New Zealand Stone Circle banned - any info?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Seems that there is not much support in the earlier occupation theory put forth. It is referred to as "Alternative Archaeology". Here is the link.

ht$p://www.nzarchaeology.org/alternative.htm




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
If there is nothing to hide regarding maori and others habitation of NZ
then i would like answers to the following:

A) Why are archeological field notes and CD testing data from over 100 sites (Mainly burial) kept from public scrutiny due to being under embargo for up to 75 years. Chris Carter MP confirmed this in 2004.

B) Why are pro maori journalists and commentators publishing re-written versions of maori myth and legend or accounts of acquisition by tribes of non maori artifacts so as to not include any mention of a pre maori people. If you read 19th C accounts the original versions come to light and differ markedly at times. For example the Korotangi Dove is now stated by Tapu Misa to have come with the Tamahere people in the canoe when it was previously said by the tribe to be found within the roots when a tree
had been felled by a storm.

C) Why is no DNA or CD testing allowed on ancient skeletons found even when obviously non maori (Identifiable due to cranial, jaw and other skeletal features), without consent from local iwi.

D) Why are remains automatically turned over to iwi for disposal or burial no matter what ethnic origin.

E) Why are representatives from Govt backed organizations such as Geographic NZ, NZ Archives etc denying ANY archeological evidence of pre maori habitation has ever been found when there is ample and well known examples stashed away in museums as well as written, photographic and drawn records of findings going back to the mid 1800s, not to mention the many books on NZ mysteries and interest from the 1800s through 1980s that relay the story of many of the finds and folklore that seems to be related to it

F) Why has DOC and its predecessors been destroying archeological sites and we have testimony to this effect.

G) Why are local Iwi intimidating and threatening those who attempt to visit and view the sites of archeological interest deemed Pre or Non Maori e

H) Why are myth and legend regarding the various pre maori people dismissed and or ignored as fairytales yet some legend such as that regarding Tanipha given enough credence to even suggest payment of money to the relevant iwi would placate its sensibilities

I) Why did maori suddenly get all sensitive over preserved heads (Many of which showed clear non maori attributes) being in public view when they were originaly those of slaves traded without a care, yet it is fine to display other remains such as Egyptian mummies etc.

J) Why did Maori of the 19th C (Confirmed in old records) use the term Taungataphenua to refer to the people who preceeded them. According to maori oral history some tall, others very small, with redish skin and round faces, or fair skin and fair or red hair, and as numerous as ants, who carried thier young at the front rather than on the back as maori did. The smaller of the two who taught maori the arts of moko and net making. Yet now the term is used to refer to themselves.

K) Why was a Maori elder lecturer in Maori studies at Waikato University threatened with dismissal if he continued to teach the OLD stories which included those of the earlier inhabitants to the classes

L) Why did an SIS agent i used to work with in the late 80s tell me there has been since the early 80s and still is an active policy of concealment of the true habitation history of NZ.

The biggest reason most NZ archeologists DONT research the subject is that the newer generations know little of it as the universities will not touch the subject other than to shoot it down and those that do know also know damn well they will get no govt funding for such work only govt obstruction.

I actually suspect WHY the cover up is in place and the following will set the scene and help proove the motive i suspect for Govt to go down the track they have.

Back in the 80s you may remember one of the armories on a north island military camp was broken into and a hundred or so SLR rifles (The issue weapon of the time) and at least 4 GPMG heavy machine gun



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The biggest reason most NZ archeologists DONT research the subject is that the newer generations know little of it as the universities will not touch the subject other than to shoot it down and those that do know also know damn well they will get no govt funding for such work only govt obstruction.

I actually suspect WHY the cover up is in place and the following will set the scene and help proove the motive i suspect for Govt to go down the track they have.

Back in the 80s you may remember one of the armories on a north island military camp was broken into and a hundred or so SLR rifles (The issue weapon of the time) and at least 4 GPMG heavy machine guns were stolen.
These were never recovered and none have turned up in the commissioning of any crimes so Govt assumed they were taken for future militant activity rather than criminal activity, which due to the design of this type of weapon they are unsuitable as they can not be cut down for concealment and
still work.

