Crystal Skulls

[SkyWarrior860]

I have recently taken an interest in crystal skulls and the incredible power and mystique that has been seen within and among them for generations.  I am currently looking for the best websites and organizations, conventions, events etc. centering on crystal skulls as well as other individuals who also find this intriguing.  I already know about one conference coming up in November in Arkansas and wanted to see if anybody on here knows of any such happenings closer to me that I'd want to attend.  I live in Massachusetts, USA.  Do any of you know of anything like that or of any links that could be of potential help to me?

[jmccr8]

You might want to save your money on travelling and do a search here on some of the older threads. They are not what they have been proposed to be and are fakes with forged histories by some who like to make money off of the ill informed.

jmccr8

[MWoo7]

Fully agree.  The power of the wand as in mathematics or the study of physics would seem to be more interesting.

Adored by old mmm burned out ah infested flowerpower sorts and the gullibles/new age snot noses.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

Fully agree.  The power of the wand as in mathematics or the study of physics would seem to be more interesting.

Adored by old mmm burned out ah infested flowerpower sorts and the gullibles/new age snot noses.

My skull although not crystal is much older and if you rub it the right way it purrs, in a jaylistic sort of way.

jmccr8

[Timothy]

Wiki is pretty good these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull

If you can present any evidence otherwise, we can go there.

Please let us know what happens at that conference please!

[jaylemurph]

From Wiki, the source listed above:

 

Quote

 

...[N]one of the specimens made available for scientific study has been authenticated as pre-Columbian in origin.

The results of these studies demonstrated that those examined were manufactured in the mid-19th century or later, almost certainly in Europe during a time when interest in ancient culture was abundant. Despite some claims presented in an assortment of popularizing literature, legends of crystal skulls with mystical powers do not figure in genuine Mesoamerican or other Native American mythologies and spiritual accounts.

 

and
 

Quote

 

[One of the skulls] was subjected to scientific tests carried out in 2007–08 by France's national Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France (Centre for Research and Restoration of the Museums in France, or C2RMF). After a series of analyses carried out over three months, C2RMF engineers concluded that it was "certainly not pre-Columbian, it shows traces of polishing and abrasion by modern tools." Particle accelerator tests also revealed occluded traces of water that were dated to the 19th century, and the Quai Branly released a statement that the tests "seem to indicate that it was made late in the 19th century."

In 2009 the C2RMF researchers published results of further investigations to establish when the Paris skull had been carved. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis indicated the use of lapidary machine tools in its carving. The results of a new dating technique known as quartz hydration dating (QHD) demonstrated that the Paris skull had been carved later than a reference quartz specimen artifact, known to have been cut in 1740. The researchers conclude that the SEM and QHD results combined with the skull's known provenance indicate it was carved in the 18th or 19th century.

 

and

Quote

Walsh carried out a detailed examination of the skull using ultraviolet light, a high-powered light microscope, and computerized tomography. Homann took the skull to the museum again in 2008 so it could be filmed for a Smithsonian Networks documentary, Legend of the Crystal Skull and on this occasion Walsh was able to take two sets of silicone molds of surface tool marks for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. The SEM micrographs revealed evidence that the crystal had been worked with a high speed, hard metal rotary tool coated with a hard abrasive such as diamond. Walsh's extensive research on artifacts from Mexico and Central America showed that pre-contact artisans carved stone by abrading the surface with stone or wooden tools and in later pre-Columbian times, copper tools, in combination with a variety of abrasive sands or pulverized stone. These examinations led Walsh to the conclusion that the skull was probably carved in the 1930s, and was most likely based on the British Museum skull which had been exhibited fairly continuously from 1898.

Nobody here can prove a negative and prove these /aren't/ real. Maybe the OP can step up and provide evidence they are real, were real, or are anything other than deliberate fakes designed to part fools from their spending cash?

--Jaylemurph

Edited April 17, 2017 by jaylemurph

[papageorge1]

16 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

From Wiki, the source listed above:

I don't trust Wiki any further than I can throw it. Articles on paranormal figures and subjects have been edited by a group called Guerilla Skeptics. It is now just a collection of whatever negative things they can find with a dismissal of any evidence for the other side. I have seen articles change drastically about 2-3 years back.

