Crystal Skulls Deemed Fake | March 4, 2013 Issue - Vol. 91 Issue 9 | Chemical & Engineering News
  • CORRECTION: This story was updated on March 14, 2013, to indicate that the goblet pictured is pre-Columbian, not Aztec.

Volume 91 Issue 9 | pp. 48-49
Issue Date: March 4, 2013

Crystal Skulls Deemed Fake

A potpourri of analytical techniques reveals purported Aztec sculptures are not bona fide
Department: Science & Technology
News Channels: Analytical SCENE, Materials SCENE
Keywords: crystal, Aztec, skulls, quartz, fake
One of the suspicious features of this fake pre-Columbian Aztec skull is the impossibly perfect teeth.
Credit: James Di Loreto/Smithsonian Institution
One of the suspicious features of this fake pre-Columbian Aztec skull is the impossibly perfect teeth.
Credit: James Di Loreto/Smithsonian Institution
Researchers looked at the surface of this real pre-Columbian artifact to help determine that the crystal skulls were frauds.
Credit: Museum of Oaxacan Cultures
Researchers looked at the surface of this real pre-Columbian artifact to help determine that the crystal skulls were frauds.
Credit: Museum of Oaxacan Cultures
Hand-carved quartz crystal (left) has irregular etching marks, whereas machine-carved rock (right) has a regular pattern, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy.
Credit: British Museum
Hand-carved quartz crystal (left) has irregular etching marks, whereas machine-carved rock (right) has a regular pattern, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy.
Credit: British Museum
These iron chlorite inclusions found in the British Museum's fake skull are found only in quartz from Brazil or Madagascar but not Mexico.
Credit: British Museum
These iron chlorite inclusions found in the British Museum's fake skull are found only in quartz from Brazil or Madagascar but not Mexico.
Credit: British Museum

Humans seem to have a predilection for fake quartz-crystal Aztec skulls. Since the 1860s, dozens of skull sculptures have appeared on the art market purporting to be pre-Columbian artifacts from Mesoamerica, that is, created by the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Central America prior to Spanish exploration and conquest in the 16th century. Three such skulls have graced the collections of major museums on both sides of the Atlantic: the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., the British Museum in London, and the Quai Branly Museum in Paris.

As early as the 1930s, some experts began to have doubts about the authenticity of the skulls, says Margaret Sax, a conservation scientist at the British Museum. But for a long time researchers “didn’t have the scientific means to follow up” on their hunches, she adds. Over the past two decades researchers at all three museums have capitalized on analytical science innovations to show that these peculiar skulls are not unusual Aztec artifacts but post-Columbian fakes.

Nowadays the market for crystal skulls is limited to Indiana Jones fans, New Age devotees, and people in the goth and punk subcultures. But in the 1860s, when the skulls appeared on the market, many people in Europe sported little skeletons on rings, pendants, or other personal trinkets to remind them of their own mortality, says Jane Walsh, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. It was a French dealer named Eugène Boban who capitalized on this fascination with the macabre, as well as Europe’s growing interest in and ignorance of Mesoamerican artifacts, to slip some of the first sham skulls into museums.

Walsh has traced fake crystal skulls at the British Museum and the Quai Branly Museum back to Boban, who sold them to art dealers who then sold them to the museums more than 100 years ago. The Smithsonian skull, however, showed up in the mail in 1992, as an anonymous donation. Its arrival motivated Walsh to contact the British Museum to discuss the skulls. That conversation catalyzed the scientific and historical research that finally proved the objects were phonies.

The British and American team were particularly suspicious of the skulls because they hadn’t come from documented archaeological sites. And something was wrong with the skulls’ teeth. Although skulls do appear as motifs in Aztec art, most representations of teeth in authentic pieces reflect the dentistry—or lack thereof—of the time. The teeth in the suspect skulls seemed too linear, too perfect, Sax explains.