By the mid 80s while i was serving in the NZ Army the Defence Forces held huge tri service exercises based on a scenario of a civil war or uprising of the “Native population” for lack of a better term. Now Governments do not waste millions of dollars on practicing for scenarios that they dont seriously envisage its forces needing to be deployed too.
The biggest of these was called Golden Fleece and to make it all the more realistic the Army used Black power gang members to augment the “Rebel force” so that it would consist of as near as possible the type of makeup or non professional fighters that an irregular militant force in such an
uprising would normally consist of. An officer from my regiment Max Carpenter. was the liaison between army and the gangs.
Now generally when you have a regular force up against an irregular rebel one the kill ratio is 10 rebels for every Govt soldier killed. Upon analyzing all the results of the exercises the ratio in this case was 1 to 1.
Mock bombs and other activity not attributed to any govt unit were found to be very well made or implemented. This worried the hell out of the govt as it indicated some one was training the lower elements within maoridom on how to make bombs and conduct guerrilla war etc.
Several possibilities dawned at the time, A) that the some maoris were maintaining contacts and getting training with Lybian Terrorists who a group was known to have had visited previously for such a purpose, or B) that Maori serving in NZ Regular or Territorial force were training the boys back home, or C) a combination of both.

By the mid 90s after the arrest of a member of the ALF (Armed Intervention Force, a militant arm of the King-ite
movement), when during a traffic stop articles of Military arms and or ammo was found in his car, i have been advised that several fellow ALF members stormed into Auckland Central Police Station and basically demanded that the guy be released forthwith or quote “We will go through you like a dose of salts”. Whatever they threatened or said it worried the hell out of the authorities at the time and this guy has unprecedented security at court appearances. WHY OR WHAT COULD INTIMIDATE POLICE INTO THIS COURSE OF ACTION.

The following quotes from Investigate Magazine Aug 2000:

A) "The NZAIF is the biggest threat to NZs security since WW2, as threats go it beats the # out of Indonesia" Defence Force Official
B) "We know they have semi automatic and fully automatic military firearms, so we have to take them seriously" Senior Police Officer
C) They get first dibs on weapons on the black market through their gang connections, they are really scary and hard to keep track of because they are nationwide and half of them act as paid mercenaries overseas so they disappear on foriegn tours of duty then resurface months later" Military Intelligence Officer
D) "We are deadly serious, we have an army and we will fight if we are forced to" Maori Parliament Paramount Chief Matiu Tarawa
E) They Dont



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
E) They Dont get to be explosives experts capable of beating the NZ and Australian Armies by taking patchwork quilt classes, somebody's been training them" Ben Vigden Defence Intel Analyst referring to the Golden Fleece excersises.

In the next weeks various vocal maori sovereignty nutters from within the King-ite/Seperatist movement were mouthing off on radio about how they would take the country back from thier colonial oppressors (Yawn). BTW the younger boisterous bucks who were keen for a fight with the oppressor were
talked out of it by the elders many of whom have seen war in WW2, vietnam etc and implored them to try the political and legal roads first.

By the mid 90s the Army was actually canvasing all its soldiers, especially those of maori or mixed blood as to which way they would jump if any of the tribes rose up. Did they honestly think any with rebel sympathies would tell the truth, “Oh yes i’ll side with the rebels” let alone risk thier income and continued training at govt expense. WHY DO
THIS UNLESS THEY HAVE A REAL FEAR OF AN UPRISING

Around this time a fellow soldier from my regiment, Ash was approached by a gang member whilst in a pub and being identified as a soldier was offered a case of beer if he would go to his place a take a look at his gun as it was faulty. Ash obliged but was surprised to find the gun in
question was a GPMG (Probably from the armoury thefts years before) and on seeing the firing pin had been broken probably from dry firing he advised them it was beyond repair and just wanted to get the hell outa there. He never reported it other than to mates as he knew they would know who had squealed.

During the mid 90s my mates Phill and Dave boarded a Russian Factory ship to purchase russian military uniform items which they were collecting at the time from one of the crew. Whilst there the crewman asked if they would like to buy an AKSU which was a later version of the AK47 Assault rifle. They jokingly said “Yea well be into that” were upon he showed them
to the ships armory which was stocked with AKs, RPGs and the like. The crewman advised all the ships carry them for use against pirates in various regions. On realising that the guy was for real they politely declined the offer as being gun collectors themselves they would risk thier existing collections if caught taking these ashore. The sailer was
not phased and just said “No worriy we just sell to the maoris anyway” and named two locations which i think were Bluff and somewhere up North from memory.
With this revelation we approached a fellow collector Brendan who is also a customs official when we attended the next Military Arms Society meeting and asked if he has heard of this type of thing and what is being done. He advised Govt had known of the practice for years but could do basically nothing due to lack of funds and manpower. Sources advise me that in recent years only Ammo is traded and is done so by trading fish caught over quota rather than cash as earlier on. This would have been going on for over 20 years now.

