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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is there an ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVERUP going on in New Zealand?

page: 10
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Aeons


And it wasn't a thousand years ago. The last dating of that I saw of evidence shows that they have been in the area for about 40,000 years. Which would also seem to be supported by oral tradition.

[edit on 2009/8/8 by Aeons]


Do you have a link for this,or some supporting evidence as this is the first I've heard of this, as well as there being no record of it in the geological record (vegetation changes/specific plants etc).


The kaimanawa wall is pretty dam good geological evidence for this group of people that were prior to the maori.
www.youtube.com...

It follows the same megalithic building patterns as found in ancient sites all over the world.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
bumping

incase anyone missed it the first time...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Loopdaloop
 



Actually, the Kaimanawa 'wall' is nothing of the sort. It IS, however, a good example of Ignimbrite:


A Geologist's Opinion
Because the issue was unlikely to settle down or be resolved to most people's satisfaction without further research, Dr Peter Wood, a geologist with a specialist knowledge of local ignimbrites employed by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences at Wairakei, was commissioned by the Department of Conservation's Tongariro Conservancy to give an independent professional opinion on the "wall". By the time Dr Wood visited the site on Monday 13 May, a much larger area of the outcrop had been exposed through an illicit excavation in front of the formation by persons unknown during the weekend. I quote from his report (Wood 1996):

In my opinion the so-called "Kaimanawa Wall" in the Kaimanawa Forest Park is a natural rock formation. It is an outcrop of jointed Rangitaiki ignimbrite, a 330,000 year old volcanic rock that is common in the Taupo Volcanic Zone.

The regular block shapes are produced by natural fractures in the rock. These fractures (joints) were initially produced when the hot ignimbrite cooled and contracted after it had flowed into place during the eruption. Near vertical and horizontal joints are common in welded ignimbrites of this type. The forces of erosion, gravity, earthquakes and tree growth (roots) probably have all contributed to the movement and displacement of the blocks over time.

The apparent regularity and "artificial" aspect of the jointing is spurious. Most of the joints are not cuboidal. The eye is deceived mainly by one prominent horizontal joint which can be traced almost continuously along the outcrop into an area (recently excavated) where it is but one of an interlocking series of irregular joints. Even where the joints are most "block-like", detailed inspection of the joint surfaces showed they were natural, with small matching irregularities in opposing surfaces which would not be produced by artificial block laying.


Source

It is my opinion, as well, that it is a geologic feature and given the geology of the region it is not surprising that one would find outcrops such as this around the area, at least where they have been exposed. My geologist colleagues - volcanologists - who have been to and studied this area and looked at the wall agree that it is a natural feature. Flights of fancy are all very well, but proper research and investigation involves going there and 'checking it out', with a geologist's eye, not a conspiracist's eye, for in this case Occam's Razor does indeed apply.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I am glad too see this debate going on. The Kaimanawa wall, the wall that never got looked at and never got challenged and never made it out to the public. I come from a medical background and a civil engineering background also... However, in medicine we work with finding everything it isn't before we suggest what it is this process is called diagnosis and is essentially like solving a little mystery. It might be a natural feature, however no excavation ever happened on the site and thus no one ever ruled out it wasn't man made. Which is in my opinion a crime against humanity!
Considering it would have taken all but a few guys with some shovels and a couple of hours to see if the wall kept going somewhere, above below and on the sides and if it did, then there is much more reason to keep digging. This however hard it is for some people to believe, never occurred and thus we can never be sure.
There is plenty of reasons for everyone not to look though but they are stacks upon stacks of superficial reasons.

Please consider the reasoning below, it is an example of all the the reasons not to look at the obvious and how to move around them...

On the political/social problems of exposing “pseudo-archaeology” as real.




