsolved Mysteries,

Via my Danish publisher I have from Toke Hanson received a request to try and answer some questions regarding the so-called Sealand skull. In return, I asked him to forward you this message on my behalf.

To do my utmost to understand your debate, I have carefully read Anton Spangenberg’s article and all the (58) comments posted under it. It is beyond my powers to answer all these controversial questions, but I can help with these:

1. The persistant rumours about l’Ordre Lux Pégasos was among the main sources for my awarded 2009 novelette The Manuduction, and it remains a fact that even if the order as such is non-extant (today), rumors on it can be tracked far back in time.

2. I have not read the alleged article in the Danish newspaper Politiken, but I do have seen a notice about the radio carbon dating – either in MetroXpress or Urban, both are newspapers to take for free in the Copenhagen area’s public transportation systems. Being used to research I know that it's easy to miss articles on issues we're looking for (we can't read all the magazines and newspapers) and it's often a bit of a nightmare to re-find old articles. So I see no reason to doubt that Toke Hanson is correct when claiming that Danish newspapers brought one or more articles about the skull in the period late summer 2007 till spring 2008.

3. Not only do I have family in the area where tales on the secret order are told, in the very town of Ølstykke where the skull was found. My father as well as my older brother have at the time of its uncovery seen it with their own eyes, and they described its eye sockets as grapefruit sized and it's teeth somewhere between human and those of a dog. Therefore, I am certain that the skull exists.

4. Finally, during an interview in front of audience at Fantasticon 2009 in Denmark, organizer Flemming Rasch displayed a whole series of photos showing the skull from various angles, its underside included. I was myself present and saw them all. Although I cannot guarantee that these pictures were not brought forth using photoshop, they indeed matched the descriptions by my family and other witnesses living in Ølstykke. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, the picture published by Unexplained Mysteries is cut in the top and bottom, but is otherwise not manipulated with photoshop or other means.

I am, however, unable to verify the connection between l’Ordre Lux Pégasos and the Sealand skull. About the nature and origin of the skull, I can also say nothing. These questions are for experts to solve.

In the hope that you came closer to solve the mystery -- best wishes to all of you,

H.H. Løyche"

[Siara]

Huh. Thank you for following up on this.

Just received this per e-mail from Mr. H.H. Loyche:

"Dear Mr. Toke Hanson,

You may on behalf of me post the following at Unsolved-Mysteries.com

[Globerunner]

Sounds like there enough mysteries in that story for another book...

If Flemming Rasch has all those pictures then why on earth haven't he dedicated a website to show them???

When I google the name Flemming Rasch - It turns out a man with the same name runs a Graphics Design company...

The question is - does his employees know how to use Photoshop? guess guess.

That long letter was to build hype Clever.

----edit----

by the way H.H Løyche is a Science Fiction writer... hint hint

Edited September 14, 2010 by Globerunner

[Toke Hanson]

What makes Globerunners words trustworthy? The care that he put into his homework? His wild guesses? Nah, he'll have to do better than that.

The organizor of the Danish Fantasticons, Globerunner's own countryman Flemming R.P. Rasch, does not own a graphic designs company, but is a mathematics teacher and runs a small press in his spare time (http://www.nysciencefiction.dk). It is correct that H.H. Løyche - there are plenty of texts on him on Internet (6,780 hits), also in Globerunner's native language - had science fiction published, but he also writes for newspapers and scientific magazines like National Geographic, so I should think that he knows a bit about what he talks. Where is the argument for discarding his testimony? If his words to us are not trustworthy, then what about the works of Isaac Asimov? Besides from his works within bio chemist, Asimov was also a science fiction author - did the latter render his scientific work as well as any other merits of his invalid? According to Globerunner: yes, and therefore the same is valid for astrophysicist Gregory Benford, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, medical doctor from Harward Michael J. Crichton, physicist, chemist and mathematician Herbert W. Franke, virologist John-Erik Stig Hansen (Dane), professor in philosophy, metaphysics and history Ludvig Holberg (dane), professor in theoretical astronomy and experimental philosophy Fred Hoyle, professor in fysiology and zoology Julian Sorell Huxley, nuclear physicist with the Nobel prize in physics Olaf Johanneson (pseudonym for Hannes Alfven), historician of sciences Stanislaw Lem, astronomer and future scientist Klaus Æ. Mogensen (Dane), engineer and director of Bell Telephone Laboratories John Robinson Pierce, astronomer Carl Sagan, professor in chemistry Johan Springborg (Dane), nuclear physicist Leo Szilard (who build the first nuclear reactor together with Enrico Fermi) ... I could go on, but the point is, that Globerunner indicates that all their inventions and discoveries were bogus because they also wrote science fiction. Btw. fyi. the genre also counts four Nobel prize winners in Literature, namely William Golding, Herman Hesse, Doris Lessing and Harry Mårtensson, and following Globerunner's thought, their books weren't better than toilet paper.