Now, I have not looked that deeply into Crystal Skulls myself but have heard intriguing things, but my real point is a negative article in Wikipedia does not mean much.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't trust Wiki any further than I can throw it. Articles on paranormal figures and subjects have been edited by a group called Guerilla Skeptics. It is now just a collection of whatever negative things they can find with a dismissal of any evidence for the other side. I have seen articles change drastically about 2-3 years back.

Now, I have not looked that deeply into Crystal Skulls myself but have heard intriguing things, but my real point is a negative article in Wikipedia does not mean much.

Except, incorrect facts are challenged by superior facts.

I could get a few mates together to (say) make the wiki page on the Washington Monument being built by time travelling Yeti. We could bully anyone who attempts to change it back. 

But at the end of the day, the facts would defeat us. The facts would remain unassailed because they're facts.

[papageorge1]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Except, incorrect facts are challenged by superior facts.

I could get a few mates together to (say) make the wiki page on the Washington Monument being built by time travelling Yeti. We could bully anyone who attempts to change it back. 

But at the end of the day, the facts would defeat us. The facts would remain unassailed because they're facts.

Hmmm....no such thing as controversial subjects with both sides possibly having good points??

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't trust Wiki any further than I can throw it. Articles on paranormal figures and subjects have been edited by a group called Guerilla Skeptics. It is now just a collection of whatever negative things they can find with a dismissal of any evidence for the other side. I have seen articles change drastically about 2-3 years back.

Now, I have not looked that deeply into Crystal Skulls myself but have heard intriguing things, but my real point is a negative article in Wikipedia does not mean much.

If you look at it from the standpoint of the artistic style and techniques (the known ones) of the people and the time, they are clearly not made by any of them.  It's consistent with more modern art (and consistent with being designed by people who like skulls but don't know much about anatomy or Mesoamerican artwork.)  The number of skulls changes (6, 13, more?) and they are all found by amateurs (somehow they're never found by professional archaeologists at digs) in what we would call 'undocumented' circumstances and 'undocumented' context.  If you just found a crystal skull on the ground or in a pot, how could you know if the thing is 8 years old or 80 or 800 or 8,000 years old?

 

I could figure it out, but I've been on archaeological digs.  I would trust the folks I've gone with to be able to tell about the approximate age using a number of techniques.  I would not trust someone who just walked up on it to tell me how old it was or who made it.

 

Rumors abound of their powers but no solid demonstration that can't be explained by placebo effect is ever shown.  There's many failed predictions about them/with them, including Y2K predictions and 2012 predictions.  Also, if you know anything about the real cultures, you can quickly spot that the names are made up by modern people (there's one skull called "Sha Na Ra" and it's said this was a shaman guide's name.  It's not a name in any language and the channeled information is clearly wrong.)

 

That said, heck, if Skywarrior (or you) are interested, I think they should go and have fun at the convention!  I would expect it to be similar to a psychic fair and that there'll be a lot of people (including speakers) hawking wares -- expect to pay $20 or so for crystal skull 'trinkets' (basically beads from a bead manufacturer) that have been 'energized' and up to $1k for a much larger 'energized' skull.  DVDs seem to go for $20-$35 and books look like they're upwards of $15.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Kenemet

[Windowpane]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

a negative article in Wikipedia does not mean much.

 

Well, why not try the British Museum, then.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmmm....no such thing as controversial subjects with both sides possibly having good points??

Well, one side has evidence and the other side suppositories. 

[Rlyeh]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmmm....no such thing as controversial subjects with both sides possibly having good points??

What possible good point could outweigh the evidence of fraud?

[acute]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

What possible good point could outweigh the evidence of fraud?

I saw a documentary on the Crystal Skulls recently, and there are groups of followers practically worshipping them.

To those devotees, proof that the skulls were made with 'modern' tools provides evidence of extra-terrestrial involvement.