Well said, and I understand how complex this issue is. It goes far above and beyond what anyone is really willing to look at. To which I would like as much help as possible from other researchers to help me on my quest.
Not only is this topic very much an issue, it is ideal on this website too. What most would consider "pseudo-archaeology" currently, is also the way I got involved in realising what is going on in the world. I say "currently" because I have put together, or rather am putting together in writing too many pieces of evidence to look past and be ignored. So thank you to all the pioneers, which everyone has contributed so much. Its a troublesome process and then getting the information out is going to be equally troublesome. My theory is nothing new, I really have no new theories, All I can see differently however is how the transition from being blind to being able to see, can all be shaped together. I am also aware of many sites (archaeological and not internet) around the world, especially some which are close to home for me, which should be excavated! Yes I am claiming I know where to look to find solid proof of this ancient enigma found in our past.
I know exactly where they are and exactly how the excavation needs to be achieved. However due to other political issues (loosely used term here as it is more a capitalistic issue) such as the obvious "divide and conquer" tactics being used, and using indigenous peoples rights and with "hate speech" acts in place, it is a very difficult and controversial topic to expose.
This however is easily addressed once you look beyond the issues of racial division, which will also need to be exposed. Just as this article here is trying to suggest.
The second problem is that people will say it is going to be expensive and slow for no financial gain or profit so leave it alone. This however is using a problem (money/capitalism) to try to avoid another problem, which is a joke but never less will have to be challenged also.
The third issue is going to be censorship either, on the sites themselves which I am proposing in my book(s) or before the information becomes public.This again is going to be a problem that needs to be addressed and sorted out too before the publication can be made.
If my digs do make it to this point where the public is going to allow them.
Can we keep this archaeological site in the publics attention so any (artefacts) of a controversial matter cannot then be removed or hidden? Another problem, but not without solutions also.
Finally if my proposed sites do turn over huge amounts of transparent findings of a controversial nature how do we move on from there? I imagine everyone would become outraged at the fact that they have been so clearly manipulated for so long that chaos could ensue. However this is another issue that is not without the possibility of a solution.
I believe, simply put that all these issues can be addressed in or before the publication of my findings “supposed findings” and all changes can be made within the next few years despite the huge amounts of conflict we are going to face trying to do so.
Philosophical reasoning.
I feel further more and past these issues, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is the very real possibility of a world free from debt and war, money and corruption and also many new areas of science to come to us. If I am one of those who is going to be shot down, ridiculed and or just suddenly disappear on this quest.. Then so be it. Its not that I am courageous, it is more so just the acceptance that whatever we do in our lives, we will one day die. Also, that if time is infinite which is hard not to imagine, that no matter what you do whether it great or very little, really won't matter at the end of the day. If you are remembered for 3000 years, 3000 years is such a tiny piece of infinity (in the scale of time), it is no more small of a fraction of infinite than if you are not remembered at all or by only a few for only a minute. Some would say this argument is bleak and pessimistic, but on the contrary, this argument equally means that if you chose to look outside the box and find some solutions and have a dream there is no reason for you not to chase it.
Death and poverty, ridicule it doesn't matter. So while we have this life that is very real, we may as well endeavour to create the changes suitable for a better world. Even if those changes are but a small piece of the puzzle.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Judgie
It might be a natural feature, however no excavation ever happened on the site and thus no one ever ruled out it wasn't man made.



There doesn't need to be an excavation on site. Geologists have looked at the outcrop and determined it to be just that, which is why you don't hear about it in the public, because it isn't that interesting....unless you're a volcanologist and ignimbrite is your thing....



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   


There doesn't need to be an excavation on site. Geologists have looked at the outcrop and determined it to be just that, which is why you don't hear about it in the public, because it isn't that interesting....unless you're a volcanologist and ignimbrite is your thing....


Are you taking the piss?

Could these geologists be lying? If so, what would they have to gain from keeping this lie? What would the entire political system in our country have to gain from keeping this lie in place? What would the entire political system in the world have to loose if this lie was exposed as a lie?

Just some food for thought

To think that they didn't even bother to have a look at the other possibilities..



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Judgie


Nope, I'm serious. They didn't need to look at the other possibilities because it is what it is. Why would they lie? Surely if it had evidence of being man made, they could have a coup for their careers, but the fact that there is no evidence for it being man made and every bit of evidence points towards it being a natural outcrop is reason that it is not entertained by any other than those who wish, despite lack of evidence, for a pre-Maori 'civilisation'.
The whole Central Plateau area has been scoured by geologists.
There is no supporting evidence for a pre-Maori 'civilisation', not least of all in the many swamp cores and palynological studies.

edit on 8-1-2015 by aorAki because: S



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I really hope someone with common sense and a sense of curiosity other than myself, reads your comment above and mine and actually through this entire 10 pages and can see without a doubt the level of suppression/censorship going on here. You are now, without a doubt in my mind trying to persuade people that there is no reason to look... Just because some authoritative people say so.
Considering how little we have to lose by exposing the sides of the wall a little and a bit more above and maybe. Let me consider this, $100 for petrol, maybe 3 guys, with shovels new ones lets say they are flash shovels and they cost $80 each... thats $240 all up there.. A camera, "Ill supply that for free" Some lunches... hrmm we are going to need a big meal for this big dig. $20 per person.. so thats $60 there too.
$100 + $240 + $60 = Oh right way over budget on this one... $400 dollars to just have a look to rule it out.