Several stories circulate about motorists seeing caches of boxes marked as Russian weapons etc in sheds in the remote areas of the east cape etc but i can not vouch for them other than one instance when the tale came from a good friend of mine who incedentally was involved in the Waipua Forrest digs, and he is not the type to bull#.

The story of training grounds also abound but i myself have nothing to offer in thier regard other than that that Helen didnt help when she set the raids in motion prematurely when she crapped her self on getting a death threat the night before and took off to the islands well out of harms way. Who knows what intel could have been got and acted on if it
werent for her setting the cops off half cocked before they were ready to.

Last year whilst attending a live day at MOTAT i was approached by a lady who recognised me as working in the same Defence HQ building as she did in the 80s. She



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Last year whilst attending a live day at MOTAT i was approached by a lady who recognised me as working in the same Defence HQ building as she did in the 80s. She was an SIS agent back then, so now knowing what i do i asked if she had ever heard of pre maori civilization or any cover up of it by
govt during her time with the secret squirels who were on the top floors of the building. She confirmed that Yes there was then and is now an active programe to hide the truth.

Judging by the both anecdotal and hard evidence i have seen or experienced i surmise the following. Govt has come to an agreement with maori (Or factions of it) that in return for ensuring them a special place in NZ society (The Indigenous ones) and the benefits that UN mandates provide, maori wont
start shooting or rock the boat in other ways. Unfortunately the truth regarding who actually was here first is a
casualty and must be hidden at all costs for national security as the belief that Maori are the original inhabitants is the foundation that the whole corrupt house of cards is built on. This must be beyond Party lines but deep in the bureaucracy that actually runs Govt. There is no other reason why data from archiological sites can be deemed not for public consumption or sensitive to national security. The embargo terms of 75 years (Ie untill about 2064) would mean all claims etc would be settled and maori firmly entrenched where they want to be before the truth is expected to come out.

This topic MUST be settled and the truth investigated in the public domain. Personally i dont care who was here first but do care about my tax dollar funding something based on lies and falsehoods and the persuit of historical knowledge being denied me. History should be historically correct NOT politically correct



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Sometimes I read ATS and it's like I fell facefirst into Stormfront.


Originally posted by Headhurts
Well the Celtic types of people would have had to be from Europe. Ireland has a lot of rock carvings with swirling designs that look like the designs on the cheeks of tattooed Maori men.


The Celts did not invent the sworl/ It's a pretty simple design, you know, anyone with a stick and a little bit of dirt can make one easy enough. Besides that, moko designs are quite different from the swirls of the Celts - certainly vastly more complicated. Also they're actually inked facial carvings, not tattoos. They used a chisel for the things. Think about that for a moment. Ouch.


The can of worms would be the huge upheaval of NZ society when the status quo is challenged.

Currently, because it is thought Maori were in NZ before Whites, there is racially based legislated discrimination 200 years later even if the white people were born in NZ. This loony left racism would mean that if it were shown that Celts were in NZ before Maori, the Whites should have more rights than the Maori.


I think you're confused. Well, okay, I know you are confused. Plain fact is, even if there were people there prior to the Maori, and even if they were white (HUGE stretch, by the way) they were not the ancestors of modern white NZ'ers. Every white face in New Zealand is the descendant of Europeans who moved in after 1769. If there were a bunch of white people living on the islands before the Maori, they certainly weren't there by the time Europeans showed up.

The fact that you're grasping for racial entitlement based off people who, even if they even existed have absolutely no biological or cultural relation to you says an awful lot about you.


Sound silly? Well to people like me who object to left-wing racism it is just as silly to suggest that a white baby born today owes the Maori baby born today in the next crib something. Try telling that to a left-wing dimwit though.

Imagine white people having exclusive seats in parliament, or exclusive fishing rights. It would never happen, but the rights contemporary Maori have would be in jeopardy if it were shown they were not here before the whites.


They were most definitely there before Europeans. I'm completely certain that you have absolutely no ancestral claims to New Zealand that are older than two hundred years, if that. So far the only racism out here is your own, since you think you deserve entitlements because you're white.


So, rather than tell the truth about NZ archaeology, the government chooses to destroy and lie about history.


Of course. Lack of evidence to support your whackadoo claims is in and of itself evidence. Are all white new Zealanders this paranoid and bizarre, or is it just you?