So the team took a closer look at the skulls’ surfaces. As a benchmark, they borrowed a legitimate Mesoamerican crystal goblet from the Museum of Oaxacan Cultures, in Mexico. Then they used scanning electron microscopy to compare these surfaces.

It turns out that the surface of the authentic goblet has irregular etch marks, a sign that the pieces were carved with hand-held tools. But the surface of the suspect skulls have regular etch marks, evidence that they were made with rotary wheels and hard abrasives, which appeared only after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Walsh says.

Looking even closer at the British Museum’s skull, the team discovered green, wormlike inclusions in the rock. Raman spectroscopy revealed that the inclusions were an iron-rich chlorite mineral. Although this kind of trace impurity is found in rock crystal from Brazil or Madagascar, it is not found in Mexican crystal, Walsh says.

The team also noticed a small deposit of something curious in the Smithsonian’s skull. By using X-ray diffraction they discovered the deposit was silicon carbide, a synthetic abrasive used in stone-carving workshops only starting in the mid-20th century. This damning residue revealed the Smithsonian skull had likely been made mere decades before the anonymous donor sent the skull by mail, Walsh says.

As the British Museum and Smithsonian researchers began amassing evidence in the 1990s and 2000s that the skulls in their collections were certainly not of Aztec origin, museum staff at the Quai Branly Museum decided to scrutinize a crystal skull and a human head sculpture in their collection. Both objects were acquired through the controversial dealer Boban, and both were purported to be pre-Columbian.

The crystal skull at the Quai Branly Museum, like the fakes at the Smithsonian and British Museum, had a suspiciously perfect set of teeth, whereas the head had more realistic human features, the French researchers noted in a 2009 report (Appl. Phys. A, DOI: 10.1007/s00339-008-5018-9).

The French team dated the two objects using a noninvasive method that measures how deep water penetrates into rock objects. The method relies on shooting helium ions at an object’s surface and analyzing the interaction of the ion beam with the hydrogen in water at increasing depths in the sculpture. Then the water penetration is compared with samples of known ages. They found that the crystal skull had likely been made after the Spanish conquest, whereas the anthropomorphic head was likely made in pre-Columbian times.

The fact that one of the Boban-sourced artifacts at the Quai Branly Museum is fake whereas the other is probably a legitimate pre-Columbian artifact speaks to the dealer’s fascinating and controversial role in the movement of Mesoamerican artifacts in the late-19th century. Boban initially left France to join California’s gold rush, but after failing to strike it rich, he went to Central America and began exporting Mayan and Aztec artifacts, says Walsh, who is writing a book about him. “Most of the objects he sold were legitimate,” she says. “But his big-ticket items were for the most part fake.” A century after his crimes, modern analytical chemistry continues to help museum researchers separate Boban’s bona fide pieces from the bogus. ◾

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © American Chemical Society
Dudley Varner  (March 11, 2013 6:48 PM)
The goblet is not Aztec but instead is Mixtec from Oaxaca.
Sarah E  (March 13, 2013 5:50 AM)
Hi Dudley, Thanks. You are absolutely correct. We will change "Aztec" in the caption to "pre-Columbian". The Mixtec and Aztec used similar tools and were in close contact, which is why the researchers used the goblet as a reference. Sarah
Michael  (March 12, 2013 3:31 PM)
I think it was fairly probable that the majority of the skulls are fake. However, this does not prove that the Mitchell Hedges skull is so. Firstly it was found in 1933, secondly it is miles apart in quality from the others. I do not buy for a second that this one is fake. To label this as "Crystal skulls deemed fake" is misleading and untrue. You should have said, "SOME".
Swolfmoon  (March 13, 2013 2:06 AM)
Yes, absolutely. I can't stand it when "journalists" sensationalize a story with a title that will grab someone's attention...just for their own attention. Misleading and untrue are serious understatements.
KatS  (March 13, 2013 11:25 AM)
Actually Michael the MH skull has been studied and proven fake as well. Even the lady who supposedly found the skull as a young girl has had her story questioned. It seems she was not on the dig at which she says she found the skull.