Although H.H. Løyche is closer to know the 'truth' about the skull than anyone of us, he did not pretend to know much more. He told us what he knew, but didn't speculate or pretend to know what the skull was. We must respect him for that, and I find it impolite to accuse/criticize a person, who is probably very busy, yet spends time to read the column and the (silly) comments here and politely answer us the best he can.

Above all, I don't get it that Globerunner thinks everybody should be busy making homepages to satisfy his specific needs. Why does Globerunner post such critique, when he himself does not make better efforts than casual Googling? Why didn't he, say, write to the Fantasticon organizor? It's not that he needs to - because I already did, and attached here (if I can figure out how) are two photographies that were in Flemming R.P. Rasch's possession, and he might have more!

[Sabz]

Amazing images, thank you very much for loading them up.

I actually registered just to comment on those

If you could get a video loaded up of them with it, that would be awesome

[Siara]

Here's another piece of Mr. Loyche's writing (not available in English unfortunately).

Edited September 15, 2010 by Siara

[pallidin]

Interesting story.

[Toke Hanson]

Here you go fellas! Another photo of the skull, and and will post yet another within seconds.

[Toke Hanson]

And here is the last one that Flemming R.P. Rasch had, so it's five altogether (with the one published by UM).

Thanks, Sabz! I haven't heard of any videos of the skull, but you are right, it would be awsome.

To Siara: Loyche's The Manuduction is in English and was mentioned on an Irish site, so it seems that at least some of his writing is available in English language.

[el midgetron]

Well, I did a critique of the first two photos posted by Toke (thanks for digging these up btw). However, by the time I was done Toke had long since posted two more, which in my opinion clearly depict a sculpted model and this critique becomes something of a pointless exercise.

Let me perface this by saying whoever sculpted this skull has a lot of talent, it might not be perfect enough to pass off as legit but its far better than most artist hopefuls could hope to do. As well, some of the points I make deal with anatomical comparisons to human anatomy. Obviously, if this was a real alien skull it would be reasonable to credit it with its own properties removed from human anatomy. None the less, human anatomy is the only bar we have by which to measure this skull, even more so considering how hominoid it is.

Anyway with out further adieu, heres my bloated critique....

(1) This might be the most telling sign of an artists hand. One challenge artists face depicting realism is the conflict of how things look vs how we think things should look. We think eye sockets should be darker, this is due to how lighting interacts with recessed areas. However, the reality is that the eye socket would develope the same patina as the exterior of the skull unless the conditions (for example, buried in soil) were different between the two areas. In small cracks and tight areas we might expect deeper (thicker) patina but considering the size of those eye sockets the patina should atleast follow the rules observed in human anatomy. In the top photo its clear the inside of the eye sockets are not entirely shaded as we might expect under other lighting conditions (by the tell tale reflection of light), yet even in the illuminated areas they are still a much darker patina than the extreior of the skull.

(2) These areas of the skull are problematic in my opinion. The rear teeth do not reflect actual anatomy. They aren't bad sculptures but aren't realistic. In the bottom photo they even appear to be a single form rather than independent of each other. As well they largely share the same patina as the rest of the bone of the skull (see photo 2). This is problematic because (in human anatomy) teeth are covered with enamel which should dictact different patina properties. The area in the skull which around the gum-line shows unsatisfactory sculpting of ridging around the roots of the teeth. As well, in the sceond photo the line of bone that meets the teeth is very symmetrical, or in other words its a straight line that the teeth come out of (but hey maybe thats how alien skulls are..).

(3) The "fangs" are very curious. They seem stragely juxaposed against the other teeth, which appear to be only useful for chewing. One possible answer to this is that aliens are vampires and only need fangs for deep punctures. However, realisticly speaking, the discrepancy between the fangs and the rest of the well rounded, almost dull, teeth is hard to believe. Its also curious how the fangs seem to be missing any patina where they meet the gum-line. In both photos this area is almost white, maybe a shade of clay or plaster? Either way, I can think of no reason why the massive eye sockets would be a darker patina yet these areas of both fangs seem to have no patina.

