149: Is 99% good enough?
After a certain article from Radio NZ revealing our old dig site and an extraordinarily long bone we claimed was human, we were contacted by someone with whom a discussion ensued about obtaining verification of the bones species. One thing led to another and the bone was packed and taken by IJ to this person. It would be extremely hard to trust anyone in our own country with such a potentially valuable item.
First let’s clarify a few things from our end. The last post on Wednesday said that this bone can only be one thing or the other. We have said way back in 2019 that we didn't believe this to be a Moa tibiotarsus, as it might look similar but does not have the diaphysis shapes typical of one. We have a few Moa bones already. The tibiotarsus was the only Moa bone it could have been and as our 'bone of contention' was extremely long, but very narrow, and if it was a Moa bone, it would have to be evidence of the tallest (little Moa) Anomalopteryx ever found. The Euryapteryx (stout legged Moa) bone structure is heavier and stronger because of its’ weight; almost twice that of Anomalopteryx. Nothing else lighter existed that it could match this bone in the North Island. Therefore by examination and average reasoning, it seemed to an [amatuer] that it was 99% likely not to be a Moa - unless we had the most unique Moa bone in the world in our possession - and that would be a great discovery too.
All that is superseded by the fact that many walking birds and in particular moa (and even the extinct North Island Takahe of which we have a tibiotarsus as well) all have what human bones do not... a cnemial crest at the tip of the tibia just before the top joint. We have many moa bones to compare and study in comparison. This human bone pictured down in the article has no cnemial crest, not even a hint of one. Below is a link to a 3D example showing what that sharp crest looks like in a little bush moa.
It is a quite obvious ridge and is of the same species as most of our moa bones.
And below a cross section of a human bone where D10 matches ours perfectly for a human bone has no sharp edged cnemial crest. Proof enough without forensic examination.
When we first found the fragments, IJ thought it could be a tibia. But when assembled, it resembled a femur - besides a tibia would mean a person of almost 9’ tall and that is just ridiculous; that even pushes the boundaries of our own imaginations a bit too far! We find that way too unbelievable for the reason of the [square cube law]; which we explained in detail in an earlier post that you can read here - https://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/post/2016/06/08/57-a-giant-sized-problem. This is why we have disputed many stupid blogs that suggest humans well over 9' existed, as if they were, they would not have a standard proportional skeletal structure to a modern human based on that square cube law.
IJ's final conclusions were drawn from the final assembly as it matched almost all the cross section geometry along the diaphysis of a human femur. However, it’s mid-section seemed ever so slightly closer to a tibia, but inconclusive without expert opinion. (Keep in mind that different races have slightly different bone structure and that not all races look the same (especially in the skull).
But is our bone human? That was always the million dollar question and one that many 'experts' who hadn't seen this bone debunked. But even as Jesse Mulligan said on the radio 'Those 'experts' would say that wouldn't they?" He was the only intelligent presenter/journalist in that regard.
So could such a tall ancient person ever exist in NZ? Keep in mind that we have already released the story about Archaeologist Brigid Gallagher who confirmed to someone we have met, that the bones he uncovered that were over 7’, were ‘Pre-Polynesian’. That statement he heard from her own mouth and he never forgot them. Her words will not appear on any official archaeological record – you can be 100% sure of that!
Now remember in the recent RNZ article of Strongman’s, that another Archaeologist; a Dr Halcrow, drew a conclusion from a video and a picture that it was 'likely' a Moa bone. But she has never seen a Moa bone quite like this one… ever! - we can state that as a fact. To be fair she said 'unlikely' and as the final report came via a journalist's article, who knows what Dr Halcrow actually said? Journalists can twist anything and everything to their own gain by carefully selected words - mind you, so could we!
Let us make this crystal clear; we don't really care what others think we have, but we would have liked to be 100% sure of what we had for our own benefit, our own peace of mind, to motivate the other digs in other locations, (and maybe to toss an unpinned grenade at the media...). So if it is not a known type of Moa, what is this bone exactly?
That leads us back to the first paragraph. Remember the contact made to us and what ensued? We have had some real experts involved. So far, a renowned orthopedic expert with over 30 years in his field and a forensic scientist have both viewed this bone in question. Both of them independently discounted this bone altogether as coming from a bird, as much to the cortical fragment shapes, the internal geometry and due to the lack of cancellous bone (which we had already stated that in our blog), but primarily because of the fact it perfectly matches a human bone.