There is some incredible pre-columbian crystal work, the skulls (as far as we know) just ain't them.
MikeA  (March 13, 2013 6:53 PM)
Smithsonian study in 2008 shows evidence of high-speed cutting tools on Mitchell-Hedges skull:
Just listen  (June 5, 2015 5:33 PM)
The Smithsonian is such an unreliable source. What about the giant skulls that "never existed" now they admit to destroying giant skulls and bones.

"They" are hiding North America's true history. Mounds builders,Mayans, and even Vikings and Knights Templar remains and artifacts have been found in North America. Yet no one hears about this. Lets be sheeple and believe the goverment that has been caught in lies from testing on humans, Watergate, The entire Vietnam War, etc. Etc.
Ramona  (June 19, 2015 8:43 PM)
I agree, and I believe that the Smithsonian is not known for telling the truth about anything.
Truth  (September 16, 2015 11:32 AM)
Do you have any source for this claim?
nosleep  (April 22, 2013 6:03 AM)
the mitchel hedges skull is indeed a fake, the father of the girl who claimed to have found it while on a trip with her father, had it long before that,she did not find it, it was found or made long before that.
there are records of him atempting to put it up for auction, news paper articles, letters between him and a media friend suggesting idea's about how to improve the chance of convincing people its real.

there is a whole heap of very solid evidence that shows at the very least, that it was not found when he claims and that he was well aware of its 'none ancient' history.
Jasmin  (August 1, 2014 7:40 AM)
Actually, It was found in 1927. But I agree with your statement.
Jasmin  (August 4, 2014 4:57 AM)
I was referring to Michael's statement. The MH skull is not a fake, studies and tests administered by many have shown that. Hewlett Packard (the computer company) have administered some of these tests. The skull was carved by hand, because modern machinery would have shattered the piece. Remember that it is made from crystal, which is only slightly softer than diamond. Using modern carving tools would have shattered the skull because of the vibrations produced. Carving from a substance this solid and brittle would have taken at least 300 years.
Joe  (November 28, 2014 8:23 PM)
Slightly softer than diamond!?!? Diamond is the hardest known substance to mankind. The comparison between crystal and diamond to its softness is laughable.
skyler  (March 2, 2015 1:09 AM)
not the hardest known to man an animal was discovered with teeth harder than diamond diamond is the hardest rock we know of not hardest organic material
alanborky  (March 12, 2013 6:29 PM)
What tends to be forgotten about these skulls whether or not they're fake's that almost from the moment they began to be 'discovered' various parties've attempted to prove they were products of 'incredible' secret techniques supposedly known only to the ancients or merely modern fakes by subjecting their surfaces to all manner of tools and processes some of which inevitably left traces of their own.

The Brazilian iron chlorite inclusions I suggest's a red herring unless it can be proved it's Madagascan because for the right materials pre-Columbian civilizations demonstrated a willingness not only to wage far flung wars but also to mount expeditions covering very large distances over enormously difficult jungle and mountainous terrains risking attacks from all manner of hostile tribes to bring even extremely fragile materials like enormous sheets of formica to line their temples.

CST  (April 13, 2013 9:26 PM)
Now that is amazing....
Maybe mica?
alissa mower clough  (April 13, 2013 9:54 PM)
I believe you mean "mica" not "formica". Formica is an American brand name for a kind of plastic. Now, if they'd used oil paints on thick woven cloth, they could have invented linoleum.
chanpreet  (March 13, 2013 12:13 PM)
I agree with Michael it's unfortunate that for attention you mislead the reader with your title.
Gary Randall  (March 13, 2013 12:33 PM)
Don't forget that the mica chamber close to the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotwachen (sp) contains mica sheets that came all the way from Brazil. So why could the crystal for the skull not also have come from Brazil?
corky  (March 13, 2013 1:40 PM)
I believe MIT did an indepth analysis of the Mitchell-Hedges late 20th century. Human-hours were calculated, surfaces were analysed, and conclusions made. Results confirm this type of artifact remains anomalous as to craft technology--practically impossible to repeat with our highest technology.