Incidentally, there were some mummified remains found in China recently that had blonde and red hair and were tall. These findings have also been suppressed.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Headhurts]


No they certainly weren't suppressed. Those folks were Tocharians. We have plenty of contemporary accounts of them from the Persians and Chinese. We have chunks of their writings, and examples of culture, clothing, and appearance, both from their own hands and from the records of their contemporaries. They were a Turkic people, likely with strong Persian connections.

Since you are clearly unaware, blonde or red hair is not exclusive to Europe. Not by far. Red hair is quite common among Polynesians, while lots of Australian Aboriginal children (And even older men and women) are blondes. Both shades of hair are pretty common in central Asia. There are even a few African populations that have blonde or red hair.

Also worth mentioning is that dark hair (such as that found in East Asians and Native Americans) oxidizes to red after a while of being dead, while really old hair will develop a very fine texture and pale color.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Here's another view.

First of all I grew up in Hokitika and know the West Coast very well. I remember the story about this and here's my thoughts on any cover up.

The people with the most to lose are the local Tangata Whenua (the People of the Land).

The Treaty of Waitangi rests on the presumption that the Maori were the native race to New Zealand.

What if they weren't?

Maori could lose a lot of mana and the land rights given under the Treaty could be reviewed. This would cause a huge amount of social unrest.

Just a thought

Cheers
Shane



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by shamus78
 


Refer to what I said above.

At the time of the treaty, the Maori were the only people on the islands. That's easy as all heck to confirm.

even if they were not the first people, whoever may have been first was not around, and it certainly wasn't the English.

Try again.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Headhurts
 


Its probably a can of worms as the Moari claim indigenous ownership of the land!
There is much evidence of natives already being established in NZ before the Moari came. These people have been called the Mariori.



New Zealand is blamed for Maori enslavement of ancient people By Ray Lilley, AP, in Wellington Saturday, 16 June 2001 Share Print Email Text Size Normal Large Extra Large When warlike Maori invaded the peace-loving Moriori people more than 150 years ago, killing scores and enslaving hundreds, the government in Wellington ignored the atrocities, a tribunal ruled yesterday. So the present government should compensate the victims' descendants, the Waitangi Tribunal report concluded. When warlike Maori invaded the peace-loving Moriori people more than 150 years ago, killing scores and enslaving hundreds, the government in Wellington ignored the atrocities, a tribunal ruled yesterday. So the present government should compensate the victims' descendants, the Waitangi Tribunal report concluded. By ignoring the plight of the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands, 800 kilometers (500 miles) east of New Zealand's capital, Wellington, the government was partly to blame for the loss of life, says the report. "The continued survival of the Moriori as a people is now at risk as a result of the loss of people over this time," the report said. "We recommend compensation with negotiations to that end." The Waitangi Tribunal, an independent body which hears land confiscation and other grievances from Maori tribes, was set up by the government to propose solutions to long-standing tribal claims over government breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand's founding document. The last pure-blood Moriori died early last century, after their tribal life and culture was destroyed. Slavery, widely practiced by the indigenous Maori tribes, was ended by missionaries. The Moriori, who created a non-violent tribal culture, were conquered by warlike mainland tribes in 1835. Mixed-blood descendants still live on the islands. The tribunal report said after they were conquered, Moriori were housed inadequately, forced into extreme labour, brutalised and, for a time, killed by Maori. "In 1862, Moriori elders made a plea to the government for relief, listing the names of 226 killed and 1,366 who, they wrote, had died of 'despair'," said the report. "The government did not respond." The Moriori claimed the government was in breach of its treaty obligations by failing to take reasonable steps to secure their release from slavery. The tribunal said the government knew of their plight, and failed to intervene to help them. The tribunal also called for return of the Chathams 18,000 hectare (45,000-acre) lagoon to Moriori ownership, and the allocation of marine reserves and fishing resources. Under New Zealand law, the tribunal can only make recommendations for resolving grievances to the government, which then negotiates with the tribe. The government of Prime Minister Helen Clark declined comment on the report.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Come on dude, you must know the current feeling in our society. Hearing an official announce that the Maori were not the first people of our land would cause a huge outrage if there was any hint of corruption or a coverup.

We all lived thru the reconciliation of our country in the 90's with the settlement of many of the Treaty's aspects. It helped heal our country but also divided many people from the process and made some feel alienated from our country.

Any discovery could be taken for a political spin rather then a fascinating new story in our country's history.

Of course I'm talking about the societal aspects rather then the possibility of there actually being an older race then the Maori (or the Maori-ori).

