Crystal Skulls - May 3oth 2011

[tyder001]

First of all the "claims" of psi research are far from debunked and just saying so doesn't make it so. There are many people over the ages that have tested and argued and continue to argue the validity of said claims. Some are cranks and some are Nobel Prize Winners and honest researchers. Science is not (and Lance is a smart man and he knows this) so cut and dried that every truth is established and praised by a everybody. So, you don't agree with the conclusions of any psi research from Rhine to Sheldrake to Josesphson to Echols to Monteagle to Swann. That's fine. I'm also skeptical. But, to say "no real evidence" is just dishonest. I admit my bias. I want there to be a spiritual reality to the world. So, do look at the evidence differently? Hell Yeah! But, I hope I'm honest enough to admit the truth when I see it or hear it. Right now that's where I am with this paranomal stuff.

Now to the other stuff. Lance you come off as a very intelligent person but also as somebody who has pretty much made up their mind (fairly or unfairly) that it's all bunk. I can accept that and you have been pretty respectful to me during my rants. But, Chris is a co host of this show. Let me ask you this and I'm being candid here. If somebody went on the Randi forum and everytime he made a statement they went back and picked at some of his mistatements and the times that others have called him a lyer and constantly belittled him and his research how long would they be allowed on that forum? I'm just asking because I remember Angel saying to me one time (on this forum by the way not in a pm) that I would be ridiculed on that forum but not banned. A'h thank a'hd rather be banned. Just something to think about and I just wondered.

Finally, to Angel. Why were you out of line? Well, that's just an opinion. But, in my opinion you are a mod on this board. You are part of the team with Chris and Gene and Don and Ron. Therefore you should at least try to be objective and when the host is brought into ridicule you should at least not openly take sides. I know this is going in one ear and out the other casue I know you don't think you have taken sides. It's one thing to say "Chris I don't agree with you" it's another to openly thank somebody in the middle of an antagonistic argument. I love coffee and I remember going into Starbucks one day. I asked the person behind the counter "Is this new flavor good?" She said I don't know. I hate coffee. Now that was her right. But if I had been the manager of that store and heard that I would have told her to either tone it down or find a job sellling something she liked. Not because she didn't have the right not to love coffee. But, to openly deride it was not excatly making the buisness look very inviting to people who were there to try out the coffee. Just my two cents. I still think you do a great job on the whole as a mod. It's just that knee jerk "yea skeptics" thing that gets a little old.

 

[J.T.]

I'm curious. All those who fall into the 'skeptic' side of the debate, what do you think of animal's having a 'connection' with their owners/keepers?

Does your cat sense when it's time to go to see the vet? Does your dog know when you're coming home, even at an unusual time?

Do any of the studies done on these subjects even halfway convince you?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

it's another to openly thank somebody in the middle of an antagonistic argument.

I thanked Lance for apologizing. People don't do that enough on the internet. Chris has every right to be angry that what he and Lance shared in a PM was used in the forum. I was "thanking" the apology, not condoning why he had to apologize.

 

[tyder001]

The "apology" wasn't to you. Still, Angel I understand what you are saying. I don't think you are objective on this but I can't throw many stones. I'm not objective when it comes to my worldview either. The best you can do (if you choose to do so) is to look at your own motives and biases. But, even that sounds a little more high minded and haughty than I mean for it to.

Peace.
Steve.

 

[trainedobserver]

I want there to be a spiritual reality to the world.

What do you define spiritual reality as? I see the real world of quantum mechanics that is on the other side of the senses as fitting all the requirements of a spiritual reality. It's largely a matter of terminology don't you think? Given that the worlds we individually experience and think of as real are actually our individual consciousnesses, or own individual subjective realities, it seems like something we should factor into our understanding or how we understand ourselves and the universe. What seems real isn't. What is real is an invisible, intangible, quantum soup that cannot be directly experienced. That's weird enough for me and provides a mechanism for practically any paranormal phenomena I could mention. The perceptual barrier is a major factor and provides a great deal of latitude for the unknown.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The "apology" wasn't to you. Still, Angel I understand what you are saying. I don't think you are objective on this but I can't throw many stones. I'm not objective when it comes to my worldview either. The best you can do (if you choose to do so) is to look at your own motives and biases. But, even that sounds a little more high minded and haughty than I mean for it to.

