Talk:Crystal skull

Desambiguation needed
I found this page looking for Crystal skull, a song by Mastodon


 * It's also a video game from Maxis (1996). http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/crystalskull/index.html

Comment made previously. To be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This page is garbage
I agree it is shit

We have a claim that the skull was found in 1927 contradicted by evidence that it was purchased in 1943. Only the claim gets published. We have a claim that HP evaluated the thing in 1970 and zero hard evidence to back up that claim. 300 years of labor? Prove it. Where are the studies? Links, please!


 * Comment made previously. To be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment left on article page by anon user at 138.116.138.170
Notes from a different person. I don't have the archeological knowledge to comment on the archeology, and I don't want to change the section, therefore. However, I saw the Mitchell-Hedges skull on display at Lily Dale near Buffalo NY when I was still a teenager, probably more than 20 years ago. Anna Mitchell-Hedges was with it and lectured on its origins. When it was displayed a copy of a professional report, I recall it as being from a major company, I noted that at the time, and she mentioned it in her lecture, but I don't recall what the logo was, I presume however that it was the Hewlett Packard report mentioned... -- it was about 16 pages if memory serves -- was available for anyone to read who wanted to. Looking back today, as a tenured professional member of faculty at a major university, I must say, the report looked like any other report of a similar type prepared on any subject - and there was no reason to think that it was a hoax as I recall it. The reason I take the time to post this (I came across this article as a cross-reference from a cross-reference) is that whoever wrote the section above that dealt with the report is either unaware of the actual existence of any report -- which would indicate poor research at best, not very thorough, or willing to undertake scholarly methods to vilify a theory or belief with which s/he disagrees which are not terribly professional, or at least don't seem terribly professional to me. I thought that was worth noting.


 * Comment made previously. To be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing "Other artifacts" section
I'm going to remove the section "Other artifacts of controversial origin". In its original form (before all the unsourced statements were removed), this section had some relevance to the article subject; as it stands, however, it's completely off-topic. The point appears to be that since these other artifacts may be authentic, the skulls may be authentic too. This would obviously need a reliable source explicitly drawing this conclusion; besides which, this gives undue weight to a fringe point of view, since the mainstream consensus is that all the skulls are fakes. Dan from A.P. (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest any salvagable links be put into a 'see also' section where applicable. 68.227.235.163 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)