- MD & IJ
Sidestep: Psuedo professionalism
Almost all Pseudo-Archaeology sites lack a scientific method, many bag archaeologists and their work, have nationalist views and religious views. There are no religious or nationalist leanings in what we are doing, and we don't bag archaeologists (except those who conspire to cover-ups - and we have names, dates and witnesses ready for another time), but we do lack a scientific process because we can't examine, touch or test the artifacts we have revealed and questioned on this site in various articles (The Okehu Tribrach for example). The reason for that is they lie in museums or the real contentious ones have disappeared from all knowledge even if there is proof they were once sent to museums. Many people, including us, do not often have the context or the training in archaeological theory to understand some of what is seen. Thankfully most of our assumptions are stated as assumptions and what information those assumptions are based upon that the non-communicative archaeologists are unable to answer...(and for certain artifacts, they do not have an answer). In regard to the physical work of our main task, we are still digging dirt, and that is very unscientific, except when we find items of interest in the dirt.
The biggest issue people often have about Pseudo Archaeology sites is there seems to be a subtle and inherent racism in the theories. But is there really? All some people are doing is trying to suggest a theory, even if it is a weird one, or obviously incorrect. What is more confusing is those accusing these sites of subtle racism find it difficult to explaining why the ideas are racist. (see the note at the bottom of our recent post on racism for an example of unjustified and unsubstantiated accusation - it is very typical). The major reason for this seems to be that people don’t understand what is racism actually is and just use media promoted garbage disseminating an idea of what racism is - which is incorrect. Racism is not simply disagreeing on a point, or a view, with someone of another race - that is called 'disagreement on a point of view with someone else!' To bring the skin colour of that person into it is racism). We have already covered that in a previous article here –
Even we at tangatawhenua16 are sick of the crap we see on some of these pseudo sites that believe in aliens from outer space building structures and superior races moving rocks etc. They think people from advanced races came here in interstellar space ships with new an wonderful technology....and built stone walls! If you can't see the stupidity in that I cannot help you. But be wary of tarring us with the same brush as those weird ones. We will not take that lying down if you make an accusation without substance. The idea that Europeans are somehow superior to other races of human beings is ludicrous. Some cultures are, or were, more advanced in different things or have different strengths - technology, metalurgy, beliefs, rituals, values, ethics, sense of self, unique language, artistic expression, unity and even health and natural longevity. European attitudes are based on the last 500 years of advancement forgetting that Kemet's (Egypt's) rulers were once Nubian (black Africans), or that the Chinese invented the the fishing reel, stirrups, the wheelbarrow, papermaking, toilet paper, printing, paper money, gunpowder, firearms and the compass...not the European. Boats and writing were not invented by Europeans either. Gold plating was invented by the Moche. Lighthouses by Egyptians. Cranes and catapaults by the Greeks. Glass blowing by the Lebanese. The Persians invented the windmill.
As stated in another article - http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2043/01/16/-Archaeology-vs-Pseudo-Archeology, we showed that the real problem is the poor communication in professional Archaeological circles and how it’s different from the communication of those into Pseudo Archaeology. In other words, the communication from genuine archaeologists is almost non-existent. It's almost pathetically so. The same goes for some museums. They must all be free to provide information even making it clear of what they don't know, and if ongoing study is required etc.
Archaeology, as a field, is notorious about keeping things to itself, especially when it comes to developing theories and things that they are not 100% sure about yet. Archaeology as a field is incredibly cautious, and they don’t like to put things out to the public that they are not completely sure are dependable or accurate. That is why you will find no articles about pre-Polynesian tall skeletons even though a number have been found and seen by NZ archaeologists; and more often than you might think. In case this is the first time you are on this site and missed a previous post, there was one found in 2008 stated at the time as being pre-Polynesian and was 7’+ and was with an unusual artifact which was kept by one of those directing the removal of the skeleton and placed in his home. His home mind you - not a museum! I think the reason is quite clear as to why it's not in a museum.
Archaeologists will say what they do is good science because they are not trying not to confuse people with too many ‘what-ifs’ and ‘maybes’. That is fair enough comment too, but the problem here is is that being cautious is somehow seen by the public as being a bit 'wishy-washy', and too many people in today’s day and age want definitive answers, and being in an instant age - they want them now. For good or bad, that is why Pseudo Archaeological sites are so popular as they give the reader information they 'believe to be right' or interests them – and it's instant; which is a modern curse.
