Sealand skull photos released

[Toke Hanson]

Hey, captainkork(screw), have you ever heard about a place called Wikipedia? Or Google? Try googling "Sealand, Denmark" and read what Wikipedia says ...

Edited October 6, 2010 by Toke Hanson

[misty55]

interesting indeed

[hellmoomin]

Duhh.

It's an obvious sculpture (anatomically wrong too, yay). Real skulls have millions of tiny details, they aren't smooth globs.

Edited December 6, 2010 by hellmoomin

[rpmarqua]

At first I thought it was a hybrid. The Grays have been working on such for a long time and are somewhat successful in their endeavors. However, it does not appear to be such. What I would like to know is the composition of the bone matter. That will tell you, 100%, if it is extraterrestrial. I am sure that if it is, it evolved in an environment with a different light source than we have here on earth. Much like the same light source as the Grays evolved in. Since I do not know the size of the skull, ... there is much of not all speculation. The teeth are interesting. Unlike the Grays, this skull represents a being that consumes both vegetarian and meat (or a facsimile of meat)and has so evolved from an aggressive hunter. I operate under the specific knowledge that we are not alone and a compelling belief that there are more than one advanced race visiting the earth. We must remember that science and technical evolution is much faster than natural evolution. Craft used by our estranged visitors (ancient astronauts) are much more advanced as we see them today. Even my own specific association with this topic is probably antiquated. Please check the bone composition.

[supervike]

At first I thought it was a hybrid. The Grays have been working on such for a long time and are somewhat successful in their endeavors. However, it does not appear to be such. What I would like to know is the composition of the bone matter. That will tell you, 100%, if it is extraterrestrial. I am sure that if it is, it evolved in an environment with a different light source than we have here on earth. Much like the same light source as the Grays evolved in. Since I do not know the size of the skull, ... there is much of not all speculation. The teeth are interesting. Unlike the Grays, this skull represents a being that consumes both vegetarian and meat (or a facsimile of meat)and has so evolved from an aggressive hunter. I operate under the specific knowledge that we are not alone and a compelling belief that there are more than one advanced race visiting the earth. We must remember that science and technical evolution is much faster than natural evolution. Craft used by our estranged visitors (ancient astronauts) are much more advanced as we see them today. Even my own specific association with this topic is probably antiquated. Please check the bone composition.

So any basis for fact in this statement? Any proofs you can offer?

[Mr Right Wing]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/sealandskull.jpg

Anton Spangenberg: An alien survivor from a prehistoric saucer crash? An unfortunate time traveler from the future? A tradesman from a parallel universe? A hitherto undiscovered species? Or a mere freak deformity of a human being? Nobody knows for sure, but no matter the explanation, the Sealand Skull has potential to change the view of the world we live in.

The July 2007 discovery of the skull in Olstykke on the Danish island Sealand, did however not make headlines, and remained largely ignored by science until 2010. The researchers who in 2008 examined the skull at the Veterinarian High School in Copenhagen merely concluded that “Although resembling a mammal, certain features make it impossible to fit the animal into Linnaean taxonomy”.

View: Full Article

Is that a squirrel skull?

What size are they saying it is?

[Simbi Laveau]

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/215373-Sealand-skull-photos-released

Same exact article,but the posted replies at the bottom are what's interesting.

[Astra.]

Rather than creating a new thread in regards to The Sealand Scull.

I thought I would follow up on UM-Bots article - archived back to 2010.

I was wondering if anybody knows for sure, whether this case has been proven to be a 100% hoax or not ?

The latest update I could find, regarding this interesting story, was an article from July 2014.

From what I gathered, scientists are still yet to determine whether this skull is humanoid, ET, animal, or simply a clever sculpture

made from unbreakable metal or ceramic material ?

If it was a living species of some kind, apparently it would be dated back to 1200 and 1280 AD ?

Surely, there would have been proper scientific genetic testing done by now ?

Hopefully, someone knows more about this, and may be able to shed some information on what the scientific conclusion was.

Cheers.

http://www.messageto...hp#.VSZ7dPmUeuJ

One would expect scientists to jump at the occasion to thoroughly examine one of the strangest skulls discovered in recent years, but it seems that very few scholars are interested in the so-called Sealand skull.

Without proper scientific examination it is impossible to determine the true origin of this enigmatic skull. Only science can label it either genuine or a fake.

[Kenemet]

Okay, I'll take a stab at this. Several, in fact.

Rather than creating a new thread in regards to The Sealand Scull.

I thought I would follow up on UM-Bots article - archived back to 2010.

Thanks, by the way, for doing this. I think it makes more sense to explain why you're reopening an old thread.

I was wondering if anybody knows for sure, whether this case has been proven to be a 100% hoax or not ?

The latest update I could find, regarding this interesting story, was an article from July 2014.

From what I gathered, scientists are still yet to determine whether this skull is humanoid, ET, animal, or simply a clever sculpture

Okay, speaking as a scientist, I can tell you that the jury is NOT out on this. It hasn't really been presented to the scientific world (not real forensic scientists) and the reason it hasn't is because it's an obvious fake. Presenting it to a high school that teaches veterinary medicine is not the same as walking into a university and handing it over to a professor of forensic biology.

The person who sculpted this did a beautiful job but has no real clue about why bones are shaped as they are and what function they do. You can see that the teeth are NOT socketed in the mouth (as they would be if they grew there) but are simply carved into the jaw. The sutures (cracks) in the skull are just sort of decorative (in real life, they are not decorations but are joints where the skull grows as the living creature grows from whatever it looked like as an infant to whatever it is as an adult.

The jaws wouldn't actually work, either. They look great, but the muscle attachment areas and and the jaw hinges and the bone shape wouldn't allow for actual chewing. The nose doesn't look terribly functional, either, and the external auditory canal looks like someone poked a pencil into a ceramic.

