- MD
148: Bone of Contention
The recent articles in the media have provided a chance for people to debate what might be or what isn’t. It brought huge attention to the possibility of what is hidden out there. Yet for a whole day we all missed something completely while the whole operation was being discussed in the media…and so did 'instant gratification girl', Susan Strongman.
Her article showed the bone of contention that is on our website, the one bone many are arguing for or against without seeing any more than one photo and a brief video which we deliberately leave up on You Tube. All the articles in the media show a picture of the the bone we say is human. But forget the rest of the racism and conspiracy nonsense in her manufactured story, and others who followed on lie lemmings with her story. Forget that we are on land belonging to a farmer because we didn't have to get on any private land to get underground. Forget the insinuations and false accusations from a lazy journalist. Forget about the mechanics of the dig, the cave structure, the people involved and how and when it was done…
The BIG story (that she and even we missed seeing as the most important in Strongman’s media story), is not the dig, the cave, the fantastic story of a tall race, or even who we are - the BIG story is the picture of our bone alongside the full size plastic human femur and the tape measure. That picture was shown to thousands upon thousands of people over the last two weeks, and it even brought international response. Hear us clearly… Only two things are possible. Only two! If it is the first, it is NOT the second. If it is the second, it is NOT the first.
1. It is a Moa bone and we now have found 15 bones in the fill in the same place, 14 of which all look, feel and weight the same and this one that looks, feels and weighs differently and whose structure is different.
2. It is a human bone and therefore, if a femur, it belongs to a tall male of at least 7’10“ or a tall female of 8’2”. No human bone of that length exists in the public domain anywhere in the world that we know of.
So it's either No.1 or it is No.2. There is no middle ground on this one. It is one or the other and even Susan Strongman, the old decrepit author, and Dr Halcrow will have to agree on that glaringly obvious fact. We never intended to do anything much with this bone, but even we missed something; something important. And it provided an opportunity for us.
When IJ began writing this post a few weeks ago, he had planned to show you all clearly the differences between human and Moa bones using internet pictures and then our own, many with detail of what we have never shown in any of our previous posts. I was tasked with editing and finishing it while he couldn't. We do not need to justify anything, so will now keep this short with just six photos, The first three are from one of our Moa, the 4th is a verified ancient human bone dug up from the ground elsewhere in the world, and the last two are of a segment of our bone.
That is all we will bother to show. It sort of suits us for people to disbelieve what we have and call it a Moa bone because it means, that all we have are Moa bones. After all, we don't have to justify what we have to anyone and... (as we have stated back in April 2019), these bones are of no consequence to the main goal, because without full 8'+ skeletons (that should 'not exist' according to the 'experts'); a bone without the head and epicondyle ends will not really convince anyone of anything. We knew that.
Above is that 'bone of contention'. It is fossilised or permineralized or whatever they call it... it's turned to rock after the marrow was taken out (a story in itself). All we have is the portion that would hold marrow, exactly that portion! Yet this bone was found in the same portion of fill as the moa bones that are not fossilised, broken or burned. The reason for this is they all came from the outside when the fill was brought in to hide what is in the cave. There is much more to this story than meets the eye, and if you can work it out good on you. Strongman missed it completely in her bias, but all journalists are into sensationalism first and therefore often miss careful rational investigative thinking. They move too fast instead of letting it simmer and mulling over to see what they have missed. This bone isn't the story of the century, but it will likely lead to it.
Bones can look different according to the taphonomic influences at work, ie - what happens to the bone after death, the general environment where it lies, and even temperature (or ahi umu influences). Our bone shows clear structural evidence of burning (not just the colour the effects on the surface). The colour is partly from burning and partly from the organic compounds in the earth where it was finally discarded, which also turned it to stone. Keep in mind we found this just 30-40cm from our Moa bones, at the same level, an in the same dirt that came from a location outside about 50 years ago. All this proves these bones came from outside and our solid rock phreatic tube is actually man filled, not natural; something that was verified long ago. The last clue was that it was in pieces without the ends (both the trochanter, neck and head of the upper end and the epicondyles of the lower end). Those ends did not come into the fill with the rest of the bone. The pieces we found were carefully arranged behind an especially placed lump of clay. Yes, carefully placed there by the one filling in the tube. All other bones were also 'protected' by their own lump of clay within the loose dirt and the Moa bones from the same leg were laid out as the pieces would fit… yet no toe bones were ever found. These came in from outside and our belief is that a Maori labourer tasked with filling the tube, took extra care of what he found in the fill as it came in.