I agree with Michael-- new analysis is appreciated but oddly slanted bias and overly generalized statements that attempt to encompass the entire collection of these artifacts is misleading. Let's work to provide balance--these are extremely important issues regarding global technologies from the remote past....We need to respect the fact that mysteries that confound modern science exist, and this remains one.
buck  (March 13, 2013 5:02 PM)
just wait till all 13 of them get together !! oh my my !!??
Htos1  (March 13, 2013 6:10 PM)
Not *all* are fake.And you engineers KNOW it.Hedges skull is real,and in a pure crystalline state,and oh yeah,show us how it's "faked'.
WP  (March 19, 2013 11:54 AM)
It is fake too. All are fakes, there is nogenuine precolumbian crystal skull. So please, stop believing in fairy tales
AwakenHumanity  (October 31, 2013 10:32 AM)
WP: you are the one who is believing the "fairy tales" that the media has brain washed your weak mind with, your statement is nothing more than regurgitated propaganda and denial spun by the elitist puppets who don't want the world to know of the powers these skulls possess and offer to humanity.

- I hope you and the rest of the sheep wake up instead of taking media "fairy tales" for gospel.
Just listen  (June 6, 2015 11:34 AM)
Ummmmmm, they just mentioned that they have proven there is one that is precolumbian. On top of that, how can you take a goblet and compare it to something the size of the skull and say they weren't made the same? Of course they weren't. One was made by precolombian humans. One they have no idea on how it was made. They couldn't reproduce it today, yet they say it was produced in modern times. Now that makes since. Kind of like the pyramids throughout the world or other megalithic structures like pumapunku, todays mason with the saws and technology they have today say they COULDN'T reproduce the perfect cuts or as large of flat cuts that were being made 5000 maybe even 10,000 years ago. Maybe their technology was way advanced compared to ours.

