It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Restricted until 2063

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
One possible reason is to prevent the location of a vulnerable archaeological site from becoming publicly known and thus subject to looting.


Which would mean the site was discovered fully intact and wouldn't have the resources or technology to open her up properly. I would think if such a site was fully intact it would become primary focus for an archeological dig.

I'm curious to the dimensions and whether it could "house" (comfortably) Giants per Moari legend.


I think your giants are little pieces of ore. www.teara.govt.nz...

In 1980 NZ quit with the nuclear power push. In 1988 I hypothesize they found ore and sealed it up for 75 years or until needed.



Makes you wonder if the uranium they found had been used already. Good find.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
There's plenty of information available, if one takes the time to look for it. Of course, after learning the facts, nobody could make ridiculous claims about giants....

Long story short: There was a 75 year restriction originally placed, but that restriction was lifted in 1996. The most likely reason for the restrictions being imposed, were carbon dating results of a single shell that dated approximately 500 years before the Maori were in the area. There have since been numerous other finds supporting an older (by 500-1000 years) culture.

As for the sites themselves (there are many), they are no longer restricted (more than any other archaeological site), and there are in fact, guided tours available.

There are many, many sources, if one skips past all the fringe websites echoing the same tripe.
Source
Portal to other sources (and actual research papers).


Well done!!! At least some one did some real checking, instead of going all giants :p


Why would anyone even care to hide Ancient giants? Every museum on the planet would be packed with dues paying people!!!

Something as big as giant humans would require literally every area of life science. To be a vast conspiracy to hide it. Notice I didn't say archeology. Because the evolutionary record would have left other almost giants in between.


This is all from the Christian conspiracy creationist.... The giant stuff I mean. Just so no non- young earth type thinks this is a ""normal" conspiracy thing. This stuff is ALL the brain child of one guy who claims to have found the arc, the ark, and loads of other biblical stuff he conveniently can't verify. Think is name is white, been years since I saw the giant skeleton stuff debunked when I snopesed it.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The reasons that most people think about when asking "what are they hiding" are pretty ridiculous. If an archaeologist uncovered credible evidence of a lost race of giants, why would it be covered up? Because archaeologists hate discovering fascinating things and have a disdain for awards, notoriety and funding? Why would the government of NZ cover it up? It wouldn't change anything about present day NZ except to maybe cause a giant (pun intended) spike in their tourism revenue and as of 2014, tourism revenue accounted for 15.3% of New Zealand's foreign exchange earnings so it's certainly something the government would welcome.

When a site is restricted, they're trying to preserve the integrity of the site and prevent vandalism and looting.

Discovery of ancient technology, races of giants or even things like evidence of prior land claims are just not something that anyone would benefit from hiding unless of course you believe in something really outlandish like the world being controlled by Reptilian overlords.

Human motivations are pretty universal and not all that complicated. What I'd be on the look out for in terms of areas that are restricted, would be sites that stand in the way of development; some place that an interested party wants to quietly destroy without opposition or perhaps sites that contain damning evidence from modern history (like mass graves, ancient ruins used for target practice, etc).

As far as other areas of "forbidden archaeology" there are certainly things overlooked, deliberately ignored or misinterpreted but these aren't likely to be discoveries of the Earth shattering variety.

Nah, screw it. They're hiding a star gate built by Nephilim.

edit on 2015-5-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

this is an old post


www.abovetopsecret.com...

covered here already.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Celtic New Zealand?

The other one has a gamelan orchestra on it.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
There's plenty of information available, if one takes the time to look for it. Of course, after learning the facts, nobody could make ridiculous claims about giants....

Long story short: There was a 75 year restriction originally placed, but that restriction was lifted in 1996. The most likely reason for the restrictions being imposed, were carbon dating results of a single shell that dated approximately 500 years before the Maori were in the area. There have since been numerous other finds supporting an older (by 500-1000 years) culture.

As for the sites themselves (there are many), they are no longer restricted (more than any other archaeological site), and there are in fact, guided tours available.

There are many, many sources, if one skips past all the fringe websites echoing the same tripe.
Source
Portal to other sources (and actual research papers).


I also found the same information. I think they are protecting natives rights, much in the same way Native American rights are now protected. If people don't believe Native American rights are protected the should go try and dig on Indian burial mound.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
this sounds a lot like only being able to get access to a governments documents 50-60 years later indeed....



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Some people don't like history rewritten.

I don't think this is evidence of a precursor to the Maoris, but a different interpretation of where they come from.

I'm currently working on a thread about the ancient Australians and they also have similar stone "cairns" and I'm starting to think (this is speculation) that two cultures could have crossed paths and exchanged lore at some time.

