Crystal Skulls - May 3oth 2011

[Christopher O'Brien]

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.

Its not the age or the method of fabrication, its the belief that these "power" objects are special that is interesting to me. You can't ascertain the age of quartz. You can only look for clues as to its manufacture, but you can gauge the affect of these objects in the new-age/true-believer subculture. Woo-whoo

Because this subject has engendered so much interest, I've contacted Stephen Mehler (arguably the top crystal skull researcher after Nocerino's passing) to be on the show. He has agreed to do an episode of the Paracast and help us all separate the signal from the noise i.e, scientific testing and the results from his years of research into the subject of "crystal skulls." I don't need to remind everybody here--that's what this show and forum are all about---getting to the core of these subjects, etc.

Ya'll beat'in a dead cow skull, imo. Its probably just a cow thing...

 

[Kieran]

Hi Kieran,

Frank Dorland (who worked for Hewlett Packard's advertising agency) seems to have been one of the first to notice that the skull was not ancient. He noted the machined carving on the item.

He claimed to have taken the skull to the HP labs where:



Is that what you are talking about? Subsequent (and more modern) tests have shown the skull to be of recent vintage and thus a modern fake, not an ancient artifact.

Lance

Lance, I've came across a number of websites with skeptics claiming this testing was never done by HP so don't know what to believe there! Its hard to know because you have many believers claiming one story, and many skeptics claiming another story. Is there any prove other the internet for this claim HP tested the Mitchel Hedges skull?

OK more Modern tests have happened since 1970.. Ok can you reveal to me who did the testing and the results of that? To be honest Lance, this this subject doesn't really interest me, but I came across this HP claim, so I thought it was worthy of mentioning, but was never sure of the claim.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yeah, science can accurately determine the age of quartz... re: Appl Phys A (2009) 94: 871–878 DOI 10.1007/s00339-008-5018-9

“The two methods used in this work converge and support the conclusion that the anthropomorphic head SP is possibly a genuine pre- Columbian artefact, whereas the rock crystal skull SK has to be considered as a forgery manufactured shortly before its introduction in museum collections in 1878. However further investigations on the QHD method are needed to understand the details of the hydrogen diffusion in natural quartz at room temperature and to improve the confidence in dating rock crystal artefacts. The impact of the various types of defects in quartz, in particular of those introduced by the lapidary techniques on the sample surface properties in connection with water uptake, has to be estimated. “ [my emphasis]

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Like most dating techniques, it is an estimate and it is a new technique. And I (nor they) made any great accuracy claims--just dating it after 1740.
The dating just adds further power to the slam dunk [ouch dude] evidence of modern tool use on the skull.

OK, hmm so, after 1740... Ohh I get it! They must have been carved by German diamond-tipped adepts at the behest of the Aryan Illuminati bankers (who, I've been told, still rule the world, heh-heh) as they create belief systems and manipulate reality with their time-travel technology--created underground at Dulce--based on occult gamatria and important astrological alignments...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

The main thing is that they aren't ancient and aren't Mayan.

“The two methods used in this work converge and support the conclusion that the anthropomorphic head SP is possibly a genuine pre- Columbian artefact [sic]..." There are skulls, Lance, that are worthy of further scientific study because they may be pre-columbian, if not older... got a problem with that?

 

[bitfiend]

Originally Posted by lancemoody
Here is a fantastic page on the Mitchell-Hedges skull relating Dr. Walsh's work and conclusions.



I read that when that magazine issue was published. I was surprised to see Archaeology giving any attention to the subject at all. I didn't realize it was online, thanks. It's a great resource.

Seriously, this is a demonstrably ridiculous subject. It's not even very interesting. (Except maybe from a human psychology standpoint.) Even if the skulls weren't manufactured recently, they are just pretty rocks that have been shaped by skillful hands. There is *nothing* that would lead anyone to believe that they are anything other than that except stories told by people of questionable sanity or scammers. If I make up a really good story about my (supposedly) 16th century Oni carved out of amber and a bunch of gullible serapi-clad folks believe me will it have to be subjected to tests to prove it doesn't harbor some strange power? It's very scary looking.

New age mythology is boring as hell. Please no more shows about this.

 

[Lauren Jones]

I agree. Let's please not have another show on this topic. The thread's been popular because the guest was ridiculous and Lance's terrific deconstruction of this bullshit. Do we really need another Crystal Skulls' expert on to set the record straight? If that's the case, is this gentleman not available?

 

[dyingsun]

Nice. That's the great thing here, agree to disagree, even 'fight' about it verbally, but never loose that sense of humour, paracast.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I agree. Let's please not have another show on this topic.

Hopefully Christopher can get Stephen Mehler to come on the show for more discussion on the subject. These type of shows are great!!!

