Talk:Crystal skull

message: 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)
thread_title:  Desambiguation needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This page is garbage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment left on article page by anon user at 138.116.138.170 

message: These are a bit of a mess.  I am removing some according to the guidelines at Wikipedia: External links. If anyone objects to a particular removal could they please discuss it here? Thanks.
:Comment made previously. To be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removing "Other artifacts" section