Here's a real human skull for comparison. Notice how the jaw actually sockets into a feature called the "Mandibular notch" (above the red arrow) so that it moves freely. Notice that the roots of the teeth aren't a straight line, and show features of Things That Actually Grow. Notice the styloid process on the Sealand "skull" actually won't support any muscles. Someone just said "Whoa! Skulls have sticky-outy-things so we should put them on there."

(anatomy terms are here: http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/372/flashcards/1743372/png/labeled_lateral_view_of_the_skull13514618925311359658716420.png)

made from unbreakable metal or ceramic material ?

No idea. Can't tell from the photos.

If it HAD been real, we'd see lots of chatter in the scientific circles as people fought to be the first to publish on it. So there'd be analysis of the bone, C14 dating, articles about dueling scholars, and lots and lots of artists impressions.

Compare this to the finding of the "Hobbit" bones. No one was "afraid" of publishing something so controversial, it was announced everywhere, and there were lots of debates and papers that brought attention to the people who found it and considerably boosted their careers.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Kenemet

[RedSquirrel]

Compare this to the finding of the "Hobbit" bones. No one was "afraid" of publishing something so controversial, it was announced everywhere, and there were lots of debates and papers that brought attention to the people who found it and considerably boosted their careers.

This. Right here! I apologize for not adding to this 'debate', but I can only like this once, so I am pointing out my favorite part.

EDIT: Typo.

Edited April 9, 2015 by RedSquirrel

[Astra.]

Okay, I'll take a stab at this. Several, in fact.

Thanks, glad that you did Kenemet.

Thanks, by the way, for doing this. I think it makes more sense to explain why you're reopening an old thread.

Well, I didn't want posters responding to ancient posts....it's an easy error to make

It hasn't really been presented to the scientific world (not real forensic scientists) and the reason it hasn't is because it's an obvious fake.

I tend to agree, hence my questioning a few things.

Presenting it to a high school that teaches veterinary medicine is not the same as walking into a university and handing it over to a professor of forensic biology.

Well, apparently it was alleged, that the skull had been handed over to the Niels Bohr Institute of Copenhagan as many articles have stated.

The e-mail below had been sent by a curious poster from another forum, in which I had recently come across.

I just sent an e-mail to the head of the Press Department at the Niels Bohr Institute asking for confirmation on a few facts from the article, namely;

#1 Was there a anomalous human-like skull found in Olstykke, Sealand, Denmark?

#2 Did the Veterinary Department of the University of Copenhagen, (of which the Niels Bohr Institute is a part of) examine this skull?

#3 Was the skull carbon dated at Niels Bohr?

#4 Are there any academic publications related to this find?

#5 Who were the people, (if any) who examined this artifact?

#6 Can we contact them?

Also, below is the response that came back from the Institute.

SV: Radio-Carbon dating

...

From:

Gertie Skaarup - Niels Bohr Institutet <skaarup@nbi.dk>

Dear Jeff

I can see that the Niels Bohr Institute is mentioned in the article, but it must be a mistake, since we do not work with radio-carbon dating.

So I am affraid I cannot help you.

Best regards

Gertie Skaarup

Niels Bohr Institute

So, obviously it makes one wonder how this rumour had started as far as this particular Institute was named by carrying out

Carbon-14 testing on the skull ?

The person who sculpted this did a beautiful job but has no real clue about why bones are shaped as they are and what function they do.

Yes, it is an impressive sculpter, but for all we know, it could also be made of a strong resin plastic material, and be as light as a feather to hold.

Unless, one can actually hold it, touch it and study it. Then it's all guessing.

You can see that the teeth are NOT socketed in the mouth

Yes, I could see that after having another good look at the jaw....I was also skeptical about the canine teeth?

Here's a real human skull for comparison. Notice how the jaw actually sockets into a feature called the "Mandibular notch" (above the red arrow) so that it moves freely. Notice that the roots of the teeth aren't a straight line, and show features of Things That Actually Grow. Notice the styloid process on the Sealand "skull" actually won't support any muscles. Someone just said "Whoa! Skulls have sticky-outy-things so we should put them on there."

(anatomy terms are here: http://classconnecti...59658716420.png)

If it HAD been real, we'd see lots of chatter in the scientific circles as people fought to be the first to publish on it. So there'd be analysis of the bone, C14 dating, articles about dueling scholars, and lots and lots of artists impressions.

Yes, I agree with all of that. And thanks for the link.

Compare this to the finding of the "Hobbit" bones. No one was "afraid" of publishing something so controversial, it was announced everywhere, and there were lots of debates and papers that brought attention to the people who found it and considerably boosted their careers.

Absolutely....I thought there was something "fishy" concerning the story of the Sealand skull.

It makes one wonder, where some of these fantastic stories originate from.....hmm! I wonder what happened to the skull ?

Anyway, thanks for your interesting and honest input

[KariW]

Very Interesting story....but something just isn't adding up here in regards to where it was found. Almost like it was planted? Whenever I see skeletal remains which defy classification because of anomalies, I can't help but wonder if this is just an example of a genetic mutation or congenital defect?? IMO, it does appear too perfect -Very skeptical at this point until more research is done.

Edited April 10, 2015 by KariW

[Kenemet]

Yes, I could see that after having another good look at the jaw....I was also skeptical about the canine teeth?

With very good reason, and it all comes down to bone growth and physics.

Canine teeth are designed for stabbing and need to have additional bone support -- so real canine teeth would actually have bone built out over them.

.

Notice how "bulgy" the bone is over the canines of this clouded leopard skull. The Sealand skull is missing those -- that's one of the clues you subconsciously noticed.