Shane

[edit on 30/5/09 by shamus78]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
You are quite correct that any confirmation via official investigation of the archeological evidence as to another race besides Moriori (Celtic, viking, south American, or who ever) inhabiting NZ before Maori WILL NOT suddenly entitle those present inhabitants of European or other relevant decent to any more claim to things than they already have through being a citizen. Sure some Maori may have a claim based on confiscations due to military activity in response to their actions but even there we must remember that it was a different time with different values and different actions acceptable or expected that we have today. One of the biggest mistakes we make today is constantly judge past actions etc by todays values. By that way of thinking i could claim all over Scotland from all actions and conquests carried out out by the Romans, Vikings, English and whoever else over time.

But back to NZ, what it would mean is that Maori should have no more rights than any other immigrant to these islands and its resources. After all the intent of the treaty was to make all peoples one, not us and them. Read the true text in the so called Littlewood copy of the treaty.

Although you can be certain that some Maori unbeknown to them will have the blood of these people who ever they were, in their veins just as some have Moriori blood.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I have quite a few issues with a number of the things you've listed, and some of your sources. At risk of making this a season cliffhanger, I will write more tomorrow



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
We await with baited breath,



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Interesting thread. I have been looking into this topic onand off for a few years now.

The archeological embargoes are curious. Why?

Patupaiarehe, Turehu, Urukehu, Nga Tini o Toi, there are many names the Maori gave to (according to some) the people before them.

In the MacKenzie Country there is a pit dwelling. One of my friends in Twizel is involved with researching this and a lot of the rock art in the area.
Apparently (and here's the rub, these things are surrounded by so much hearsay) when he mentioned the presence of this - and other- pit dwellings to Roger Duff, the then Curator of Canterbury Museum, Duff said: "We know about them and we don't want to", basically consigning them to the 'too-hard' basket.

Now, this one is a stretch. This same Twizelian does work in Mainland China and when he showed some of the rock art to Buddhist monks they recognised it as a map of a watercourse, c. 5000 years old.

This, to me, is preposterous and does nothing to aid any potential case of pre-Maori inhabitants.

Preposterous mainly because there is absolutely no record and the drawings can be easily explained away as by Maori. I guess testing the ochre is possible?

I personally know Dr Richard Holdaway who discovered rat bones beneath the Taupo tephra. There was no evidence of burrowing or reworking. I must ask him his opinion of this, and will report back.

I also do a lot of work with geologists and I have heard nothing of curious or anomalous finds. Bear in mind that a good deal of these are Quaternary Geologists used to kicking around in swamps etc, which is where, supposedly, a lot of the 'artifacts' ofthese people were dumped.

I also know a lot of Volcanologists who work in the Taupo Volcanic Zone and have never heard anything about anomalous finds (apart from interesting rock types!).

I'm not sure what yto make of Barry Brailsford, but he seems a bit kooky to me. However, he wrote a book called 'Song of the Waitaha' which was endorsed by Dame Whina Cooper no less. Check it out, there are some interesting , but ultimately unsubstantiated, ideas in there.

There are also large canal structures around Marlborough and Northland and can be seen in aerial photographs from the '50s.
I will admit straight out that I know not much about these so this may or may not be useful.

I like to entertain the idea of pre-Maori inhabitants, but I don't know really how much I believe. There are some intriguing cases made but so far I have not seen any hard, fast physical evidence.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
wyliecelt,

Apologies for the late reply, I've not had time to sit down and write it out.

Firstly, Ben Vigars is full of rubbish. I've read his book and having worked for one of the organisations he mentions, I know it to be rubbish. He was never an intelligence analyst, either- he served in the TF with an artillery batt as a plotter, I understand. While this might have a small element of intelligence it is most definitely not an analyst's job. My point being you shouldn't rely on much he has to say.

I must say I find it hard to believe also that the military would use patched gang members for opfor. I'll need you to explain this one in more detail.

It's also highly unlikely that Libya, of all places, would give out terrorism training to a bunch of New Zealanders. It just wouldn't have furthered their cause at the time. The traditional supporters of terrorism were mainly lefties, which these people would not have been. Again, I need you to explain in more detail about this Libyan connection.

The security for that guy- was it Alpers? I can't recall the name- was hardly unprecedented, either. It's just that generally such things are done on the down low and the media don't know about. Perhaps he was the first, though, you could be right.

Do you have a source for the army canvass of the soldiers?

I also see no reason for the Soviets at the time (and now the RF) to have supported any insurgent outfit here- Glasnost was in place at the time and they wouldn't have wanted to have done anything to upset that.

