The Great Crystal Skull

The Great Crystal Skull is dedicated to the incomparable Mitchell Hedges Crystal Skull, the most beautiful, the most complex, the most mysterious, and enigmatic and by far the most powerful in it's still hidden reservoir of infinite depth and capacity for the harnessing of cosmic energies and forces of nature.

My Photo
Location: Monterey/Big Sur, California, United States

I am a "Truth Seeker" and have been for my entire adult life. Metapysics, Philosophy, religion(s), deep politics and deep antiquity are my favorite subjects. I have had a most remarkable fate and now I have been released to share it with you.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Another attempt to deceive the public

Recently on a British TV channel there was a documentary that tried to dismiss the Mitchell Hedges Crystal Skull as a "modern fake". As usual, with shoddy, deceptive, erroneous research and perhaps a "hidden" agenda there were many inaccuracies, false claims, lies, and purposely left out information that would give the viewer false ideas and conclusions about the Mitchell Hedges Crystal Skull.
Over here in the good ol USA we are used to disinformation and hidden agendas that go to great lengths to distort or dismiss the truth such as the archaic notion that Columbus discovered America in 1492, when there is a huge accumulation of evidence that proves beyond a doubt that many civilizations traversed the Atlantic Ocean long before Columbus, and left behind relics, writings carved in stone, and megalithic monuments, as well as often settling here themselves and contributing to the native cultures that were indigenous to this continent. (see especially the book "America BC" by Harvard graduate Barry Fell), see Wikipedia for an overview of Fell's discoveries and conclusions..but there are many more examples by others. and this example of his work.

below is an interesting and scathing rebuttal of the shoddy and shallow (and perhaps purposely deceptive) television program produced in the UK about the Mitchell Hedges Crystal Skull. It is found on the "Official" Mitchell Hedges website..

British TV antics

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

Nothing revealed: the skull on British TV

The (channel) five documentary “Revealed” that ran on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 (repeated on June 29), titled “Legend of The Crystal Skulls” was – alas – another documentary trying to offer bogus revelations, in obvious efforts to make the documentary more than it was. At a time when dozens of documentaries are done on the skull, it is hard for lower-budget productions to get sold and hype is often the preferred method of the sales pitch. Alas, it is a sign of our times that television makers feel their documentaries need to be the absolute this, or absolute that – when it isn’t by a long shot.
We feel particularly aggrieved by the documentary makers’ depiction of Anna Mitchell-Hedges as a liar, which they somehow felt necessary to hammer home the point they hoped to make. But it is particularly annoying to see how throughout the length of the documentary, there were dozens of inaccuracies and false claims. Jane Walsh herself is probably not all too pleased either by the words put in her mouth, namely that she was the one that uncovered the 1943 Sotheby sale records for the skull, or the implied references to the MAN 1936 article discovery.

The gravest of errors committed by the documentary is that it accepted the false premise that pre-Columbian cultures did not have any tools to make the skulls. It is none other than Michael Coe who has said this statement should not be taken as dogma, yet it is precisely that which several researchers, whether Jane Walsh, Margaret Sax, or television producers such as those making this documentary, hold. It is similar to the stance archaeologists have held – and largely continue to hold – that earthquakes have never been responsible for the demise of cities or civilisations, whereas there is overwhelming scientific evidence that they are. But denial…
Furthermore, the full verdict of the Hewlett-Packard and British Museum claims – both of whom did extensive testing on the skulls, unlike the few hours Walsh has spent with the skull – were not all fully put together and explained, as if they did not matter.

However, there is worse. This picture shows to what length a director or editor will go to support arguments by false imagery.

They who accuse Mike and Anna Mitchell-Hedges of falsifying their evidence have fallen into their own trap. Thomas Gann has been airbrushed out of the original picture and it was actually he, not Mitchell-Hedges, who used the dynamite. Mitchell-Hedges favoured the method of burning back the vegetation as it was so dense… Dynamite was – however much modern archaeologists seem to hate it – a method their predecessors used to excavate with.
Unless we are accused of inventing these claims, we quote what was said about Gann: “He couldn’t get into the temples very easily and was wondering what was in the centre and the easiest thing was to blow it up,” says Mas. “Perhaps that’s why they named the site the falling stones. Everything collapsed and he didn’t find anything. It’s a shame.”
Then there is Harvard University’s R.E. Merwin who visited the site in 1914 and made off with three priceless ball-court markers, which are now on display in Harvard’s Peabody Museum. It seems Mitchell-Hedges was an amateur – derived from the Latin word for “love” – in the true sense of the word, and no other sense.