Edited April 17, 2017 by acute
.

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmmm....no such thing as controversial subjects with both sides possibly having good points??

Hi, Papa.  Do you ever get tired of the same old routine, namely suggesting a side has good points, yet sorta forgetting to state what those good points are?

 

As you seem to unerringly and constantly avoid that request with the abilities of a snake oiled in silicon lubricant, let me be specific.  First up I assume that 'your' side is that which believes in the extraordinary claims made about some of the skulls - do correct me if I'm wrong there..  Then:

1. NAME the best example of a 'real' skull, and how you verified it - ie cite only the best of those good points... (see jaylemurph's excellent post above for an example of how to do that - it's pretty easy.

2. Are you claiming the skulls have 'powers'?  If so, again give the best evidence for that, and suitable cites.

[Hanslune]

I think papageorge is complaining that religious beliefs, ie that crystal skulls have magical powers, gets the short end of the stick in a discussion with/against science. He is right they do as science doesn't really take as evidence stuff what people believe in.

[Oniomancer]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't trust Wiki any further than I can throw it. Articles on paranormal figures and subjects have been edited by a group called Guerilla Skeptics. It is now just a collection of whatever negative things they can find with a dismissal of any evidence for the other side. I have seen articles change drastically about 2-3 years back.

Now, I have not looked that deeply into Crystal Skulls myself but have heard intriguing things, but my real point is a negative article in Wikipedia does not mean much.

Any wiki article worth it's salt always includes cited source material so you have to dispute those, not the article itself. Statements without such backing or lacking balanced counterpoints are subject to challenge. Articles prone to editing wars usually end up getting locked.

[Emma_Acid]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmmm....no such thing as controversial subjects with both sides possibly having good points??

OK, what paranormal subject on wikipedia has had objective, empirical facts proving its validity removed by these roving bands of skeptics?

[Emma_Acid]

6 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I think papageorge is complaining that religious beliefs, ie that crystal skulls have magical powers, gets the short end of the stick in a discussion with/against science. He is right they do as science doesn't really take as evidence stuff what people believe in.

It's the same old argument - people who buy into paranormal woo becoming annoyed that reality doesn't back them up.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

It's the same old argument - people who buy into paranormal woo becoming annoyed that reality doesn't back them up.

Yeah that's it. If someone states,  'I believe Harte is the manifestation of the Lemurian God, his secret name is Splat the marginally magnificent and Lord of unsightly body hair come to this earth', now you might believe that but it isn't believed by anybody else.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Hanslune

[oldrover]

It's the wearing thing about the paranormal, and it's more zealous exponents. If someone proves something is correct which they see as desirable, it's true. If it goes against what they prefer to believe, it's wrong, a set up made by people out to discredit their beliefs. It's always about them. They have no criteria for evaluating evidence, just their own arbitrary preferences. Their main defense to this usually being that scepticism equates to closed mindedness. Does it now, does it really. 

[papageorge1]

Alright all you guys. Apparently you are not aware of a major controversy going on with Wikipedia and the Guerilla Skeptics organization.

Here's an article.......Wikipedia Guerilla Skeptical Editing

Here's excerpts:

Wikipedia is a utopian ideal - founded on a belief that the world can collaborate to create an Encyclopedia. The fact that most of the content is superior to equivalent websites is testimony to this vision and the dedication of thousands of editors. Articles appear to be refreshingly free of agenda, advertising and sales pitches.

Unfortunately, this authoritative neutrality is often a facade. It is no secret that many agents and PR agencies use Wikipedia to promote pages associated with their clients.(Owens 2013) It's not just politicians, authors, musicians and actors "setting the record straight", corporations such as those in the pharmaceutical industry admit to having in-house editors "correcting errors".(Goldstein 2007) Mostly this is harmless promotion that still requires the collaboration of other editors.

