Exposé: Exposing Doutré
This has to be done...
If you comb the tangatawhenua16 site you will find some spelling mistakes and maybe some things we've since found as different to what we first believed, and if so, we will have stated that in other newer posts while keeping the original statement intact to be transparent about what we are learning. We do not lie (although we throw out distractions from time to time), we do not embellish and we most certainly do not label a photo as one thing with the direct intention to mislead readers (other than the April 1st one's). Neither do we lie when the photo actually comes from a source unrelated to what we suggest it is. But someone else has...
One well known ancient history dude in NZ has committed pre-history betrayal. Some of Martin Doutré's claims have bothered us since we began in 2016. I'm sure he has found many genuine things and opened up much that was hidden - and let's acknowledge that, but his website is now full of a growing pile of rubbish. This isn't about the man himself, it's about the content of his website. We are going to take just five examples... there are many others. The first is an intentional omission of detail, and the second is a deliberate omission of facts that proves the claims are a fraud at worst - lies at best. The third is more interesting and not many who've seen these photos and his description of where it was found have ever questioned the obvious - we now will. The fourth is a deliberate visual manipulation and the fifth a complete piece of poppycock if one actually considers the explanation of how it got there. This whole article today, strangely, stems out of a Facebook comment by Peter Marsh in 2022 making a claim about us that was incorrect and accusing us of something that was also incorrect in his assumption. Peter Marsh also believes in the Celtic connection. We don't... even if we are the ONLY ones in the entire world to produce the Oheku tribrach link to an identical item from the Isle of Wight! Yes Peter, only us! No one else... anywhere... ever! And yet even we disbelieve this connection, which is very ironic if we are the only ones to show an 'identical' celtic object found in NZ to one found on the Isle of Wight, isn't it?
Now, to be fair, Celtic NZ has lot of information about NZ's ancient history that is right and has much information that is really, really, good, and much suggestion which could be explored as worthy of investigation. But then the stupid Celtic stuff slips in... and finally lies, or deception; just to justify the false claims. That is often the way with such sites as his and potentially... even ours if we are not careful. It is possible to start exaggerating when you believe things are what you think they should be instead of what they really are. Here is another one, a classic... a post that stemmed from a photo from CelticNZ claiming to be stone adzes when in fact they are just rocks. This is where I lost belief in him, as far back as 2016, in his information.
That is why we at tangatawhenua16 are so damn careful to be objective, and those of you who have followed us a long time will know we even question ourselves... and that is very transparent as we have been saying that since 2016 until now. We know the media, professionals, iwi and 'others' also monitor us, so we state this here, just for the record. Many photos on Martin Doutré's site are genuinely misleading - like below, with what appears to be a giant skull when it's simply the perspective from which the photo is taken with a person standing well back. It is called forced perspective and Peter Jackson used this to great effect for the hobbits in LOTR with Frodo and Gandalf on the horse drawn cart. This photo below is from Martin's Celtic NZ website with the statement underneath of what he claims. I haven't found the source of the photo yet, so it is indeed a private shot, and a genuine skull. But it is a standard sized skull and even we have found many of those and left them where they lay. This one however had been under the earth and 'dug up'. Maori skulls mean nothing to us, that's not what we are after at all. The photo below is an example of misleading photographic perspective for personal gain. He is right in his assertion about 8' people, we do know they exist, This photo might indeed be a skull they dug up in the vicinity of the Waikato Heads. but this photo is NOT 'a photo of a giant skull... taken in the vicinity of Waikato Heads.' That is pure bullshit.
On the West Coast of the North Island, ranging from Waikato Heads to Mitimiti and beyond were people that achieved heights of 7-8 feet. Maori oral traditions speak of these people and their eventual annihilation. This photo of a giant skull was taken in the vicinity of Waikato Heads. (CelticNZ - M Doutre)
It wasn't a giant skull. And it isn't even slightly large. The skull is placed about 1m from the hand and the jaw is then placed further out from the skull to produce an even greater illusion. You'll see more of this type of deliberate deception below.
This is how you use forced perspective to be misleading... See the huge skull on the left...?
Yes, the one on the right is the exactly same skull. One perspective makes it look bigger than the person holding it, the other the true size in relation to who holds it...