Peace.
Steve.

What's to be objective? Lance shared something that Chris told him in confidence, and Chris was understandably angry. Lance should not have done that. He apologized.
That's it.

If you're talking about being objective with regards to the guest, well, I think the consensus is that he was way out there.

 

[tyder001]

What do you define spiritual reality as? I see the real world of quantum mechanics that is on the other side of the senses as fitting all the requirements of a spiritual reality. It's largely a matter of terminology don't you think? Given that the worlds we individually experience and think of as real are actually our individual consciousnesses, or own individual subjective realities, it seems like something we should factor into our understanding or how we understand ourselves and the universe. What seems real isn't. What is real is an invisible, intangible, quantum soup that cannot be directly experienced. That's weird enough for me and provides a mechanism for practically any paranormal phenomena I could mention. The perceptual barrier is a major factor and provides a great deal of latitude for the unknown.

I don't know how much I agree with but I certainly can see the "sense" of what you are trying to say here. It seems really close to some of my own thoughts or am I missing something since we seem to always disagree about the afterlife? Anyway, I "think" I kind of get this.

 

[trainedobserver]

It seems really close to some of my own thoughts or am I missing something since we seem to always disagree about the afterlife?

I do not believe in an after-life. I don't think the human personality survives the death of the body. I suspect that we are actually part of a larger system that is for all intents and purposes eternal, however our illusionary individual natures along with our consciousness vanishes when the brain stops functioning. That's the way I've come to think about it anyway.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If you're talking about being objective with regards to the guest, well, I think the consensus is that he was way out there.

I finally listened to the show, Friday afternoon( Australian time). It was exactly the type of Crystal Skull show i imagined it would be. Except that the guest wasn't nearly as bad as everyone made him out to be. Sure his views on some things were different than the views of some here, but so what? The mere topic of Crystal Skulls is going to get the non believers, (in anything psi), sphincters a-twitchin', but that's to be expected.
As for Christopher's comment re: being able to feel energies from the skull,"Max", I still say if he says he does then i have no reason to doubt him. I don't think he has to subject himself to a battery of tests to verify this, it's just his personal opinion and one formed after actually having seen or touched the skull, something that the vast majority of people here have not.
Overall i thought it was an enjoyable show.

I'm curious. All those who fall into the 'skeptic' side of the debate, what do you think of animal's having a 'connection' with their owners/keepers?

I agree. I definitely think that owners and their pets can have an incredible connection.

I want there to be a spiritual reality to the world. So, do look at the evidence differently? Hell Yeah!

I'm right with you on that one Steve

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

As for Christopher's comment re: being able to feel energies from the skull,"Max", I still say if he says he does then i have no reason to doubt him. I don't think he has to subject himself to a battery of tests to verify this, it's just his personal opinion and one formed after actually having seen or touched the skull, something that the vast majority of people here have not.

Obviously, I cut-to-the-chase with my off-hand comment (its only a 2 hr show and I wasn't the guest), but to amplify my experience (if you are interested): I remember seeing the artifact in Crestone after working construction all day. I remember I was tired, but looking forward meeting Joanne and seeing Max..

Don't forget: I became embroiled in a minor controversy after a twisted glass, "alien-looking" skull had been supposedly found on a ranch 12 miles away. Make a long story short, I ended up finding out that this SLV skull had a very mundane explanation and I researched, investigated, contacted the top experts and then DEBUNKED MYSELF-- (read my 1st two books...) Also: I have seen a number of the more famous skulls and this experience w/ Max was imho the most noteworthy.

When I went to meet Joanna and see "Max," the first thing I remember was how impressed I was with the craftsmanship. It was only lit with overhead fluorescent lighting, but there seemed to be unusual light refraction properties when looking into the matrix of the crystal from different angles. The light reflecting inside the skull seemed almost fractal in nature--kaleidoscopic, if you will. I SENSED what I can only describe as "unusual energetic properties" as if a holographic visual display was about to occur inside the matrix. OK, I was tired, excited and eager to see Max, but I attempted to view it with a (fairly well-honed) sense of objective acuity. No big deal--go ahead--sue me...