The entire theory is proven or disproven at the cost of $400 its almost worth your effort to do it then just to shut us all up *cough*



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Judgie


Oh, I have common sense and a sense of curiousity, which is why I've looked at the supposed 'pit dwelling' in the MacKenzie Country, sought out the supposed 'Bullain Bowls' on the Port Hills, written to DOC and got the archaeological report for the Waipoua Forest, spoken with Dr Richard Holdaway about the rat bones, Lapita Pottery and the (lack of) evidence for any pre-Maori 'civilisation'.
I've investigated swamp cores in the hope that the pollen record would pick up something anomalous that pointed towards a pre-Maori 'civilisation' in the way that it shows the arrival of Maori and continually keep an open mind ready to recognise possibilities, but I make sure that my mind isn't so open that wishful thinking and lack of critical thinking makes my brain fall out.
There just is no credible evidence. I'd like there to be, because I could make my career with that sort of information, but there's not.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Are you an archaeologist? Thats a cool job man, can I be one of those?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Judgie


Geologist.

You could be one if you did the study, field work etc.

It would be a very cool job.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
cheers for the info OP....another great read



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: rapunzel222

The 'Waikaretu' find by the contractors was in fact on Mitria Extension Rd, and it was not in a limestone bluff for most of that area is volcanic, but were in a limestone cave (requires some thought) . However there is a cache of skeletons in Waikaretu in a cavern hidden in a limestone bluff...the two appear to have been combined in the telling over the years.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The problem with individuals with university degrees coming out and debunking the claim that a supposed artifact is merely a natural geological feature is that they can no longer be trusted to give impartial evaluations. We all have pre-established positions and beliefs on ancient peoples whose existence upsets the established, academic view. There is always the nagging belief that their beliefs may distort their analyses and blind them to evidence that contradicts this view. The arguments over how the megalithic buildings and cities in South America are a case in point. What academic archaeologists and geologists don't understand is that their opinions and interpretations are no longer trusted as being objective by many people interested in such megalithic sites. This is not merely because they always uphold the mainstream view of history but because, as many of us now suspect, they are OBLIGED to not stray from academic orthodoxy or else their careers and reputations come under severe attack. And so many times they expect everyone to believe their nonsense. Academic qualifications are no guarantee of truth. More often than not, they sadly lead to subtle mental conditioning that toes the line of ideological correctness - however strong the contrary evidence may be that stares them in the face. Selecting the evidence that fits one's prejudices and ignoring that which conflicts with them does not stop when one studies for a degree at university .....

So forgive me if I remain unimpressed in the opinions of archaeologists and geologists about ambiguous artifacts. It is not because I lack their qualifications - I possess two postgraduate research degrees. I simply don't trust them to speak the truth when it appears to fly in the face of what all their textbooks have taught them.
edit on 4-1-2016 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

So forgive me if I remain unimpressed in the opinions of archaeologists and geologists about ambiguous artifacts. It is not because I lack their qualifications - I possess two postgraduate research degrees. I simply don't trust them to speak the truth when it appears to fly in the face of what all their textbooks have taught them.


Ok, so qualified people = deluded
jourmalists selling you books = correct

got it thanks



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I have no idea why "They" hide the history of the world from us. I've heard it's because we couldn't handle knowing the truth, when, in fact, they don't seem to have a problem with it. I think their scared of us finding out the reality of things and knowing we don't need them.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: korath
I have no idea why "They" hide the history of the world from us. I've heard it's because we couldn't handle knowing the truth, when, in fact, they don't seem to have a problem with it. I think their scared of us finding out the reality of things and knowing we don't need them.


They aren't hiding anything from you, the whole claim that they were was invented by pseudo historians to make you believe that something was hidden, so that they could then sell you their books of made up truth. It started in the 80s with David Hatcher Childress making up claims that the Smithsonian was hiding the bones of giants

Archaeologists and historians uncover the past,
the journalists who are writing pseudo history books don't want you to know this, but its a fact, that not a single one of them bothered to get qualified, because as long as there's gullible people around buying their books they don't need to. They then use their lack of qualifications to claim that no one in academia will work with them because the academics don't want the truth to be known, when in reality, the academics won't work with them because academics don't work with people who lie for profit

Meanwhile the real work of uncovering the past goes on...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Heres a new video detailing pre maori history in NZ,very interesting and makes some valid points.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Its Pseudohistory, the only point it makes that can be taken with any credibility is the red hair
Here's why
www.livescience.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk
youre entitle to your own opinion mate,but unless you have heard for yourself that maori were not here first....being told by maori (as I have) then thats all the evidence I need

Maybe you should watch the whole video? Or maybe bring some of your sumarian knowledge to NZ and speak to the elders (again,as I have) and then form an opinion.
They have changed oral facts into fairy tales.....changes the meaning of tangata whenua (the people before us) into another whole different meaning.(people of the land).....had ancient bones milled into fertilizer because they said "they are not our bones,do as you wish with them"
There were people here before them that were interbred...eaten into extinction...its a pretty simple thought really.




top topics



 
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join