Sorry, motorists seeing boxes marked with Cyrillic? Were they just sitting on the side of the road or something? Sounds like bollocks to be honest.

I haven't addressed the issues of pre-Maori or the like because, honestly, I have no idea about all that.

I hope I haven't come across as a Richard Head but I just find a lot of this hard to believe. Looking forward to a good discussion with you



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
wyliecelt,

Apologies for the late reply, I've not had time to sit down and write it out.

Firstly, Ben Vigars is full of rubbish. I've read his book and having worked for one of the organisations he mentions, I know it to be rubbish. He was never an intelligence analyst, either- he served in the TF with an artillery batt as a plotter, I understand. While this might have a small element of intelligence it is most definitely not an analyst's job. My point being you shouldn't rely on much he has to say.





I knew Ben Vidgen, though we have lost touch now...from my understanding, what you say is correct. though he did take a 'terrorism' course at University apparently.
He was always talking, having the gift of the gab, but frankly a lot of what he talked about was dust from bulls.
I'm sure there are kernels of truth in his books. I would just take him with a grain of salt, however.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
How do you know him, out of interest? PM me please if you'd rather not put it on the open board


The thing is, no university in NZ has (to my knowledge) ever offered a terrorism course (no tertiary providers, either). There are individual conflict papers for BAs but nothing terrorism specific.

BV also had a spat with Ian Wishart a while back, and quite a public one, too. I think it had to do with his sources and whatnot.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DeltaNine
 


No problem. I met him through a friend and we used to play 'Risk' quite a bit, back in the day!

I guess he did 'terrorism' papers as, as you say there is no fully-fledged 'terrorism' course.

I'm not surprised he locked horns with Ian Wishart.
They are both egotistical and not adverse to stretching the truth to fulfill their own agenda (Investigate magazine is interesting, but some of the articles are just totally, plain wrong).


Anyway, how about those pre-Maori inhabitants eh?

Any more tidbits?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
what if they are from Atlantis or Mu and the Celtic story is a cover to sidetrack people? sounds unlikely but plausible right?



facial tattoos where used all over the world in ancient times, what are the odds that there was a common source or point of origin to the idea? seeing as how populations separated by vast distances all seem to have thought of the idea...

[edit on 9-6-2009 by warrenb]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Yes you are right he was in The RNZA and in TF. He was and a Cmd Post Op then eventually in Arty Int as was other people i knew when i myself was in the RNZA.

As for beleiving what he says i was just using his quotes to illustrate the point as i was involved in the excercises he mentions and KNOW for a fact what transpired I WAS THERE.
I KNOW what the analysis of those exercises showed, i KNOW Gangs were used on them and i KNOW who the liaison officer between them and the army was as he was in my regiment. Same with canvasing the troops of Maori decent, i had mates of maori decent telling us what they had just been asked by the Adj and BC at the time of it happening. Just as in any workplace we all talked about these things at the time (Bare in mind we had no idea of any pre maori stuff being hidden back then).

The Maori who went to Lybia is well documented and was in all the papers at the time. As for Lefties people who feel they are desperate will take any help they can get and as history has shown communists will help anyone if they think it will convert them into sympathisers or supporters of the socialist ideals. Although i didnt mention anything about lefties from memory.

The Russians are sailors and crew of factory ships not Commi agents or anything to do with govt, as far as we were aware, and are probably not meant to be selling the items either but as you may remember (I dont know if you are old enough to) eastern block citizens were pretty keen on any western currency. Very handy when visiting foreign ports. Remember this was first hand experience and we have friends in Customs who backed up that this was going on.

As for caches of weapons i only have been told one account from the actual guy who saw them, a very good mate who at the time collected Adzes and was on very good terms with Maori. But i have heard of many other stories that i can not corroborate.

I think most people dont believe because they just dont want to accept that sleepy hollow NZ is not quite as sleepy and benign as the Govt would like us to beleive it is.

An example of how the NZ govt (Of any flavour) is hypocritical and says one thing but does another. Remember all the SLRs and GPMG that were taken from the police armouries in Honiara in the Solomons by the rebels, which were subsequently used to terrorise the populace? Remember OUR Govt harping on about the USA and others dishing out weapons to 3rd world countries and that they are to blame for the proliferation of firearms in these regions? Well the NZ Govt was doing it too. How do i know? Because i was one of the NZ soldiers who took those weapons to the Solomons and trained their defence force how to use them.






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join