There is no top entrance to this cave, there is also no wash-down, there is only one way in and one way out and no water flow at all for possibly centuries. The tube disappears into the hills and there is no other access point but that revealed recently. Also, this tube was completely empty when it was found the first time. The surface of the walls even reveal this. Deep in those hills something lies that this filled tube is meant to hide, something that certain sectors of society would rather were never revealed. But this isn't the only site, but it was the only one we were posting on for the reason that is where we started, and a full dig progression helps add to the intrigue.
Let's return to the bone. On the opinion of 'experts', we could ask how Dr Halcrow obtained her 'probable' assessment by a picture, but we don't want to give her any more time than she'd give us. So let's just say; to humour her, that this is a Moa bone. It looks different, feels different, sounds different, is structured different, weights twice as much, doesn’t have any cancellous structure, is a different colour, is solidified, has been lying somewhere different to the Moa bones, and yet came in with them in the fill. If it is a Moa bone, it is one of the most unique Moa bones ever found in NZ. It has no equal anywhere in NZ. We already have plenty of Moa bones and if it is a Moa bone, this whole media saga is a non-issue. It's almost perfect for us that others believe that this bone is what they 'want' to believe it is. Basically, if it’s not human then Strongman’s story was just about some guys and girls with tin foil hats digging into a dirt filled phreatic tube and finding Moa bones while running a website on the dig, posting about various unheralded artefacts that don't fit the historical record, and various other topics worth discussing or at the very least, questioning. Whoopdecockledoodledoo - what a hot scoop that girl got aye! And yet we received unintended promotion.
Yet, if it is human, as everything points to (and we can’t have it formally DNA and carbon dated yet because we all know it would disappear like many others), it would likely rewrite the pre-history of this land, because of its age. We already know it's overall length and that is the exact reason why no one in academia would ever want to suggest it could possibly be human. What would the DNA and CD test show we wonder? Where were the first origins of these tall people? Melanesia? Asia? Tasmania?
And that’s all we have ever said - what if it were possible that 8’ tall people lived here before Maori… wouldn’t the NZ public want to know about them? (We assume most would but we also assumed a journalist from the RNZ would as well - but she didn't). Wouldn't what has happened in the media tyo us be just the same as those that scoffed at early explorers - some of whom eventually found what they sought. After all, if some [now famous] people listened to those that said 'it can't be done', 'it isn't true' or 'it doesn't exist', then there is much we have now in the world that would be missing from our knowledge. True?
But partly in thanks to our 'instant gratification girl' (Susan Strongman of Radio NZ) we can never get to secretly finish that 1st particular dig at any stage in the future. We can't go forward as it's too damn dangerous and was therefore abandoned in November. Due to that danger, a cage assembly system was being considered to enable us to push forward while protecting us from the collapsed portions above the open gap, and even then, the cavern might be four years digging away if it didn't open up within another 20 metres. But now the sites location has been published by RNZ, that can no longer be done at any time in the future. The other sites and the one begun in October, will remain hidden, with no posts and photos unless we find anything interesting. We have no need to go back to site #1 ever again unless we are successful elsewhere, produce what is irrefutable evidence, have what we seek acknowledged and then have an official investigation back into cave #1 under the guidance of the government and with the appropriate safety. We know that cave holds holds something others don't want the public to see, and they are not ordinary stature skeletons; you can be sure of that. We imagine that as a result of Susan Strongman's article there will be all sorts of people in the weekends walking around looking at the site she exposed and wondering of the possibilities. Good luck to them, it's a nice area to wander around.
But feel free to let Susan Strongman know you support her article or disapprove of her contrived diatribe for a quick story. From the emails and contacts flooding in to us, many people seem to have a real 'bone of contention' toward her now.