DOUTRE's CLAIMS:
Figure 4: A trussed burial of a small stature non-Polynesian and typical of burial methods in Megalithic Great Britain. This skeleton was located in the Awamoko limestone rock shelter of North Otago, New Zealand. The picture comes from pg. 79 of "Prehistoric Rock Art", by Michael Trotter and Beverley McCulloch (A. H. & A. W. Reed, 1971). Much of New Zealand rock art shows no Polynesian / Melanesian Maori attributes, with South Island examples being of very remote age. (CelticNZ - M Doutre)
Martin Doutre's claim is that this is a skeleton of (a pre-Maori) without a rocker jaw. He even gives the name of the book he obtained the photo from but we doubt any of you ever checked the book itself. You all assumed it was an adult didn't you? Everyone who read his article did because he says it's 'small in stature' which means a short adult right? He's used that term before in relation to adults. What you don't say can be as misleading as what you do say. We know this is true as we 'deliberately' put up a photo of a skeleton on our FB page on 24th December 2022, with no comments or context and then refused to comment on questions about it. Many of you assumed what we had found... and maybe we did? No, in fact the small photo above is of a 12 year old child in a trussed burial in the south island near where the rock paintings are found. Trussed burials were quite common in the 16th century. Martin Doutre claims this is evidence of pre-Maori 'European' arrival (eg. Celts - non rocker jaws inhabitants). He does mention the book as a reference, but conveniently forgets to tell you it's the skeleton of a 12 year old child... and that the immature Polynesian mandible appears little different from an immature mandible from an individual of any other group of humans. Here a clearer picture of what he deliberately omitted.
**** (From www.jps.auckland.ac.nz) The mature Polynesian mandible is characteristically of the rocker form, with a continuous convex lower border, lacking the notch in front of the angle that is seen in most Homo sapiens. The notch is effectively created by the angular process of the mandible, a site of attachment of two major masticatory muscles. The immature Polynesian mandible, however, does show notch and angular process, and appears little different from an immature mandible from an individual of any other group of Homo sapiens. During growth and maturation the ramus of the mandible becomes more vertical. That is, the mandibular angle lessens and the ramus increases in height to accommodate the increasing height of the upper face. This happens in any individual during maturation, and the extent to which it occurs is related to the height of the upper face, and thus to airway and overall body size. In Polynesians, adaptation or change in mandibular form between infancy and maturity thus has to be considerable. But, in addition, the very flat Polynesian cranial base has already set the upper face down and forward, accentuating the adaptation required of the mandible.
So, Doutre posts photo and description with one deception and one deliberate omission. Now thousands of people believe it is a 'celtic' adult skeleton. It is clearly not.
His site, CelticNZ.co.nz, has this in his 'articles section' where a link reads...
Why Many New Zealanders Still Believe That There Were Long-term, Pre-Maori Inhabitants In New Zealand ... despite Marxist media efforts to convince us otherwise...
Now note that we believe this also. It's just that they are not 'Celtic' or European, but likely Melanesian judging by the early physical descriptions of their lower caste or slaves. And the bone we found equates to an adult female of 8'2" - if it belongs to a female. So yes, we know there were pre-Maori inhabitants. So do many Maori, depending which tribe they belong to. They believe it also.
The links are below and in those articles you will read the following and we have produced a screenshot of that website and highlighted the claim he makes....
In the above* archaeological drawing, the mandible (jawbone) is clearly seen to have an upwards running curve at the lower border. Photographs taken at the site also confirm the flat jaw type. This is, therefore, not a Polynesian individual, whose jawline would exhibit a continuous downwards curve on the lower border of the mandible (rocker jaw). To the extreme left is the slightly upwards curved mandible of a European, shown adjacent to a pre-colonial Polynesian-Maori skull (centre). To the right is seen a skull photographed in situ* within a very remote cave of the central North Island.
This is the photo of the skull he refers to. Doutre says it is 'a very old skull found in a remote NZ cave'. BS. It's not in-situ - for it was you'd show much more... wouldn't you? Now think about this for a bit. You've just found a giant skull, insitu, in a dark cave, lying down with the face upwards. Think! Even it's colour would be different if you've seen skulls in dark caves like we have. The light would be different and it wouldn't be sitting like it does... and you wouldn't need to 'crop the photo' from the old journals to do so. No, this skull has been cleaned and sits on a bench in a university where it has been photographed and ends up in a journal not accessed on the internet, (there are countless thousands of them where Martin once studied). The above photo a 'European type skull' from an individual who lived and died in fairly recent times. I took out the arrow before I realised I didn't need to, but you'll see in the above screenshot of his website, should he try hide all this by deleting or changing it. As he might be tempted to, I will publish a clearer and larger version of the screen shots here if he does, but you can also view all this right now by clicking on these before he does... (His website isn't secure so ensure you have good security before visiting)
Then there are some tell-tale marks on the skull. If you look closely, you will notice some cut marks on the squama portion of the temporal section of the above skull. Cut marks would normally be produced during removal of the temporalis muscle. The distribution of cut-marks and percussion features indicates that the skulls were scrupulously 'cleaned' of any soft tissues, a process where someone has removed all portions of flesh, ears included from a skull before burial... or before cleaning the skeleton for use as a medical teaching tool. Maori either bury them and exhume the bones for scraping before tossing them in a recess.