 

[tyder001]

I stay out of these for the most part. I've never been into the skulls. But, I keep reading about how an artifact or a thing couldn't have a "feeling" or a "force." To be honest I don't know. But, I read a book by Katherine Ramsland who has a Masters in forensic psychology (Thanks google, cause a'h caint spill good.) Anyway, Ms. Ramsland wrote a book called "Ghost" if memory serves. Now, she did not come back a wild eyed believer but she did actually find some interesting phenomena. I think she would make a great guest. The only thing is she doesn't like one of the few shows that I like (Dexter) but she doesn't like it for professional reasons. She isn't a new age woo woo or a hard line debunker. Anyway, that's all I got to say about artifacts that give off a force or a feeling. I'll bow out now cause I'm kind of the opinion that psychology has more to say than test tubes when it comes to this type phenomena. However, by saying that I don't mean it's not real. I just mean that the human mind is a powerful entity and I don't think we have gotten anywhere near understanding ourselves and our world.

 

[Kieran]

Here[/URL] is an excellent paper by Dr. Walsh on the topic in full.

Here is a fantastic page on the Mitchell-Hedges skull relating Dr. Walsh's work and conclusions.

Just to summarize, Dr Walsh found that the history of the skull was fabricated (surprise!) and that the skull probably dates much more probably to the 1930's, shortly before it first surfaced.

Mr Dorland was the publicist for a successful tour of the skull and (as mentioned earlier) had an advertising background. I can find no reference to anyone at HP backing up the claims made by Dorland.

I would suggest that Dr. Walsh just may be the top expert in this matter.

Lance

Lance, The Mitchel Hedges Skull would still has some mystery for me personally, but am in agreement with you. The rest of the "Crystals Skulls' aren't' ancient or even mysterious, or that well-crafted. You'd only have to look at the Mitchel Hedges Skull Lance to tell it looks completely different to Max or Sha na Ra, and many of the other crystal Skulls

Anyway, HP did indeed test the Mitchel Hedges Skull in 1970 a fact that I found was being denied by lot of your Skeptic buddies on the Internet!

*Quote 1971 In the February issue of the Measure, Hewlett Packards company wide Newsletter, appears a report of the research on the Mitchel Hedges Skull*

I am though having difficulty in finding the actual real report from HP. So People on each of the debate can and will speculate widely about what was said without having the original report online to cite from. But there was an original source for that HP-Crystal skull claim, Lance!

Dr Walsh she is a qualified expert, but Lance, unfortunately experts can often be wrong even about subjects they'd have studied for many years and researched all their lifes. She obviously has her own views and pet theories about this subject, but if you can't date the Mitchel-Hedges Skull, then how can you claim it was made in the 1920's or earlier? You can't claim it was Ancient either if you can't put an accurate date on it! But if it was made in 1930 or earlier it wasn't made in a day in one week somebody really put lot of effort into making the Mitchel-Hedges Crystal skull ,for whatever reason?

Expert opinions.

When I pointed out an obvious flaw with some of the expert ballistic testimony given at the Warren Commission (that you posted Lance) you simply ignored the fact that one of the experts had claimed the bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carnano rifle are stable bullets, he admitted this your expert at the start of his testimony this very fact. His work in the ballistics field had found these bullets to be incredibility stable and reliable! But by the end of his testimony, he was creating theories for the commission, as to why the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back of the head allegedly became so unstable. Of course you don't don't see the flaw as I do been a skeptic, plus you don't question expert opinion, as I you told me back then in that discussion!

Finally Lance, it could be a hoax work and I am not saying at'all this skull has magical properties or believe it was made by the Mayan Culture, but am open minded, that it maybe ancient, but still made by human hands.

 

[Kieran]

Well I do agree lot of the claims made by the Skull believers have been exaggerated over the years, and if someone does eventually show and prove beyond all doubt the Mitchel-Hedges is a hoax, then I will fully accept this stuff is of legend!

I got that quote from number of websites, bu Lance what you posted does confirm this claim anyway but some of your Skepical friends have been lying by saying there was no HP testing of the Mitchel-Hedges Skull your link proves otherwise.

Testing the skull
In 1970, Longnecker was a young process engineer working in Santa Clara and the “go to” guy if you needed to fix or troubleshoot any of the HP lab machines.

“We were perhaps the largest of the companies in the U.S. that worked with natural quartz,” Longnecker said. “The stones were sorted for purity and other properties that would make the sliced quartz sections the best piezoelectric frequency references.” The crystals were then converted into gold-plated wafers that vibrated at a precise frequency.

“I suggested that we examine the skull in an alcohol that had the same optical coefficient of refraction as natural quartz to ensure it was in fact quartz,” Longnecker said.

They ordered extra benzyl alcohol and when they lowered the skull into the bath, “We literally saw the outside of the skull disappear. The bubble groups within the center and some dirt or other contamination was all that remained visible.”

A glass object submerged in the same alcohol would have been clearly outlined, so the experiment scientifically confirmed the object was crystal quartz.