The end conclusion is therefore simple: the producers have tampered with copyrighted material to suit their own case, in the most circumspect of manners: in this case the villain was airbrushed out and the one man left standing was to blame alongside his so called “bankroll”!
Furthermore, Lady Richmond-Brown was not twisted into coming on the trip; she was diagnosed with cancer and in that respect, as Mitchell-Hedges put it, “had nothing to loose”. She did return for a second visit, but was too ill for the third. She wrote her own book (Unknown Tribes Uncharted Seas), as did Jane Harvey Houlson (Blue Blaze). Both were ecstatic from their experiences with Mitchell-Hedges, but such supportive evidence was not used in the documentary.

Though we understand that documentaries want to provide a lot of airtime to scientists, in the case of Jane Walsh, we need to underline she is not an expert on Mitchell-Hedges, nor has she ever met Anna. Many of her statements as made in this documentary are personal assumptions and not firm facts themselves. Walsh gets the meeting of Sammy & Mitchell-Hedges off track and makes a yea or nay “assumption” that she had been adopted by Mitchell-Hedges. She was adopted and the papers were filed in Panama. While Mitchell Hedges retuned to the UK he “sometimes” left Anna with an English family on the island of Taboga in the Bay of Panama.
Jane Walsh also says the Anna was short of money after her father died. The man was a millionaire and was very good at pirating and hiding his wealth, as he did most of his personal information! We need to remember that the 1920s were far different than today, and jungle tribes did not accept VISA, nor could one quickly transfer money from England to Mexico or elsewhere, if needed as a matter of urgency.
It has taken years to piece together most of his life from archive material that has lain around in old trunks for many a dusty year. In a letter dated May 1944 (i.e. during World War II) he tells one of his brothers that he has the largest single collection of silver in the UK… one hundred and fifty thousands ounces of silver and not a piece older than 1819. That is 4.18 tonnes, with the majority dated to between 1600 and 1780.
The 1960 B/W BBC film ( a very short clip of a greater viewing of the silver was shown in the channel five documentary) showing Anna displaying all the Mitchell-Hedges silver collection was in itself a mass of brilliant display of opulence and wealth. When you add it up it comes to over £200,000, which is a lot of money in those days. Anna broke? Definitely not so!

The documentary also has several factual errors. The Sotheby’s sale was not reported correctly: Mitchell-Hedges did buy the Crystal Skull at auction for £400, outbidding the British Museum. It was reported in the daily newspaper of the time. Also in a letter to his brother in December 1943 he states: “‘The Collection’ grows and grows. You possibly saw in the papers that I acquired that amazing Crystal Skull that was formally in the ‘Sydney Burney collection’. It is fashioned from a single block of rock crystal, exactly life size. Scientist put it at around 1800 BC and they estimate that it took five generations passing from father to son to complete. It is anthropologically perfect in every detail. A superb piece of craftsmanship. There is only one other in the world like it which is in the British Museum, and it is acknowledge not to be as fine as this”.
In another letter he says “this is one item that no amount of money will induce me to sell and I have had three American museums trying [...] The Anthropological journal Man has nearly devoted an entire issue to it.” In the same letter he refers to the Skull as being “world famous”. So why, when he is totally open, does he write in his book “I have reasons for not revealing” … unless he wants you to look deeper?

There are two very obvious opportunities missed here that in themselves present a mystery. The Crystal Skull was in an auction that was totally out of character with its genre. Also, Mitchell-Hedges, the art collector, had no interest at all in crystals or any artefacts of that nature, but nevertheless had to go to London very early by train and bid for it. Why does a man whose sole interest is in silver suddenly switch tracks and go for a unique piece of crystal in a furniture sale where all other items are “Chinese Porcelain - Needlework & Furniture - Important Oriental Rugs”? Unless, of course, it is as Anna said, and it was because her father was greatly surprised to learn that his Skull was placed at auction and had to react quickly to get it back.
Furthermore, there is suggestion in the documentary that Mitchell-Hedges had no prior knowledge of crystal skulls. If that were the case, then what to make of the references in his only book of fiction “White Tiger”, published in 1931 (i.e. 13 years prior to the auction), where he speaks of “Crystal Heads” as part of the Treasure of the Aztecs? This information was passed to Picturefilms, the producers of this documentary, who decided not to use this evidence. If that avenue was explored, it might have been a documentary of genuine interest, rather than the bogus revelations dished up instead.

Finally, the documentary’s conclusions were muddled in the extreme. It is a known fact that the skull existed in 1934 (as indicated in the MAN 1936 article that was used in the documentary), yet the documentary seems to allege that in 1924 the technology did not exist to create this skull, when Anna said she had found the skull – begging the question what precisely changed, technology or otherwise, between 1924 and 1934. Some viewers also came away with the impression that the documentary seemed to be arguing the skull was made in the 1950s, which is of course preposterous. In short, the documentary conclusions had all the hallmarks of one-liners, strung together in a muddled manner, so that the holes in the argument might not be seen by the viewer. We hope the viewer is more intelligent…