Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Chauncy

Archeological Suppression in New Zealand

151 posts in this topic

I recieved this message today from Jonathon Gray's "Forbidden Science" mailing list. Thought you guys and gals might be interested.

Robert this is one day late, but...

THE BANNED DISCOVERY

On Tuesday the 3rd of July, 2001, Terry M., a friend and three boys ranging in age from 7 ½ to 17 years, ventured into New Zealand’s Waipoua forest for a bush walk and a look ast some ancient stone structures therein.

The Waipoua Forest sites were on public land, administered by the Department of Conservation. It was and is the right of all New Zealanders to hike throughout the area, with no known legal restriction posted by the Archaeological Division of DOC.

They were dismayed to find that timber felling was taking place between these ancient structures. For untold centuries these structures had survived – but now they might have an existence numbered in days.

Around 2.30 pm, they returned to their vehicle. This threatening note was tucked under a window wiper:

“You have entered this area

without prior authority and act

as thieves. The next time you do this

you will be treated as such and suffer loss.”

What the discovery showed

Between the late1970s and the late 1980s, some extensive and very expensive archaeological excavations had been conducted in the Waipoua Forest.

Certain information was discovered, which could rewrite regional history overnight. It included evidence of a past Celtic presence. In New Zealand. much of the new information is astronomical in nature. Local structures also incorporate Northern Hemisphere geodetic, "ring of the Earth" navigational systems and Egyptian/ Indo European measurement standards.

Government clamp

When the significance of the Waipoua information was realised, certain New Zealand Government Departments produced an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention to withhold this archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years.

Below is the "Embargo" document signed by Archaeologist, Michael Taylor. It states that neither the general public nor bona fide research workers were permitted to view the results of the digs until the year 2063. This archaeological information was deemed "top secret".

When a diligent researcher leaked to the public the news of this ban, many indignant people began writing to the National Archives for an explanation. They asked, why was this embargo put in place? Some questioned the legality of such imposed restrictions. Others contacted their Members of Parliament to force a release of information being withheld.

Among those who complained that they had no success in accessing the Waipoua Forest Archaeological Report were Noel Hilliam, Curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum and Joan Leaf, Hokianga based Historian.

You see, in New Zealand, archaeological information, artefacts and skeletal evidence can be deemed secret, with knowledge deliberately withheld in the perceived interests of government policy.

Reason for the ban?

But.what was so threatening about archaeological finds that they needed to be "restricted"... How on earth could 2,000 ancient, stacked stone structures pose a threat to national security?

For a number of years, it has been taught that the original inhabitants of New Zealand were the Maori. And land ownership claims were being negotiated, based upon this assumption.

So the question arose, was the information derived from the dig threatening to the Maori claim of being the original inhabitants of New Zealand? Was it restricted on the basis that any devolution of such knowledge was disadvantageous to Maori claims of sovereignty?

And what caused Ned Nathan, head of the Te Roroa Archaeological Advisory Committee to exclaim, within earshot of witnesses, 'that's 500 years before we got here!'? This was allegedly stated as the group held in their hands a dating report.

Clamp removed

So it was that a huge body of historical information was earmarked for suppression and successfully hidden away for 8 years. It would have remained so unless someone was prepared to take up the cudgels and fight for the right to have it where it rightly belongs...in the public domain.

In 1996 researcher, Gary Cook tried without success to get a copy of the archaeological report covering the 70's-80's dig. In the end Gary had to acquire the services of a lawyer, who made submissions to the Ombudsman to force the lifting of the illegal embargo. To my knowledge, the restrictions would have remained in place until 2063, were the legalities not challenged, under law, through an incentive instigated by Gary Cook.

Life threatened

Despite the removal of the ban, everyone is dissuaded from going to visit the structures of the pre-Maori "Stone People".

In early 2000, Denis Welch, journalist for The New Zealand Listener Magazine, was told that he was not permitted to inspect the ruins.

In 1999, a film crew from Greenstone Pictures, making a documentary for TV1 titled, Who Was Here First, politely asked to film the structures. They also were refused by the Nathans and had to resort to filming Noel Hilliam's old photographs.

According to Martin Doutre, even now, visitors to the area who wish to visit the ruins, may be followed by carloads of locals who threaten them with violence if they don't leave the area. Noel Hilliam, Curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum was warned to keep out of that archaeological forest area or his life would be in danger.

* * * * * * *

The Waipoua Forest suppression of information is but one of many attempts to dupe the New Zealand public and rob them of their true historical inheritance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, that makes me so friggin angry.

disgust.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post Chauncy, its scary how far some will go just to protect land claims. wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh... it riles me when people try to be a roadblock to truth. Especially on public lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rolleyes.gif Thats sad.