It's okay. I know that's a lot to digest, so go to church and believe. Have "faith" that one being that looks like us created all this. Oh and dinosaur bones were planted by him to confuse us. If "they" can get you to believe or have "faith" in that cockamamy B.S. they can make you believe that they care about you and are taking care of you and that Freedom costs all your $$$$ and fake events to continue making $$$$ off of you. They get rich, the sheeple or herd of humans gets sick off their food and public water with chemicals added so a Dr. (medical PRACTITIONER) can PRACTICE on you and never make you better to make more $$$$.
Kendall Ray Morgan  (March 13, 2013 7:46 PM)
Not all of the crystal skulls are fake,,, Facebook: Kendall Ray Morgan
derpa  (March 13, 2013 9:45 PM)
This proves nothing
JIM HICKS  (March 13, 2013 10:26 PM)
I BE WITH THE 'LOOSE JAWED' Mitchell Hedges skull A FEW TIMES.
Arthur  (March 13, 2013 11:51 PM)
I find your article misleading. Although you did not state outright that all such skulls are fake, the implication is strongly there, especially in light of your comment likening belief in them to Indiana Jones fantasy. Don't forget, one law of logic: just because one fake can be found does not prove that all are fakes. This is as specious an argument as claiming that all $20 bills are countefeit just because you have produced one tht is.
» Reply
WP  (March 19, 2013 11:55 AM)
All known skulls are fakes. Here is about MH skull -
» Reply
MTY  (February 17, 2014 6:10 PM)
That's like claiming "just because the Cardiff Giant was fake doesn't mean all alleged 10+ foot giant humanoid bodies found in North America fake." It may not be absolute proof, but when comparing the complete lack of archaeological parallel in terms of workmanship, the chronological context in a period of wide-spread artifact hoax profiteering, and the complete lack of similar items sourced from reputable persons in the field, belief in the legitimacy of these skulls is relegated to Sasquatch status. In some people's minds, it will never be disproven, because they want so badly for this bit of mystery and wonderment to continue.
» Reply
Klaus  (March 14, 2013 12:36 AM)
When will they discover that Charles Darwin's "discoveries" of the 1860s were fake, too?
foo  (March 16, 2013 6:44 PM)
people are fake - when will the fake davis obama be deconstructed and punished ?
Tomalak  (March 14, 2013 3:15 PM)
Does this mean these worthless fakes will be sold on the cheap? I wouldn't mind getting one to put next to the fireplace.
WP  (March 19, 2013 11:45 AM)
Mitchell-Hedges skull is fake too -
Mark Bellis  (April 8, 2013 8:33 AM)
Mitchell-Hedges bought the skull from a collector in the UK for 400 pounds in 1944 - no one ever thought it was a real ancient artifact before he started claiming he'd found it in Belize, something that no one else who was with him in Belize at the time is recorded as remembering. It is a nice piece of quartz and certainly was worth the 400 pounds in 1944. I saw and handled it in 1996, and it had a large scratch on it - it's made of quartz, not a superhard material that requires carving techniques unknown to ancient cultures, and both ancient and modern artists have used quartz as material with contemporary techniques.
Bernardo Junco  (May 10, 2013 11:02 AM)
Muralist and collector Diego Rosales has a collection of Crystal Skulls he has aquired over the last 65 years in Mexico. His knowledge and understanding of pre-columbian mexican history makes him one of the most revelant individuals still alive today. In time his writings and studies will be made public to better understand the world we live in.
Paul  (May 28, 2013 6:38 PM)
My god you are all nuts...........
. Lady hedges was never there at the site. A chiniesse artists who makes crystal skulls made a n almost perfect replica of the it can be done. Also mr hedges was provin to have bought the crystal skull at a sothibeis autction. In the 1936. I would love to believe their is magic in this world but sometimes there just aren't.
Annaisannoyed  (August 1, 2013 1:15 AM)
Why would the history channel ancient aliens get me all excited about this :( I was hoping some cool stuff like this was legit.
KWM  (August 24, 2013 2:07 AM)
Fake or not, I find it interesting that most of the people who post here have different stories about how/why the MH skull is fake - and there are several conflicting dates on when it was "actually" obtained by Mr. Hedges - and you all have some sort of "proof", or actually held it/examined it, etc. etc. etc... So, from a standpoint of not knowing anything about it, with all the conflicting "facts" (that don't jive with each other), one would have to conclude that the debate is still up for grabs, simply because, if some of you are wrong (you can’t all be right), in my opinion, you all could be wrong.
stathis  (September 14, 2013 2:15 AM)
Its very sad that when people want to beleive to something ( or need to) they lower them selves to warship material fakes ( as the skulls are). Slowly- slowly technology proves that all those ( ALL) were created after 1930 with modern tools.
One think I would really like is to speak with those people they use to beleive and promote the skulls, to hear what they wioll say after the joke of the myth has collapsed.
WakeUp  (November 5, 2013 2:16 AM)
I disagree completely,I think what is truly sad is dis-informed people like yourself, pretend to know what they are talking about(when they clearly dont) make such ignorant and uneducated remarks again, like yourself, based only on someone else's DISINFORMATION they have been fed.

The statement you made, and I quote:
"people want to beleive to something (or need to) they lower them selves to warship material fakes ( as the skulls are)"

Ive got a few questions about that line.
Firstly, where did you hear such a laughable narrow minded lie (or how did you form such a ludacrous false opinion) that people such as myself, who truly believe that the crystal skulls (some of them) are in fact ancient objects
"lower them selves to warship material fakes"? - and im assuming you mean 'WORSHIP'

(And Im leaving out the possibilities of who or what shaped them or where they truly came from) you know why? Because I don't know, I wasnt there! - At least if I was I dont remember! So for those like myself who DO believe that the skulls are ancient, where in the world or other did you get the idea that we all worship them? Personally, although I believe the skulls are ancient and powerful objects, I don't "worship" them or ANY object - or any 'Deities' for that matter. Not one.
So please tell me how you formed such a ridiculous opinion to make the statement that "they lower them selves to warship material fakes"?