However, anyone interested in pages on what Wikipedia term 'fringe' topics: those relating to astrology, the paranormal, metaphysics, faith/spirituality or alternative medicine or on atheism or scepticism (US spelling skepticism), will find editing is a closed shop controlled by a small group of editors. They are supported by at least two editors working full-time patrolling, editing and deleting these pages while claiming to be scientists. Under the cloak of anonymity, they each make up to ten thousand edits per year to ensure that scientism prevails, bad science is white-washed and inconvenient evidence is suppressed. Editors who challenge them are ridiculed, intimidated and pushed into being banned in a mock trial. How have they been able to do this so effectively?   I can claim myself that about two to three years ago or so, articles changed before my eyes from trying to present both sides of controversial paranormal issues to presenting only the skeptical side and then denigrating everything on the supportive side.   FEW PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PROPAGANDA WHEN IT IS  FOR THEIR  SIDE.

Edited April 17, 2017 by papageorge1

[Emma_Acid]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Alright all you guys. Apparently you are not aware of a major controversy going on with Wikipedia and the Guerilla Skeptics organization.

Here's an article.......Wikipedia Guerilla Skeptical Editing

Here's excerpts:

Wikipedia is a utopian ideal - founded on a belief that the world can collaborate to create an Encyclopedia. The fact that most of the content is superior to equivalent websites is testimony to this vision and the dedication of thousands of editors. Articles appear to be refreshingly free of agenda, advertising and sales pitches.

Unfortunately, this authoritative neutrality is often a facade. It is no secret that many agents and PR agencies use Wikipedia to promote pages associated with their clients.(Owens 2013) It's not just politicians, authors, musicians and actors "setting the record straight", corporations such as those in the pharmaceutical industry admit to having in-house editors "correcting errors".(Goldstein 2007) Mostly this is harmless promotion that still requires the collaboration of other editors.

However, anyone interested in pages on what Wikipedia term 'fringe' topics: those relating to astrology, the paranormal, metaphysics, faith/spirituality or alternative medicine or on atheism or scepticism (US spelling skepticism), will find editing is a closed shop controlled by a small group of editors. They are supported by at least two editors working full-time patrolling, editing and deleting these pages while claiming to be scientists. Under the cloak of anonymity, they each make up to ten thousand edits per year to ensure that scientism prevails, bad science is white-washed and inconvenient evidence is suppressed. Editors who challenge them are ridiculed, intimidated and pushed into being banned in a mock trial. How have they been able to do this so effectively?   I can claim myself that about two to three years ago or so, articles changed before my eyes from trying to present both sides of controversial paranormal issues to presenting only the skeptical side and then denigrating everything on the supportive side.   FEW PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PROPAGANDA WHEN IT IS  FOR THEIR  SIDE.

Again I'm asking - what subjects have had hard empirical facts that prove the subject's validity removed?

All I can see from that website is a bit of sore loser whinging - for example, not understanding why promoting something as useless as homeopathy is an issue. Which is incredibly naive.

[Swede]

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Alright all you guys. Apparently you are not aware of a major controversy going on with Wikipedia and the Guerilla Skeptics organization.

Which is entirely secondary to the actual research that has been conducted:

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/mitchell_hedges/

Credentials: http://anthropology.si.edu/staff/Walsh/Walsh.html

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/mysterious-objects/the-crystal-skulls-of-central-america/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-german-artisans-lay-claim-to-a-mysterious-tradition-a-790456.html

https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/crystal-skulls/

You are, of course, encouraged to supply credible references that would support your position. We will await.

.

 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Swede said:

Which is entirely secondary to the actual research that has been conducted:

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/mitchell_hedges/

Credentials: http://anthropology.si.edu/staff/Walsh/Walsh.html

http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/mysterious-objects/the-crystal-skulls-of-central-america/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-german-artisans-lay-claim-to-a-mysterious-tradition-a-790456.html

https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/crystal-skulls/

You are, of course, encouraged to supply credible references that would support your position. We will await.

.

 

Notice I haven't even supported Crystal Skulls in this discussion or even talked about them. I have just said a negative article on Wikipedia doesn't mean much to this fair-minded person. Get it? The OP person hasn't returned to defend his interest in Crystal Skulls. Hopefully we'll hear from him again, but I wouldn't hold my  breath.