Read Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompson

The book is kinda expensive but worth it. Some of it speculation but all of it is very interesting.  thumbsup.gif

I too own that book and you're right about it being interesting. There are actually two versions available - the full version and the abridged version (still a massive book in it's own right).

I remember many years ago being on a Yahoo chat site on history and I mentioned the book. Boy, did I get a serving from an 'archeologist' who promptly told me how pathetic the book was, how wrong the information was and that I would be better served by reading 'proper' history books. Well, i've never been one for convention or orthodoxy; not everything is as it seems. I hate it when your own views cannot be expressed even if you might not hold to it yourself. Forums are here for the disemmination of individual views.

Anyway, i'm getting off track. I think it's an interesting book to read. Obviously, be wary of taking everything at face value and always try to find different sources but otherwise, i'd recommend it to get another view of human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That'd be typical........restrictions put on something because a certain section of society doesn't want something to come out in the open. For fear it might prejudice their own "official" version of the truth.

The fact that the Maori have only been in NZ for only about 1300 years (at most), is neither here nor there. It would be silly to think that someone else hadn't been there before them. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Egyptians or Phoenecians had landed there.....as there is ample evidence of their presence in Australia. New Zealand isn't all that much further to sail to, and it would be logical to assume that if they did go there, they'd leave some traces of their visits.

Frankly, this pandering to sections of society, based on their ethnicity and perceived cultural "sensitivities" is just another example of "PC" madness which has crept into everything in the last 20-30 years. There's nothing wrong in being sensitive to others concerns and such, but when that sensitivity goes beyond common sense, it's time to step back and look at the forest. Instead of the trees.

BTW...musashi.....I've gone through a few rounds with archaeologists before. Mostly over the Giza Pyramids and when they were built. I had one guy....who was doing his PhD at the time, at Oxford (he was Sth African).....call me some rather nasty stuff and said I didn't know a thing about them or anything else. He even told me to go back to school and do geology 101 again. That's when he really got on my goat. I tore his own field of study to pieces, and said he'd be better off learning a proper science.....not learning to become a glorified grave robber. I also told him if he didn't retract many of the comments he made about me and my own professional reputation, as a geologist, he'd find himself in hot water original.gifwink2.gif

Edited by Ozmeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Egyptians or Phoenecians had landed there.....as there is ample evidence of their presence in Australia.

oh really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is.......I can take you to a wharf structure built out of large stone blocks and the remains of what appears to be foundries not 400kms from where I live. There are also carvings on some of the stone blocks which are reminiscent of Phoenician writing.

They have also found remains of scarab bettle wood carvings as well as other artiifacts in places as widespread as Western Australia and Queensland. If I remember correctly, there's the remains of a Phoenician shipwreck along the WA coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW...musashi.....I've gone through a few rounds with archaeologists before. Mostly over the Giza Pyramids and when they were built. I had one guy....who was doing his PhD at the time, at Oxford (he was Sth African).....call me some rather nasty stuff and said I didn't know a thing about them or anything else. He even told me to go back to school and do geology 101 again. That's when he really got on my goat. I tore his own field of study to pieces, and said he'd be better off learning a proper science.....not learning to become a glorified grave robber. I also told him if he didn't retract many of the comments he made about me and my own professional reputation, as a geologist, he'd find himself in hot water original.gif  wink2.gif

Ozmeister; I had actually ommitted to write the fact that the archeologist with whom I had a 'run in' was South African and possibly Oxford trained. He was quite arrogant.

I recall he gave the impression he didn't like me as I had corrected him on a comment he made about the South African War (Boer War) and Anglo-Zulu War. I'm a bit of a military history fan and I recall he had inadvertantly substituted a battle from the Boer War with one from the Anglo-Zulu War. Anyway, I told him he was incorrect. Things weren't too pleasant after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was the same guy I had run in's with, calling him arrogant would be a fitting description. Can't remember his surname, but his first name was David. Young guy, about 23-24 at the time. Thought he knew the lot. He even argued points of geology with me......had to go and ask some professors their opinions. Didn't worry me at all because I hit back with just as good as he was giving out.

He's one of these arrogant types that believes in something because "an authority in the field" said so....and there's no arguements about it. Completely ego driven......"I know what's right and you don't know what you're talking about". It's guys like him that eventually have to wipe the egg of their faces when it turns out that they were wrong all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have heard of unusual remains found not far from where I live . Unfortunately a proper investigation can not take place with out the permision of the local Iwi (maori tribe) . Which the owner has had significant difficulty getting .