Now Im also curious as to how you also formed the opinion that:
"material fakes ( as the skulls are). Slowly- slowly technology proves that all those ( ALL) were created after 1930 with modern tools"

So ill start with the obvious, who told you that and/or how did you form that opinion? if the answer is the media, perhaps you should take into account WHO and WHAT controls the media and THEIR agendas, as well as the blatant LIES, DECIET, DISINFORMATION, BRAIN WASHING TACTICS such as fake photos, videos, slippery wording and misleading titles (such as the very article on this page) all the techniques that the media uses EVERYDAY, EVERYWHERE IN EVERY FORM in order to deceive and brainwash the naive public into living in fear with those very tactics so that they may be controlled, I urge you to do some research on what propaganda is (and if you're smart enough -IF- then you’ll find the media IS propaganda, and nothing more)

So tell me please, did you form the opinion that:

"material fakes ( as the skulls are). Slowly- slowly technology proves that all those ( ALL) were created after 1930 with modern tools"
Based on an article (like this one) or a TV show or Documentary, or a book? Because in case you were unaware -Those those are all media tools! And if you believe every article, TV show, documentary or book because someone called 'Dr Such and So' says it's true, you probably need to re-evaluate your perception of life itself.

Now I will ask you one more question based on your statement that:
"Slowly- slowly technology proves that all those ( ALL) were created after 1930 with modern tools"
So what technology is being used to support your shared statement? And could you actually answer this question of what 'technology' would be used to determine this at the time you wrote this statement? Off the top of your head? And also who would be conducting the tests? Are they being paid? If so by who? And how would the alleged 'results' be conveyed to people such as yourself? Via articles, TV or paper? And most importantly, how can anyone trust these alleged 'results' and the people conducting those tests? How would we know they were even tested? How would we know the tests even took place? Photos, videos, speeches? Im curious if your answer is yes, because I know that there are pretend things made to look real every day, a movie is a good example, just because you see a screen with batman fighting the joker with explosions and a plot on it, are you saying it must be true and would have actually taken place in reality?

Now providing you actually read this far and did some deep thinking and used a bit of common sense, if there is such a thing, can you provide the answers for ANY of those questions about your statements and opinions?

If not, perhaps you should start to think for yourself, instead of being brainwashed into believing the notorious liars of this universe (or anyone else for that matter) before you allow yourself to form such misinformed and false ideas, and make idiotic statements about things you know nothing about - in short, think for yourself and if you don't know what you're on about, don't pretend to unless you want to make a total fool out of yourself again.

Although I know the original author of the comments above probably won't read all of this or respond, I urge anyone who did bother to learn from it, just because someone behind a camera or article or book etc tells you they have the "facts" and throw a bunch of pictures, words or alleged "proof" at you - doesn't mean it's true, evidence can be easily faked and twisted.

THINK FOR YOURSELF AND FOLLOW WHAT YOU FEEL. We can break free from the control of this system and the snakes hiding behind the curtains running it, but not if we continue to be complacent and listen and do whatever we are told. WAKE UP!
MTY  (February 17, 2014 6:27 PM)
Just because the person you are responding worded himself poorly does not make his POV wrong.

What you are suggesting is a complete abandonment of The Scientific Method. If we used your advice in the pursuit of knowledge, we would simply be sorting through possible explanations until we find one we like, rather than one that is correct. That is called pseudoscience, and it is an extremely seductive way of thinking, especially when we have a strong predisposition or desire for something to be the case.

"Follow what you feel"?!? In the scientific context, that is ridiculousness of the first order. That attitude has perpetuated more myths, supported more logical fallacies and bound more people in human history to ignorance than any supposed conspiracy ever could.