Of course, I'd welcome the chance to fully bring to the equation the powers of modern diagnostic science to fully investigate the best of these so-called crystal skulls. Hell, let's conduct double blind tests with sensitives, regular folks and even staunch debunker-types to study these beautiful works of art! If they are truly special, it would be worth the effort and cost to find out why.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Glad to see your all back being friends & Ja Love

 

[Kieran]

In all honesty, some of his claims during the show were bordering on the outrageous. For me. The "Crystal Skulls" don't hold alien information, least it has not been proven yet, and I kind of doubt it will be. However after watching the Stargate TV series over a number of years. I have always been fascinated as to why the Alien 'Ghoul" Mothership's were powered by motherboards that held many different types of colored crystals. One can scoff at TV shows like this, but SCI-I shows like this can often be glimpses to our future, the Stargate itself lol perhaps not, however future achievements by science could find out eventually Crystals with the right processes can hold and store computerized information?The Quartz itself could be causing some unusual sensations in certain people, doesn't make it paranormal, could be just an undocumented, non tested byproduct of the Quartz?

There is a creation myth of the Mayans were they claim Crystal Skulls were made, is it just stuff of legend, one can assume that without having prove any of these Crystals Skulls are Mayan!

Anyways I have never studied looked up this subject till I heard this show, but this information I came across is intriguing and makes you wonder if true! If one can confirm HP did this then obviously we have least one Crystal skull that one could consider here very mysterious.

ww.dreamscape.com/morgana/nereid2.htm


"The Mitchell-Hedges skull is made of clear quartz crystal, and both cranium and mandible are believed to have come from the same solid block. It weighs 11.7 pounds and is about five inches high, five inches wide, and seven inches long. Except for slight anomalies in the temples and cheekbones, it is a virtually anatomically correct replica of a human skull. Because of its small size and other characteristics, it is thought more closely to resemble a female skull -- and this has led some to refer to the Mitchell-Hedges skull as a "she."

The Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories for extensive study in 1970. Art restorer Frank Dorland oversaw the testing at the Santa Clara, California, computer equipment manufacturer, a leading facility for crystal research. The HP examinations yielded some startling results.

Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods.

To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete.

Under these circumstances, experts believe that successfully crafting a shape as complex as the Mitchell-Hedges skull is impossible; as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be."

The Mitchell-Hedges skull is the quintessential crystal skull, but there are many others. Much of the crystal skull lore speaks of there being a total of thirteen in existence, all of them linked together in some mystical way. A strange kinship among crystal skulls is often noted, and not just because of mineral or structural similarities -- some who claim sensitivity to the skulls' energies have observed that skulls seem to interact as if they "know each other" when gathered at one place.

Whether they may be scattered cousins belonging to one big skull family, there are far more than thirteen crystal skulls in the world. The following is a listing of a few of them.

There is a pair of similar skulls known as the British Crystal Skull and the Paris Crystal Skull. Both are said to have been bought by mercenaries in Mexico in the 1890s, possibly at the same time. They are so similar in size and shape that some have guessed that one was copied to produce the other. In comparison to the Mitchell-Hedges skull, they are made of cloudier clear crystal and are not nearly as finely sculpted. The features are superficially etched and appear incomplete, without discretely formed jawbones. The British Crystal Skull is on display at London's Museum of Mankind, and the Trocadero Museum of Paris houses the Paris Crystal Skull.

Further examples of primitively sculpted skulls are a couple called the Mayan Crystal Skull and the Amethyst Skull. They were discovered in the early 1900s

The Mitchell-Hedges skull is made of clear quartz crystal, and both cranium and mandible are believed to have come from the same solid block. It weighs 11.7 pounds and is about five inches high, five inches wide, and seven inches long. Except for slight anomalies in the temples and cheekbones, it is a virtually anatomically correct replica of a human skull. Because of its small size and other characteristics, it is thought more closely to resemble a female skull -- and this has led some to refer to the Mitchell-Hedges skull as a "she."

The Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories for extensive study in 1970. Art restorer Frank Dorland oversaw the testing at the Santa Clara, California, computer equipment manufacturer, a leading facility for crystal research. The HP examinations yielded some startling results.

Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods.

To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete.

Under these circumstances, experts believe that successfully crafting a shape as complex as the Mitchell-Hedges skull is impossible; as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be."

The Mitchell-Hedges skull is the quintessential crystal skull, but there are many others. Much of the crystal skull lore speaks of there being a total of thirteen in existence, all of them linked together in some mystical way. A strange kinship among crystal skulls is often noted, and not just because of mineral or structural similarities -- some who claim sensitivity to the skulls' energies have observed that skulls seem to interact as if they "know each other" when gathered at one place.

Whether they may be scattered cousins belonging to one big skull family, there are far more than thirteen crystal skulls in the world. The following is a listing of a few of them.

There is a pair of similar skulls known as the British Crystal Skull and the Paris Crystal Skull. Both are said to have been bought by mercenaries in Mexico in the 1890s, possibly at the same time. They are so similar in size and shape that some have guessed that one was copied to produce the other. In comparison to the Mitchell-Hedges skull, they are made of cloudier clear crystal and are not nearly as finely sculpted. The features are superficially etched and appear incomplete, without discretely formed jawbones. The British Crystal Skull is on display at London's Museum of Mankind, and the Trocadero Museum of Paris houses the Paris Crystal Skull.

Further examples of primitively sculpted skulls are a couple called the Mayan Crystal Skull and the Amethyst Skull. They were discovered in the early 1900s

[SNIP---chris]

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

As mentioned on the show, here is a photo of "Max," --considered to be a prehistoric crystal skull:

Here is the Michel-Hedges skull. Note the moveable jaw thought to be carved in one piece from the same crystal as the skull:

If anyone is interested, I co-produced an informative DVD about the crystall skulls. Contact me if you'd like to get a copy---chris

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

"With the guidance of Jane MacLaren Walsh representing the Smithsonian Institution Crystal Skull, along with Margaret Sax, a scientist representing the British Museum Crystal Skull, there were extensive tests carried out at the British Museum's Research Laboratory in 1996. These tests concluded that the Smithsonian Museum Crystal Skull and the British Museum Crystal Skull were not as ancient as they were purported to be, and were therefore reclassified. The Smithsonian Crystal Skull was determined to be a contemporary crystal skull. Jane MacLaren Walsh believes that it was perhaps carved in Mexico shortly before it was purchased in 1960, and therefore refers to it as a "modern fake".

"It is not widely known that part of the scientific experiments at the British Museum Laboratory also included the crystal skulls Sha Na Ra and Max (the Texas Crystal Skull). After extensive testing, Sha Na Ra and Max were proven not to be fakes, but for some reason the research lab refused to disclose the full test results for these two crystal skulls. You can read an eyewitness account of this in the book "The Mystery of the Crystal Skulls" by Chris Morton and Ceri Louise Thomas, who were present during this research and testing of the group of crystal skulls."

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Nick Nocerino told me he considered Max to be a rare ancient skull. He was widely considered to be the top crystal skull researcher. That's good enough for me. I'll restate my caption from above. --considered [by some] to be a prehistoric crystal skull--. I'm done here...

 

[Lauren Jones]

Nick Nocerino working with his investigative partner and close friend, Sylvia Browne, on this classic episode of In Search Of.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, no one can blame Lance for not following up on things. Thanks for that.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

He he! Dan is so cool.

I kept looking for a Bass-O-Matic on the bar somewhere...

 

[trainedobserver]

I spoke with Dr. Jane Walsh at the Smithsonian by telephone and email.

Wow. Thanks for looking into that and sharing your findings. 99 out of 100 people would not have bothered. I think Dr. Walsh would make an excellent guest for the show. It would be an interesting follow up to the very popular crystal skull episode.

 

[Kieran]

But what about Helwett-Packard Laboratories results after they had done an extensive study with one of the crystal skulls the Mitchel Hedges in 1970, If true, what they found is extraordinary, if false then there is nothing to this subject in my opinion.