Here's a link to a previous thread on a similar subject . Loads of links for any one who's interested . CLICKER

Edited by Kismit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh darn it, if this place wasn't about 8hours' drive from me I'd so go check it out...

Very interesting.

One of the reasons Maori are so protective of 'their' land is the Treaty of Waitangi. There's been a huge stir up lately about what rights they have to the land according to the treaty. They did a hell of a lot better than natives around the world (Aborigines, Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, American Indians...), most of whom were shot like dogs. How many of them got treaties assuring them a slice of the pie? Legally they do have a claim to the land. The argument is where we draw the line as to how much we each have. They got here before us and so they have claim to the whole lot, right?

Hey, in fact, I *have* been to Waipuoa. There are some massive kauri trees there.

My father believes these ruins don't exist. It's just a story. No truth to it.

The 'true' indigenous (as who can say who were the original inhabitants of a country. We were all one continent in the beginning after all.) peoples of New Zealand has always been debated. Sure Maori hate anyone to say they weren't the first and therefore don't have the rights.

But I could go on for ages aobut the Treaty of Waitangi and the debates (arguments) and disagreements over it so I shall leave it there.

The end:

There are probably no such ruins. There are numerous mysterious anomalies throughout NZ (statues with the wrong numbers of fingers that disappear, very man-made looking blocks of stone among others). I don't think Maori were the first here. There was another peoples called the Maori-ori who lived in the Chatam Islands but Maori don't like the idea of them because that means they weren't the first here. Maori like to think they ahve first claim (am I sounding horribly against Maori here? Really, I feel proud how well we did as a country compared to other nations)

Yay our non-rascist multi-cultural society in which we try to accomodate others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Potholer , things are currently a little tense in New Zealand . But we should not forget that most of the trouble is not stirred up by the majority . I believe the reason alot of this is not released by the government is because of instigators of racial hatred like Tama -Iti a man who went to Fiji to support a rising coup . And a man who has openly claimed to support the next Maori wars .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in America there's some evidence that the Pheonicians , Romans, and Celts all established trade contacts if not built some small towns. Rather than trying to supress the information as they seem to be doing over there in New Zealand, our Archeologists completely ignore any mention of it. A kind of" If we ignore it ,it will disappear" attitude. There are no land claims to worry about in regards to these, so I can't understand why there's been no critical evaluation of the evidence..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons why, Falco, is because it upsets their cherished little notions about how the "reality" of history should be. There are a lot of academic and personal reputations at stake here, with the theories they've come up with. If they prove to be faulty or even false in their original premises, it's tantamount to career "suicide" as far as they're concerned. A lot of very big egos will be bruised....some very badly at that. Quite a few academic reputation will be just as badly bruised.

That's why things like this are ignored, or supressed.

Unfortunately, science is like that......In my opinion, they're not true scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess sometimes being a tenured acaemic type can be a bad thing if it confines your thinking to such a small box..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It can be......it can cloud your thinking. Especially if you have a substantial professional reputation on the line.

Can you imagine Zahi Hawass, the Director for the Giza Monuments, coming out and saying....point blank.....that he agrees with Prof. Rob Schoch and Graham Hancock, and would stake his reputation on that??

Hell will freeze over before that happened grin2.gifwink2.giftongue.gif

Edited by Ozmeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh-heh..that would be a long wait for us.. tongue.gif

I'd also like to thank you personally Ozmeister, since I've had to rely on your information in my Aliens built the Pyramids debate, since I've never studied anything about that theory myself..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff here.

I came upon THIS site while looking for other things.

Seems Ed Conrad had a beef with the Smithsonian over the validity of some bones he found in a quarry that apparently might drop a DC-10 sized monkey wrench in accepted timeline of man.

Interesting story and thoughtful conclusions, includes scans of correspondence between Conrad and the Smithsonian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Falco....but I can't remember what that debate was about.....head's been a bit hazy the last couple of days tongue.gifgrin2.gif Been very tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schadeaux....interesting link. I'll have a good read of it later. My preliminary opinion would be it's a concretion. The specimen there looks noting like a skull or even part of one, but I wouldn't be able to give a final say on what it was unless I could see it for myself. I'd need to study it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons why, Falco, is because it upsets their cherished little notions about how the "reality" of history should be.

This is exactly right!.....many discoveries are suppressed to up-hold the bastardized version of events.....it must be stressful days for the people that encourage the suppression, knowing every single day that it could take one tiny discovery to blow the lid off their betrayl!!!!

Also any events that contradict what was written in the Bible have a habit of being suppressed also. Ask Sir Williams Petrie or this man here!

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.