Yes, there are many people who simply believe what they are told if the conclusions are presented with seemingly convincing evidence, regardless of whether the evidence truly leads to the conclusion or not. Your comment identifies you as one of them.
John Morgan  (November 5, 2013 1:45 AM)
The only reason the majority of skulls are deemed fake is because main stream archeology has deemed it is. If they can't find how something like this was made prior to their assumptions, it cannot be real. Archeology has been trying to become the new "religion" for centuries, they take no consideration into the ingenuity of mankind at different times or when motivated to exceed their times. Any and all outliers are fake.
Tracy Spry  (December 1, 2013 7:46 PM)
while they may have found SOME of the crystal skulls to be fake it doesn't means the true ones don't exist. like all things today we are constantly subjected to lies and forgery BUT that doesn't mean that there is no truth in the legends of the mayan people or that there are no real crystal skulls all it means is like always in history people jump on the band wagon to gain an extra buck through lies and deceit, nothing knew in todays standards, sadly, BUT let us just chill and wait and see if time doesn't reveal the truth and let us find the true crystal skulls.....for the mayan people did say the prophecy said that when the time is right after all the chaos has come to an end we will be ready to receive the information needed to bring on the new age of chill and have patience people :)
Abraham Arnett  (December 8, 2013 1:44 PM)
What apparent is the need for some people to believe in the ancient and/or alien origins of the crystal skulls in spite of the best scientific evidence proving they are not ancient nor were they made by extraterrestrials. The most logical and perhaps boring explanation, but also the correct one, is that for decades people have perpetrated the myth of the antiquity and possible extraterrestrial origins of the crystal skulls for prestige and financial gain. They prey upon people desperate to believe that there is an ancient prophecy of 13 crystal skulls either created by humans long ago or deposited on earth by sentient beings from other planets, a prophecy that was invented by a new age writer in order to sell books. There is no evidence whatsoever that this "prophecy" originated with the Mayans or any other ancient civilization. Science has proven many beliefs to be false: the sun does not revolve around the earth as it was once widely believed, the earth was not created in seven days and the moon is not made of cheese. Science has also proven that crystal skulls are not ancient nor were they brought to Earth by aliens. The people who believe in the antiquity or extraterrestrial origin of the crystal skulls have a deep seated need for someone or something to save them, in this case alien wisdom contained within the skulls that will somehow solve all their problems and make the world a better place, and in that regard they are no different from people waiting for the second coming of Christ. The faith that people put in the alleged authenticity of the crystal skulls and the bogus prophecy is no different than the faith that people put in any other religious ideology. Do those of you who believe in the crystal skulls feel that you are better than everyone else because you know the truth and we don"t? If so, all that proves is that you are no better than any other religious fanatic because, like them, it's not enough for you to believe in something, you need the rest of us to believe in it, too. The same methods of scientific investigation that we have drawn upon to send people into space and return them safely to the earth, to split atoms and to heal the sick has been used to prove that the skulls are not ancient nor of extraterrestrial origin. To deny that
Liz  (January 12, 2014 2:49 AM)
Some of the skulls are REAL!
"Synergy" being one of them.
tekmarck  (January 17, 2014 4:42 AM)
I have personally viewed and interacted with max the crystal skull. Nothing can prepare you for being in his presence. The energy is unmisteakeable. Skeptics beware. I urge you to meet with one and decide for youself. We all need a little mystery in our lives and this delivers!!
Bonerific  (March 3, 2014 4:54 PM)
The Mitchell Hedges Skull is a fake! It was bought by Mitchell at auction in the 1943 at Sotheby's. That same skull was made by a Frenchmen years before! So it is a fake too and the daughter refuses to have it examined because she knows it is a fake!
John Rosengarten  (March 20, 2014 9:01 PM)
I agree with the belief that incredible claims require extraordinary evidence.

Let's forget the whole origin thing: where is any proof of any 'psychic' power?