They both verified this bone to be human. The first reported 'likely' to be human and 'likely' to be a femur. The term 'likely' is as Dr Halcrows statement; cautious but not 100% unequivocal. Dr Halcrow's 'likely' really means no. Our expert's 'likey' actually means yes. The forensic scientist is 100% certain it is human and 100% certain it is a femur, but it gave him 'the willies'; and that is an odd sensation for a forensic scientist given the sort of thing they see! Further examinations will be ongoing.
I hope you all now realise what this means in regard to NZ history. And no Susan, we will not release our sources; firstly we don't need to, nor want to - and least not to an untrusting NZ journalist (she knows what we suggested to her, but she ignored the offer made, opting for a quick but ultimately empty story which is why we call her 'instant gratification girl' ). All who read this can be sure of something - that which we found was no normal bone; and if it belongs to an extinct tall race it wouldn’t be 'normal' would it!
The true length of this bone would be 62cm or the entire length of this photo
The exact age of the owner is undetermined as yet, and when they lived is also unknown (other than a fossilisation period), but the individual appears to have been in excellent health. The racial makeup or origin of the bone is also unknown without a full DNA test. Maori report no tall races in their legends, although different tribes confirm there were people occupying some lands they passed or settled in, so it is highly 'likely' this individual was alive in this land long before the first Polynesian ever arrived here; by exploration or accident. Full testing is not sought for yet as it’s not a complete bone, and to us, it’s not convincing enough nor anywhere near our target. This bone was lying in the hills before it was dug up by a digger and transported, with the fill, into the phreatic tube to block the cave contents from prying eyes. What is in that cave is a reported group of 8' tall skeletons lying side by side. Few ever believed that, as no evidence has until now ever been forthcoming or made known to the public. Yes, the femoral trochanter and head are missing, probably while cooking this individual in an umu, but we do have the middle part (65%) of an individual's femur, sourced from the ground and originally dug up well outside any of our four target areas. This therefore, does prove something no one ever thought possible.....
"A tall race did once existed here, and in perfect health (no deformations) as these tall people were naturally occurring, not genetically defected. Compared to Maori of the 1400-1900's, these people were over 40% taller."
We are reported, by a blundering Strongman, as saying our bone is 2500 years old. Strangely we cannot find that in a word search of our website. So where did she get that date…out of thin air? The number 2500 or word variations thereof, do not appear in over 280 posts on our website. I just can’t find it. Is that what the modern journalist does when stretching for some journalistic gain? That would be pretty unprofessional one would think. Our opening statement in this post was tongue in cheek, but accurate.
On reflection however, she makes an unintended, yet perfectly valid, assumption. This bone could be anywhere from 1000-2500 years old. The 'fleet' were supposed to be here around AD1380 (640 years ago). If the first early Polynesian reportedly came here in 850AD that’s at least 1200 years without a single report of a giant race. Yet there are about 17 ‘unverifiable’ and now two 'verifiable' reports that we know of, of tall skeletons being found (and lost), or take away never to be seen of again; the latest in 2008 as we reported in “Media Addlepates” on 14th February and mentioned briefly above.
So there we have it… thus far we have some actual facts supported by actual experts that have actually viewed an actual bone.
SUMMARY:
Due to the word 'likely' being used by one, we will at this stage only call our bone 99% human… (that means it is 99% unlikely to be Moa, for those that needed reminding of that statistic – and trust us, some do need reminding of that!), and 100% certain to be a femur. Even the lack of a cnemial crest that all moa bones have confirms this. The person this bone belonged to was at least 7’10” if a female, and possibly 8’2” if a male (based on the average calculation used for skeletal scaling). And it is likely to date to at least 1600 years old, if not very much older (yet to be verified). But it does belong to a very tall and very ancient human, and all of that verification was initiated because of a RNZ article by Susan Strongman; aka, 'instant gratification girl'.
This bone however is not our goal, it's just the sideshow. It proves (to us at the very least), that we were right, we were very accurate and we were, and are still; right on target.
Nonetheless, for purposes that at this time suit us, we will just agree with Dr Halcrow that this bone is 'likely' to be a Moa bone. Do you agree Jimmy...?