(4) This part of the skull's jaw bone has very sharp edges. Even more so considering they are the "ball" part of the socket joint. Maybe alien anatomy is really freaky, or maybe it just helps the model fit together better........ I cant imagine how these drastic edges could facilitate the function of a socket.

(5) Granted, there are a million patinas and a billion lighting scenerios but this just looks like the reflectivness of ceramics to me.

(6) (7) The skull plate cracks (sorry I don't know the proper terms) really looks painted on. As the skull grows the seperate regions of the skull fuse together. The division of the regions face of the adult human skull are much less noticeable than the larger plates of the cranium. Yet, here they seem to share equal clarity. The one in the second photo running from the nasal cavity to gum-line is (dare I say) never noticeable in adult human skulls. One last observation, if you follow the crack above the nasal cavity as in goes down and curves into the eye socket (in second photo) at the lowest point, following up to the right (and zooming in), it looks like it breaks into two lines.

In conclusion, my observations are unchanged from the original photo posted, this is a sculpted "model". I think its sweet but its not real.

Edited September 16, 2010 by el midgetron

[pallidin]

Nice job, el!!!!!!!

[Globerunner]

What makes Globerunners words trustworthy? The care that he put into his homework? His wild guesses? Nah, he'll have to do better than that.

The organizor of the Danish Fantasticons, Globerunner's own countryman Flemming R.P. Rasch, does not own a graphic designs company, but is a mathematics teacher and runs a small press in his spare time (http://www.nysciencefiction.dk). It is correct that H.H. Løyche - there are plenty of texts on him on Internet (6,780 hits), also in Globerunner's native language - had science fiction published, but he also writes for newspapers and scientific magazines like National Geographic, so I should think that he knows a bit about what he talks. Where is the argument for discarding his testimony? If his words to us are not trustworthy, then what about the works of Isaac Asimov? Besides from his works within bio chemist, Asimov was also a science fiction author - did the latter render his scientific work as well as any other merits of his invalid? According to Globerunner: yes, and therefore the same is valid for astrophysicist Gregory Benford, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, medical doctor from Harward Michael J. Crichton, physicist, chemist and mathematician Herbert W. Franke, virologist John-Erik Stig Hansen (Dane), professor in philosophy, metaphysics and history Ludvig Holberg (dane), professor in theoretical astronomy and experimental philosophy Fred Hoyle, professor in fysiology and zoology Julian Sorell Huxley, nuclear physicist with the Nobel prize in physics Olaf Johanneson (pseudonym for Hannes Alfven), historician of sciences Stanislaw Lem, astronomer and future scientist Klaus Æ. Mogensen (Dane), engineer and director of Bell Telephone Laboratories John Robinson Pierce, astronomer Carl Sagan, professor in chemistry Johan Springborg (Dane), nuclear physicist Leo Szilard (who build the first nuclear reactor together with Enrico Fermi) ... I could go on, but the point is, that Globerunner indicates that all their inventions and discoveries were bogus because they also wrote science fiction. Btw. fyi. the genre also counts four Nobel prize winners in Literature, namely William Golding, Herman Hesse, Doris Lessing and Harry Mårtensson, and following Globerunner's thought, their books weren't better than toilet paper.

Although H.H. Løyche is closer to know the 'truth' about the skull than anyone of us, he did not pretend to know much more. He told us what he knew, but didn't speculate or pretend to know what the skull was. We must respect him for that, and I find it impolite to accuse/criticize a person, who is probably very busy, yet spends time to read the column and the (silly) comments here and politely answer us the best he can.

Above all, I don't get it that Globerunner thinks everybody should be busy making homepages to satisfy his specific needs. Why does Globerunner post such critique, when he himself does not make better efforts than casual Googling? Why didn't he, say, write to the Fantasticon organizor? It's not that he needs to - because I already did, and attached here (if I can figure out how) are two photographies that were in Flemming R.P. Rasch's possession, and he might have more!

Ha ha ha! Take a breather. Good read though. It's not about trust or accusing - it's about questioning things.

... Well perhaps I was to quick to ROAR and point, so if anyone was offended please grab a cookie on my behalf.

And to H.H Løyche, sorry man - no really, I'm sorry! If I knew where to meet you I would give you a big hug.

I'm also sorry that there might be no more to it than a sculpture inspired by the shape of a monkeyskull.

Anyway Loke, thanks for your efforts bringing these photos to light, and that I mean.

Peace!