A broken bottle can be used to focus sunlight to start a fire. That is evidence reproducible on any sunny day.

Where is some (ANY?) evidence of any extrasensory or other supernatural effect?

These skulls are a ruse for the gullible. Like most religious objects, they were created by some twisted mind or inordinate greed, passed off as relic or supernatural force that requires much belief. Or is it gullibility?
steve  (April 5, 2014 5:29 AM)
Who made the fakes? where and when? Boban in 1898 finds a skull with modern tool markings that are not invented for anootjer 50 years. how about an ion probe or xrf? pr shoild I say real chemistry instead of sensationalism based on incoplete research?
Reality  (June 21, 2014 11:28 AM)
too much wishful thinking. The fact is that all (Repeat 'ALL") of the existent skulls have been shown to bear evidence of modern manufacture, specifically rotary cutting tools. There is not one skull showing evidence of ancient origin.

All of the New-Age wishful thinking will not change the facts. Any/all "Psychic" effects, if real, can be attributed to the people present and not the skulls. So why do people want to believe this. Why do people at Mt. Shasta want to call "lentricular Clouds" UFO's? Remember P.T. Barnham "there's a sucker born every minute" and the Television Spuff "mermaids, the Evidence."
Billie  (August 21, 2014 5:25 PM)
I have an appointment for a session with MAX the crystal skull this weekend. I don't really think the probability of crystal skulls being real or having powers is any sillier or more unlikely than the hundreds of thousands of people who believe in magical sky people who grant wishes if you ask really nicely and behave really well.

I will be disappointed if nothing happens when interacting with MAX, and I'll probably blog about it. But if something does happen? Hey, that's cool too, and at this point in my life, much like the Ghostbusters, Max, I am ready to believe you. ;)
Penelope  (November 18, 2014 6:24 PM)
Max is created from five different pieces. No known tools would have been able to carve him without breaking the skull. When yu touch him you can feel the energy. Why do scientists have such narrow minds?
duke  (December 18, 2014 12:45 AM)
True or not true I still find it an interesting story. The best part of this is that there a healthy debate between believers and non believers. Some convincing theories from both sides. A breathe of fresh air compared to all the negative and moronic comments on the net. I will never understand why someone's demeanor changes when they're behind a keyboard.
I Wanted to Believe!  (January 30, 2015 10:45 PM)
Whether it's Bigfoot, UFOs, or crystal skulls, believers share the same disturbing and disheartenening immunity to the very notion of facts and evidence, and a profound disrespect for science. Their Teflon-like resistance to reason makes adult discourse impossible and pointless. One is tempted to resort to ad hominem insults-and why not take those gloves off when your opponent refuses to deal on a rational level? Because it wouldn't be a fair fight. Also, because there's hope-I know, I used to be one of them. Like many, I grew up fascinated with this stuff. But as I watched shows like (Not!)Finding Bigfoot, Ancient Aliens (the crystal skulls episode is the one that drives me up the wall), I noticed a pattern that set off my bullshit detector-and should do the same for anyone who cares about the truth even when it clashes with your most cherished beliefs-and that is the habit of making a supposition, based on nothing, and then proceeding from that as though building on a logical premise. It is a best mentally sloppy and at worst a dirty sleight-of-mind trick. The crystal skull? Because the Mayans say so. If you want to believe any evidence to the contrary, you're a jerk and possibly a racist. Bigfoot, an animal that has not been proven to exist, somehow, to his believers, has well established "behaviors" like knocking on trees. Oddly, many people I know who are impervious to religious dogma embrace the flakiest stuff out there. I guess that's evidence for our need for some kind of blind faith in something. But that doesn't make it right or true. Argh, I wasn't gonna drink tonight, but...that comment about "narrow minded" scientists sums up the hopelessness of any discourse. But really, I should laugh at this. If it weren't for those scientists, we wouldn't have the technology for you to disseminate your nonsense worldwide!

Leave A Comment