Humans didn’t used to be big, humans are big. It’s the pictures that got small.
You create a website that is involved in and/or promoting the vandalizing of archaeological sites, and you post the exact same “theories” on two separate forums.
Hell of a lot of work if you aren’t trying to convince people, don"t you think?
Do you have any evidence of this that you can share?
No idea. I’d expect most people would be highly skeptical, some very interested, and a few each displeased or smug.
If that’s the case then why the need for a conspiracy of denial and concealment?
I’m happy to extend you the courtesy of assuming this isn’t your position then, but please be aware that similar claims of an earlier indigenous people were historically used by some people with ulterior racial motives.
Actually the treaty was with British and Maori. That will never change. This has nothing to do with the treaty, only who was first. So your insinuation is a really wayward and a bit racist. Keep in mind, we are only following a really good lead. We have nothing to prove yet except that no one would seal this cave this way unless trying to discourage anyone from attempting to get back in. That and the fact we have a fossilized human bone that came in from the outside as unearthed by a digger when they sought fill to block the entrance. Bone cannot fossilize in the time Polynesians have lived here so it proves there were others her a long time ago. Tall skeletons? Well, that’s what we are yet to prove or disprove. Keep watching - you might be vindicated or you might be amazed.
Interesting Darren. Can you explain how your assumption is ‘clear’ exactly. Before you answer consider we have no proof, we are digging out a cave not noted anywhere, is not close to any recorded archaeological site, all we have found so far has been brought in from the outside (ie already destroyed ‘archaeological’ evidence), and therefore we are simply digging out a cave at this stage. Explain your assumption please.
But if it does hold what we hope to find, then it will real the archaeologist have been covering up stuff for years, just like the tall skeletons they bulldozed in 2008 in Tauranga which has been recorded.
We hope to be arrested initially when we break the news (if it’s real), that is the best public coverage anyone could hope for. But you need to read more of the site and gain some more understanding, if your bias could allow you to do so?
That’s a good point. a 5’ person would see a 7’ person as a giant. I don’t use the words giant - it’s too subjective. The reason we say the cave could hold 8’ skeletons is because someone else saw them before we did. The one we are tackling is only one of three sites locally holding skeletons rumored to be 8’+. The other two sites requires heavy equipment be undercover them again. Each site has or had petroglyphs nearby that are or not found elsewhere in Polynesia and in one case, even in NZ.
All the recent photos are fake crap. Until someone produces multiple angle shots and video, treat them all as fake.
Yet you still felt the need to comment? Love you Wendell… oh no, not in that way! Just in the semantics way.
There’s a song about a dragon who’s a “bit racist”, do you know it?
I’m curious why you use the words tangata whenua, when you are looking for people who were pre-Māori. Isn’t that a Māori term?
tangatawhenua16 - Any comment on your completely inaccurate reading of G. Raumati Hook’s paper, where you claim he says the direct opposite of what he actually said?
I mean, you couldn’t have missed my poston the first page. It had the bright red font and everything…
Ha ha, this post.
Also:
I was wondering why this all sounded so familiar…and then I remembered this.
You keep saying this. What’s your evidence? How do you know this? Where was it recorded? Was there an outcry or repercussions?
Your blog seems to indicate you were “just on the brink of great discoveries” three years ago and blogged obsessively about your amateur research every single day. And then the entries stop. What happened? Did you come to your senses for a while and realized you were so high on confirmation bias you couldn’t see straight?
Why would anyone cover it up? In a field where everyone dreams about the big find that will make their reputation, and fame and fortune follows paradigm-overturning discoveries such as Homo Floresiensis.
Why would anyone cover it up, or reseal a cave with something spectacular in?
It doesn’t even need that much of a difference in height. IIRC, from a book called The First New Zealanders, Cook reported that the Maori were huge. From the book, the average height of sailors on Cook’s ship was something like 5’4", and the officers 5’6", while the Maori (presumably the young male warriors) were something like 5’9" or 5’10".
(Sorry, long time since I read it - it was one of my wife’s University anthropology texts.)
Probably almost every field has questsions/claims that you give a stock answer for and be almost 100% certain to be correct. In areas that interest me, some questions include:
Q: Have I found a meteorite?
A: You haven’t found a meteorite.
Q: Have I found a dinosaur egg?
A: You haven’t found a dinosaur egg.
(For the second question/answer, get a taste here.)
Interestingly… human (ish) bones in a cave where there should be no human bones. A human species on an East Asian landmass long before the first Homo Sapiens. It was of unusual size.
The sensational story broke yesterday. Homo Luzonensis.
Also, I checked out the OPs website and its basically trying to get money off the exceedingly credulous.