But these are no ordinary marks. They are cross marks, one short, one long cover a circular incision. Have a closer look. They are deliberate incisions, not something made when the subject was alive due to injury or warfare (...and the subject is a male as seen by the large mastoid process). Don't tell me it's Odin cross... it isn't. But the point here isn't what it is, nor where the skull originated... it's just that it is not a skull from a cave in NZ.
A genuine photograph of a Maori skull, 'in-situ' in a cave, would not need to be trimmed of it's background as doing so remove the context. They didn't eliminate background in the first photo of the fake 'giant' skull... so why this one? In Doutre's case, the context of this being in a cave and therefore pre-Maori, is 100% non-existent - something not even one detractor of his over the years had the good judgement to point out. Not even Scott Hamilton questioned that... and he's supposed to be sharp!
We have seen many skulls in various places, including caves. We would find it impossible to produce a photo of a skull, as pictured, that lay in situ in a cave, both in color, condition, context (with the jaw sitting nicely in place under skull) and with the lighting perfect... besides, who the hell would bother to crop such a photo? Sadly no one thinks anymore, they seem to take things at face value and that's not just dangerous, it often stupid. NO - this is a skull shown in a scientific paper but one not published on or accessed via the internet.
The second sign is the angle of the light. Now it is possible they are suggesting the skull sat separate from the skeleton but note the light is from the top front of the skull. Now a skeleton would be lying down, so the light would have to come from a low held light... why not hold it in front of what you are photographing? Secondly.... there are only two 'prepared' photos. You're in a cave, with a full skeleton, with a camera, with additional very powerful floodlights, and yet taken only two photographs..? And then you crop them? No, this skull was photographed in a laboratory about 60 years ago and it isn't even from NZ. To his credit he doesn't claim this to be a 'giant', just one of ordinary stature (but by inference' a celtic skull).
Thirdly, a skeleton found in-situ in a cave would be lying on its back or maybe its side. If on its side the jaw could remain with the skull but not in such a perfect match unless it was covered in soil which kept it in place. This skull was supposed to be just sitting there, with the rest of the skeleton so where are the photos of the rest of the skeleton in situ Martin? The photo proves it is not on its side simply due to the angle of the photo. If on it's back and not covered (ie lying in a cave not in soil) the jaw would have fallen off. It is possible for a well buried skeleton to be preserved in an almost perfect state if lightly compacted and undisturbed until a perfect excavation, but this was found in a cave right? In a cave and left to rot there, where the surface is not perfectly level... the photo suggests the skull in sitting on its jaw (impossible, it needs to sit on its jaw and rear of skull on the occipital portion) which would mean the skull and jaw were deliberately placed that way. That's not how many ancient burials were done, and where skulls were separated, the jaw was always missing. No, this is a skull photographed the way it looks, but not inside a cave, but on a bench in lab, which is why the backgrounds are manipulated out. Doutre can prove us wrong on this one if he likes. In fact, we'd genuinely love to be proven wrong and will humbly apologise if he can produce the original in-situ uncropped photos. It doesn't take much to admit one is wrong - if one is shown to be wrong.
Lastly, the real location of this picture (we think), is from an article written by someone who had an affiliation with the Dept of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, in New Mexico USA. Now that makes much more sense doesn't it. I'm waiting for final confirmation of that one. I have a photo that exists in an archaeology publication that does not appear on the internet at all without an institutional login and even using Google image search produces nothing. That's how and why he produced the skull photo... so no one could refute his assertion it's an in-situ giant skull in cave in NZ. If I'm wrong that's ok... all Martin needs to do to prove all these things I'm saying are wrong - is produce the original photo without the alterations of background, after all to crop a photo, you must have the original right? He can't do that - he doesn't have such a photo... in-situ, linked to whole skeleton.
There are other things too, like the supposed stone carved coffins (photographed in 1919), some as thin as 8mm on the edges... from stone tools! Maori began using European made coffins from about 1865. There is a hint in that....!!!
Old Maori practices were burial and then retrieving and scraping of the bones for reburial. Then they point to a European mandible and indeed it is, while others show rocker jaw. Europeans lived with Maori, some as early as 1820. They were buried as they were too. Then there is the skull he shows as not having square edged eye sockets as below. Have real close look. This skull show both a buried (brown) and an unburied (white) portion. They are not connected but placed together for the photo. Keep in mind we've seen so many skulls and bones already. Now, we can't be certain these two pieces aren't from the same skull but it needs to be pointed out that the lower portion of that skull has been placed there, not excavated as such. It's white, bleached by the sun yet should be under the skull. It doesn't even line up perfectly, it's about 5mm to far to the left. That is clear and therefore, once again, could easily belong to another skull of a different size, age or even race... but note, the important thing we want to point out is this.... You all 'assumed' these two pieces were attached and therefore belong together... they are not attached. The mandible is placed there for the photograph and that provides enough doubt without progressive excavation photos which are not provided... and won't be.