I'm also open to the Idea that the early Polynesian civilizations split and went their own way-some to the south to Australia and the others made their way North to what is now known as the Bering Straight and then made their way south again.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
A threat to national security? How did you come up with that?

More like a threat to global history, archeology, and possibly anthropology.

Pretty interesting stuff, always makes me think of what else they hide in these fields of discovery and science, from the people.

If it doesn't help condition, it's gotta be hidden



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
A threat to national security? How did you come up with that?

More like a threat to global history, archeology, and possibly anthropology.

Pretty interesting stuff, always makes me think of what else they hide in these fields of discovery and science, from the people.

If it doesn't help condition, it's gotta be hidden

Except,it's not hidden or restricted.

Harte



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Can anyone here remember the book that was written on the cannibalism of the Maori people and the resulting POO STORM that it created? How much of a CLUSTER FRACK do you think it will be if people start releasing hard evidence that the Maori were not the first people here? Virtually voiding ALL treaty claims if not the treaty itself?

Not wonder these sites are being suppressed!



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Carter and Hawass were in charge of disseminating Egyptian cultural artifacts.


www.burlingtonnews.net...



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
After reading that long (boring) other thread on this subject.... I am not sure we are going to find an answer...

There seems to be a few groups...



1) Nazi racist NZlers want there to be white people there first and its being covered that there were (see 4)
2) Maori people in NZ will pull a ferguson missou if they are not the first there, and/or are proved to have wiped out a previous people
3) Nothing abnormal is going on (nothing to see folks move on)
4) stone aged celts settled NZ and its being covered.
5) Radioactive ore was finally discovered in mass after 30 years of search in NZ (my theory and I saw a few others)
6) Cover up of GIANTS.


I don't think this thread will have an answer like the last one didn't.

Someone with time and an interest start emailing folks and try to add something new.


I think likely number 3 is the easiest answer. Researchers are not cover up new stuff sort of people. I think 5 is plausible because national security would cause a coverup.... but I dunno.


gl with the truth people. It seems from the other thread that the Utopia of NZ we see in shows and movies is a farce and they have their own cultural struggles. Proves that people are people.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Time traveler "Single Seven" of 2063 calls Coast to Coast AM. Humans from the future are trying to change the weather in the past. Any connection to the year?


edit on 27-5-2015 by animportantperson because: embed video



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: skalla


I don't know much about NZ really, but it's no secret that there were pre Maori folk over there, seeing as the Maori have only been there several hundred years any way?




That's a big claim with no support, fella, especially since the pollen and faunal records give no indication of prior settlement.

Now, somewhere I have the publicly-available (I wrote to DOC Northland and received the document) but (oh, how convenient for you
) I have misplaced it. It is either in a filing cabinet or under a pile of papers at work, or it's in a filing cabinet or under a pile of papers at home. From memory, however, there was nothing that stood out as any indication of a pre-Maori settlement.

There could be a number of reasons it is 'restricted', including, but not limited to Urupa site (cemetary), Tapu, or sacred Maori land.

One day I plan to visit that area (having never been to Northland) and check out the site.

Martin Doutre, however, makes some bold claims and unrealistic assumptions. I like to call him Martin Douche
edit on 27-5-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Legman


I think your giants are little pieces of ore. www.teara.govt.nz...

In 1980 NZ quit with the nuclear power push. In 1988 I hypothesize they found ore and sealed it up for 75 years or until needed.



Yeah nah. Hawks Crag breccia etc is on the West Coast the South Island.

There is active surveying ongoing in Northland: source

source 2

Geology of the Whangarei Area .pdf This last link is a direct download .pdf from GNS Science New Zealand.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: I don't think this thread will have an answer like the last one didn't.

Perhaps you should read the thread before posting, as I posted the "answer" on the first page.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
Virtually voiding ALL treaty claims if not the treaty itself?





No, the Treaty wouldn't be voided as it was signed between the Tangata Whenua and The Crown. The signatories exist still today.

This argument is brought out a lot by people who are actually quite ignorant of the articles of Te Tiriti as well as not understanding the nature of the Treaty.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

yeah the treaty aint worth the paper it was written on.Land was sold,now its being given back,some sites (koru pa) in taranaki have been proven to be made before maori supposedly got here,and needed around 5000 people to build it (not that any maori were here back then).....the Nga puhi chief has said for the record that maori were not the first here,the tribe of wai taha know they wernt the first here......rat bones found under the taupo eruption hundreds of years before maori got here,cats eye shells found many kilometers inland dated to 500yrs before maori got here.Id like to know who was here first. I myself think it was egyptians......for example,Ra in maori and egyption means the same thing,among a few other things.


edit on 27-5-2015 by hiddenNZ because: spelling error



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
What's happening in 2063?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join