We are not at all in agreeance with those people who others would peg us as being with. At tangatawhenua16 we have debunked many things certain people have put forward as evidence of pre-Polynesian people in NZ. Below are just three...
But none of that ‘evidence’ some put forward as evidence, is actual evidence - it's just suggestion. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with suggestion and questions either, just as long as it is stated as such. One can speculate about what one thinks a lost civilization would be like, culturally and scientifically. If you state you cannot prove those ideas you cannot move those statements to facts without some solid conclusive evidence.
Emotionally charged language can feed that need in a lot of people to have solid answers to questions. Solid answers that science is not willing to provide because we are taught to be cautious, we are taught to doubt, we are taught to follow the evidence when evidence is provided, and if there isn’t enough evidence we are taught to wait. (Even we are cautious about using the word 'giants' of our 8'+ skeletons as the word conjures up all sorts of things. We prefer at this stage to mostly use 'tall ones'.) The contrast between this certainty and uncertainty is really where the conflict occurs.
Most Pseudo Archaeology sites are confident that they are correct, are confident that the evidence points where it needs it to, and are confident that they have solved the mystery. Archaeology, by contrast, isn’t so confident, even when they know they have the evidence and it points one way or the other. They are rightly cautious about the language they use in print. They are unwilling to put definitive words down, because they know that with the presentation of new evidence, even the most solid theory can change - (Well, let it change you idiots. There's nothing wrong with revisions and updates!). It’s why they put so much weight on evidence, and why they are so picky about what they will accept as evidence and why they argue with themselves over and over as to what is the correct interpretation of the evidence. They are cautious by nature because they have been taught to doubt; something Pseudo Archaeology does not teach.
If you have followed tangatawhenua16 for the last 4 years you will know that even we even doubt ourselves at times - the latest episode being in November of last year. Our biggest points are questions that museums and archaeologists cannot answer, or don't want to answer. And keep in mind, we had the curator of Te Papa contact us for information on an artifact they had no information on...and we could provide conclusive proof of what it was, but not who made it or how it got to the location it was found. We try to uncover origins of items that do not fit the mould and we are about to (hoping to) expose something hidden from the public. As stated jokingly earlier this year, we are Anakalúptō̱logists. Look it up... Someone actually got upset over the use of that term, so we decided we will use it more often now...
Pseudo Archaeologists will tell you that if you see something that looks a certain way to you, then that must be the truth, and that all you have to do to prove the truth, is find some evidence that agrees with you. That is why we posted this very revealing article -
http://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2017/05/07/99-Distinguishing-Artifacts-from-Ecofacts .
Pseudo sites do not produce much in the way of constructive evidence. Yet we think we have produced quite a lot of information to support some theories. Some are fairly conclusive as a group, some are not. But we are not here just to present ideas or theories, but to reveal a large group of 8’+ skeletons of a race here long before the Polynesians got here; a fact many archaeologists already know but will never state publicly. If you do not believe us, we are ok with that - just remember that statement for a time in the future and give us some credit when...(if) it happens. See...even we are careful sometimes.
An archaeologist accusing pseudo sites of not being scientific is not unusual because it’s 99% true for many. One day we will challenge most pseudo sites directly for many of them are completely weird that likely started off with good intentions (refer to 'ecofacts' article). Others are onto something interesting but are unable to provide any real proof, nor can they ever do that, even though their theories are slightly plausable.
Opinions based on ones observations, may or may not be true or accurate. But arguing whose opinion is more right is ludicrous without actual conclusive evidence. We will continue to make certain suggestions in articles, but our one real purpose is to reveal conclusive proof that NZ has been lied to by the same archaeologists who slam pseudo sites. That will reveal some pseudo honesty and some pseudo professionalism - which should provide some great entertainment when it happens (sorry...if, it happens).
But we aren't even asking that you believe us at all right now. We don't need you to do that without conclusive evidence, but please bear with us, we did not expect the amount of effort this whole process would require, but the prize will be worth it... (should be worth it!)
