125: Dig Update - Bad to the Bone

We are attempting to reveal whether the story of 14 8'+ non-Polynesian skeletons found in a cave and quickly resealed was true. We were 'led' to the entrance of the tube (the cave we seek to enter has a long phreatic tube that leads to it). The tube has been hand filled with fill from another location about 20 kilometers away. Within that fill we have located Moa bones and the ones below.

When we found the below bones we were not sure what they were exactly but they were definitely mammalian. They are not cow, horse, or belonging to any animal introduced here by Europeans. These bones were fossilized, black and turned to stone. That meant they 100% pre-dated European arrival. But the only other mammals here before Europeans arrived were Polynesians, the kuri dog, and the native bat. They are not from the Polynesian dog. Thy obviously are not bat bones. Officially, Polynesians arrived here only 740 years ago - https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1 These bones are also older than 1200 years and possibly 1500-3000 years old. Therefore....

The first thought was femoral and when the pieces were carefully assembled, they seemed to indicate 66cm or more. But we finally found the link piece and they all joined together perfectly (minus the heads).

We obtained a fake femur of a normal huamn of 5'10". Comparing with shaped and form it would appear that what we have represents 70% of it's over all length. Assuming it's a male (because if female she's ginormous), this individual would be 7'11" but lets be cautious and say 7'6". The average length of a Humerus is 33.4cm (M). Allowing for the head and base joints (missing). 48cm = 8'4". Surely we are wrong? At first we thought that it's too thin a bone thickness and too narrow a circumference to be a femur (anyone exceedingly tall would naturally have to have a bone density strong enough to support the weight). But regardless... 7'6" - 8'4" - get that one in your head.

Regardless of length or whether it's a humerus or a femur, it reveals one very important thing. It is fossilized and therefore is very much older than the Polynesian arrivals by at least 750 years. That makes this, (if finally confirmed as human - and there is no other explanation), to be the first evidence of pre-Polynesian humans in this country; and not just by several hundreds, but possibly by thousands of years! That is unless the bruning did the same job. Burning? Yes, it may have been this way by burning. A Polynesian oven we wonder? Maybe these ones were like the MoriOri (passive) that suffered under Maori arrival on their island.

Femur, Humerus or Tibia? We just aren't sure until we find the joint ends, but finding them in inconsequential to our task, and if they come to light - they come to light. We are only digging some portions of the tube out completely and all bones (moa included) have been in the fill at the tube wall edges. As we are are not removing it all, who knows what else we've missed?

If femoral, the narrow circumference of this bone suggest a light workload with this person. The overall bone thickness is quite narrow for a hard working or load bearing human such as a slave. The thickness is consistent for a humerus or a tibia. The triangular cross section is typical of the tibia and the correct portion of the shaft.

Oh, and as we said in the last numbered post two weeks ago, we've found another mammal bone, but not human, as it's too short (we have the other half). It is also completely fossilized and turned to stone and is filled with earth from whence (love the old term) it came. Maybe a lower leg from an unknown mammal but definitely not from any avian creature; as a honeycomb structure is absent. This is solid mammalian bone and could be from a European import but due to the extent of fossilization. But who knows? The fossilized bone structure is different yet it came from the same location outside. So what the hell is it? A dinosaur bone? Who knows? This just ads more to the mystery.

However... These could also be mammal bones from only 200-230 years ago and miraculously fossilized at a world record rate; a world first find of such a rapid process. This would be heralded in scientific circles as 100% unique to this one bone.

*****

The above needed to said in case we are accused of anything such as finding human remains and not reporting them. If they were reported as such, and inspected, we would be told "They are not human". Why would they say that? Well, if you cannot guess, it is because to acknowledge them as human, and fossilized, makes them too old for accepted history among certain Archaeologists & Iwi. Therefore they would have to say they are something else, in which case nothing happens as all we have done is expose some old mammal bones post-European arrival - a world first in the petrification process. If no one admits they are human, then that means we may have discovered a new unknown species of mammal that existed and died before the Polynesians came and does not exist in any old legend.

In any case, the bones would not be handed back because then they could be re-tested properly and without manipulated bias. So, they would just conveniently disappear, be destroyed, or be 'lost' like all other finds such as at Tauranga, Great Barrier Island, Northland, Waikato and a few others we know of. We all know the bones would be explained away by scientists as 'NOT being human' and that is both historically and scientifically impossible - if anyone understands fossilization time frames. But they would still persist with that line of rhetoric to the public as the alternative (ie humans here before Polynesians and Melanesian's) would be too contentious and fly severely in the face of accepted history of accepted early habitation.

Therefore to deny what it really is would result in two significant things.

1. They would say it's a previously unknown mammal never recorded here before. That means we are the first to discover it!

2. Or they say that fossilization has occurred faster than scientifically possible. We have found a first in fossilization time frames.

In both (false and incorrect) cases above, we would have created history... and all with two broken bones...

This is very bad news for those opposing us, for they cannot win without admitting what they are - or acknowledging we have one of two world firsts.

If anything, we are fully determined to bring the truth to light and we now hold the best physical evidence anyone has ever presented so openly and without interference or danger of destruction by those not wanting the evidence produced. To those wanting to conceal what will likely change known history, this is bad. B-b-b-b-b-b-b-bad to the bone.