The obvious deception already covered with this photo below
Now, just a final illustration of how differently we think to those who believe Celts got here first, Martin Doutre regards split-apple rock in Kaiteriteri (below) as an ancient 'purpose built' solar observatory.
However, what few ever show is it's size. Below shows the physical size of this 'purpose built observatory' in relation to a human. Understand now?
"Oh, but you can see the sunrise through it perfectly so that proves it's an observatory doesn't' it?" It depends where you stand! You can see the setting sun through anything you choose if you move around! You can move anywhere on the beach and get that sunrise between the edges at any time of year. But at sea level the shortest day the azimuth angle is 60 degrees... yep the accurate split edges does show the rising sun on the shortest day. But think this one through. You are a pre-Maori race. You have stone tools, crude carvings, no written language. You could, if you had the knowledge gained over time just use the cliff edge for mid winter, but no, they had to transport a huge boulder out into the water after making a huge platform in water.... weighing 242 metric tonnes! and then split it... perfectly - from top to bottom at exactly the right place (with those stone tools)...and maneuver it into the perfect position....... all this even after knowing the cliff edge from a certain preset point on the beach, does the same thing! At some point people are going to have to think about process not just the assumed result. Most don't.
Martin's Celtic NZ website also promotes Viewzone - which is a site dealing with aliens, moon bases, China's 'Area 51', chemtrails, UFO's and even the 'Apollo 20' expedition...!!!! Are you now learning a little more of the mind behind Celtic NZ? They have some wonderful stuff but seriously... when it gets into this weird sh*t, you have to wonder.
*****
You may now ask us, 'did we really need to do all of this?' Yes we did! But it's not a personal attack on Martin as a person at all, he's a good guy. But it is a direct attack on ongoing manipulation of information by that person (or indeed any other - even as I hate the ongoing deliberate manipulation within the mainstream media). Please see the difference. It's stuff like that shown above that brings much public doubt to a genuine search such as ours and this is why we have avoided any connection to a list of ten individuals - so we are 'hopefully' not tarred with the same brush (no we will not list them). So far, it seems we are not, for most tell us we are very balanced and objective in our information. After all, while we have proved (*) that the femur shaft we have to belonged to someone at least 7'11" (M) or 8'2" (F), that bone is not complete enough to prove beyond doubt to the average person looking at the photograph, (even with measuring evidence alongside), that is is indeed human. Giving that bone to government 'experts' would make it conveniently disappear. You all know this, so do they, and so do we. And even if they said 'no, it is a moa bone', that bone would not remain anywhere where others could re-test and dispute that finding, for the bone would be 'lost' or misplaced', meaning they have conveniently destroyed or hidden it so it couldn't be given to other 'open' minded experts - without an agenda, for further testing (it's happened before - it will not happen again). Besides, moa bones are very different in their structure and composition, they are much lighter and less dense although much stronger than birds that fly. In appearance they look like the inside of a Nestlé Aero bar.
The opinion of a well-known surgeon and an experienced forensic scientist (*) is enough for us at this time, and we haven't told you everything about what they said yet. But to find a complete femur, skull and jaw (ie part of a complete skeleton or full skeleton/s), along with undeniable visual measuring evidence, (and multiple in-situ photos and video and cleaned and laid out photos and video) is the only thing that will make the world sit up and take notice... and Doutre's Port Waikato skull (the photo with the two hands in the background) has no such variable measuring tool alongside - not that anyone with a functioning brain and rationale needs such to prove it's just an ordinary Polynesian skull - and perspective manipulated as we said above.
We mention all this so people that are new to this sort of thing, can make logical assumptions about what they see, while armed with information - not emotion. There is far too much emotion attached to supposed pre-Maori sites in NZ such as the Kaimanawa wall (which is fully natural), the solar observatories, supposed phoenician calendars (just concretions) and things we have shown above that supposedly link to Celtic occupation. No one from the area of the British Isles ever made it here 2000 years ago... (even if we are still the only ones, in the entire world, to produce evidence of the Okehu tribrach and it's far distant likeness). If you still believe the Celtic connection, it might be time to let that go. There are many things that are genuine but haven't yet been presented to the public, (and some are more unusual and startling than expected).
Now to be fair... when it comes to presentation of finds, even we can't release it all at once, and you know why. But it would come over a period of two to three years. Celtic NZ has been around well over twenty years already with no backup contextual evidence of anything provided since. We ask why?
Why has Martin not done so? If that evidence of his is complete, what is he doing with it and what is he waiting for? If he has a pre-polynesian skull...... just show the in-situ photo's and then another of a tape, or normal human hands holding it... anything...
He can't because those photos do not exist. But I'd be truly blessed and delighted to be proved wrong on that account.
Comments