[Toke Hanson]

I don't know if H.H. Løyche reads our comments, but I don't mind giving you a hug in return, Globerunner, and peace to you too.

For el midgetron: Way to go! Good arguments based on careful observations. Exactly what we need! Yet some counter arguments can be raised (as always, it seems).

(1) "the inside of the eye sockets are not entirely shaded as we might expect under other lighting conditions (by the tell tale reflection of light), yet even in the illuminated areas they are still a much darker patina than the extreior of the skull."

Perhaps it's simply because the skull was carefully cleaned on the outside, but not so carefully on the inside (it's harder). Another explanation could be a dye effect known from some snake species: The creature might not have seen light on the same wave-lengths as us. If so, its eyes can have contained a substance providing the optical properties needed for the wave-lengths seen by the creature (although it doesn't look transparent to us, infra red binoculars have aluminum lenses, as glass won't do). As the eyes rotted away, the substance dyed the sockets.

(2)

a. "The rear teeth do not reflect actual anatomy."

You are right. But isn't the queer anatomy of the skull (eye socket size with more) exactly what makes it noteworthy?

b. "In the bottom photo they even appear to be a single form rather than independent of each other."

Look at the rear teeth in the jawbone on Skull4.jpg - they are perfectly independant shapes. Just, their tips seem to have been worn flat.

(3) "Its also curious how the fangs seem to be missing any patina where they meet the gum-line. In both photos this area is almost white, maybe a shade of clay or plaster?"

That's my conclusion too. On picture Skull5.jpg, you can actually see that the lower left fang has been broken. My impression is, that the teeth have are held in place with whatever plaster or so. It could mean that the teeth were originally found apart and later re-inserted, and the job wasn't well done. In the process of fixing the teeth, the repair-man might have exaggerated the fangs. In any case, it probably happened before it was buried (insofar Spangenberg's column is correctly indicating that the skull was found intact and with all its teeth in place).

(4) "This part of the skull's jaw bone has very sharp edges. Even more so considering they are the "ball" part of the socket joint."

Eh, yeah - but they appear perfectly rounded on picture Skull3.jpg.

(5) "Granted, there are a million patinas and a billion lighting scenerios but this just looks like the reflectivness of ceramics to me."

To me as well - or like someone has waxed and polised the skull. Spangenberg's column just refer to "Its smooth surface".

(6) (7) "The skull plate cracks (sorry I don't know the proper terms) really looks painted on."

But they aren't, or at least not all of them. Look at the 'crack' crossing the eye brow on Skull3.jpg - the reflection is clearly broken by the cavity of the 'crack' (sorry, I also don't know the term).

By now I also think the skull is a model, perhaps a movie accessory. But whatever it is, I think that now we can at least agree that it isn't Photoshop.

[Siara]

el mig- great analysis! Wow, I've finally found someone who likes looking at these things as well as I do.

I've gone to thinking it might be a model too. Here's something interesting about the fangs:

When you look at this close up you can clearly see that the fangs have been broken and reattached. In the frontal view the attachment is right at the gum line. In the rear view you can see a horizontal brown joining point about 10 pixels up from the jaw line. Seems very odd-- why would they do that?

The thing that really bothers me is the vertical line between the nasal cavity and the teeth (shown in the initial pic). It's PERFECTLY straight. I mean, it doesn't deviate from perfect by 1 pixel. When do you find something like that in the natural world? Also, WHY would you find it? Why would you have a perfectly formed structural weakness at a point in the body that should be designed to exert maximum pressure-- the bone that absorbs the force of chewing?

Also, the person who made this should have played around with the molars at least a bit. Those are human molars. Here's how the alien's molars compare to human molars. Quite a match!

Edited September 17, 2010 by Siara

[el midgetron]

Another explanation could be a dye effect known from some snake species: The creature might not have seen light on the same wave-lengths as us. If so, its eyes can have contained a substance providing the optical properties needed for the wave-lengths seen by the creature (although it doesn't look transparent to us, infra red binoculars have aluminum lenses, as glass won't do). As the eyes rotted away, the substance dyed the sockets.

That hypothesis actually occurred to me as well. Its interesting that we theorized the same scenario.

Also, the person who made this should have played around with the molars at least a bit. Those are human molars. Here's how the alien's molars compare to human molars. Quite a match!

Huh, very interesting! That makes me wonder if the teeth were cast from real teeth and then added to the skull? Could be an explanation for the straightness of the jaw where the teeth meet bone? Perhaps the fangs were an afterthought and the "breaks" were intentionally done when the artist decided to add them to their creation?