 

[Kieran]

Hi Kieran,

Can you show me some links to these skeptical lies?

Lance

Well I have been reading this stuff over two days, so it will be hard for me to find the exact sites did not save for future reference on my computer.

 

[Kieran]

This is one site...crystal skull - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com Notice the way the person frames his wording.

He claims/ which is suggesting this claim the one claim came from one person only!

 

[Kieran]

Kieran!

Thanks for that. The page you link details more of the fabrications made by believers about the "report". As you can now see, none of that stuff is in the HP story.

I was really hoping that you could back up this:



This page certainly doesn't do that. Do you have any links that do?

Thanks,

Lance

A Lance you obviously can't accept your skeptical buddies have been caught twisting the story.

In 1970, Anna let Frank Dorland, a crystal carver, examine her skull. Dorland declared that it is excellent for scrying and it emits sounds and light, depending on the position of the planets. He claimed that the skull originated in Atlantis and was carried around by the Knights Templar during the crusades. He claims they had the skull examined at a Hewlett-Packard lab. D. Trull uncritically reports that the lab 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.*

Your Skeptical buddy is in roundabout way claiming here Dorland was lying that there was no testing of the skull, he then goes from and discussed why he is skeptical of Dorland version of The HP story.

Lance this link is enough to prove my point, I came across many more like it, but haven't got the time to be looking this all up again.

 

[Kieran]

Wow.

Ok. Party on.

If you happen to come across those links that show that "some of your Skepical friends have been lying by saying there was no HP testing of the Mitchel-Hedges Skull," I would be happy to see them. But your back pedaling is amusing to watch as well. I am good either way.

Just a quick pointer, if you are wrong on something (like I was about Dorland's occupation), some folks think the best policy is to just admit it. You don't look as silly that way.

In a not so roundabout way,

Lance

We do speak the same language don't we? Your an American living in a English speaking nation so surely you understand what this means

"He claims he had the skull examined at HP!!!!!!!!!!!! That wasn't a claim it is a fact, so were am I going wrong in my point Lance?

Maybe you should look up the word claim in the english dictionary...Like I said, proved my point hopefully others can see that I have?

 

[trainedobserver]

Indeed, hilariously, many of the things that the source claimed were in the report AREN'T IN THE REPORT AT ALL! It was all fabricated. This is why you shouldn't just accept anything someone says about the paranormal.

Exactly. This thread is absolutely fantastic. This is what separating the signal from the noise is supposed to be all about. Instead of garnering condescending comments in a future episode about skepticism in the forum it should generate some well deserved praise and appreciation.

 

[Kieran]

Lance you really can't see the obvious, that is phenomenon in itself lol!

I had not searched for the HP Newsletter for long, not for hours on end, only looked for a few minutes. I have other things to do offline. But you found it so it existed on the internet

Lance please stop your embarrassing yourself here.

Again Lance I will post what Robert T Carrol said

(Frank Dorland) "He claims they had the skull examined at a Hewlett Packard Lab'---last updated 12/9/10---back up with other facts?

HP did this testing in 1970 why is this still considered a claim today by Skeptics in 2010?

Whatever was said in the report is not the point Lance, either side. The point is your friend Robert is being skeptical that the testing even happened! You can from here continue discussing this with other people, as this debate is being to give me a awful headache.

By the way I agreed with you about the other crystal skulls so we are in agreement, laugh.

 

[trainedobserver]

The point is your friend Robert is being skeptical that the testing even happened!

So your contention is that being skeptical about it equates to lying about it! How laughable. That is absolutely ridiculous. Surely you don't mean that. Have I misunderstood your meaning?

 

[Kieran]

So your contention is that being skeptical about it equates to lying about it! How laughable. That is absolutely ridiculous. Surely you don't mean that. Have I misunderstood your meaning?

Hopefully Lance has seen my point by now and hopefully that is the reason why he has not responded back to me? Because anything but an acknowledgement of my point from here on lessens this discussion and his opinions!!

Train, I'm an Internet paranormal forum user. This person Robert T Carrol is posting to a website, that he probably runs himself, and his opinion's will influence members of the skeptical community and elsewhere to believe in a certain way about mysterious things. Been skeptical is fine with me, but Robert is using his Skepticism in a way that only can be viewed by me as being wrong!

I don't know what Robert was thinking back in 2010, but what he wrote is a lie! Dress it up whatever way you like Train my point at the end of the day is on solid ground. I will give you this.

Was it an intentional diversion of the truth? Don't know?

Did he simply not know there was a HP testing of the Mitchel-Hedges in 1970, Don't know?

But is a lie here not likely considering he wrote about the claim in 2010? Did he not care to research the HP claim to find out before writing his article? Lance found the Newsletter fairly quickly so what would be his excuse there? It shows a real lack of attention to the facts available.