July 18, 2010 - David Hatcher Childress

[Kandinsky]

You bring Racism into it, but the fact is there was a cover up, and there is official documentation to prove it. It's widely accepted today that other peoples from Europe and elsewhere travelled to New Zealand before the Maori, so they are not native to the Island.

Read the link. It shows archived records from the New Zealand government discussing this issue.
http://www.celticnz.co.nz/embargo_saga.html

Last year I spent a lot of time looking in to the claims of celticnz. I found that the wiki pages had been authored by Doutre and associates. They linked back to each other to present a veneer of truth. Eventually Wiki had them removed for intellectual dishonesty and fraud. Wiki isn't perfect, but it maintains records of removed pages and reasons why. You can go along and see.

I discovered the actual landowner who built some of the walls claimed to be pre-Maori...Jim Crosbie in the late-19th Century. His photo and biography are available online.I found that the close-ups of alleged walls were either recent (19th Century) or familiar rock formations found in NZ.

The story of a banished Scotsman being a founder of NZ was without basis. It was a fictional piece presented to add credibility to the claim that the native population of NZ is white.

I'm a dedicated student and a teacher of history so I looked into the academic research history. The impact of Maori populations from 1200-1400 is found in the landscape. There's a layer of human activity in the earth from the period. This is represented by hearths, animal bones and the widespread extinctions of native fauna. The human remains are those of Maori and the assemblages are Maori. Prior to the period there is no record of human habitation.

Why would they do this? What could such a conspiracy seek to achieve?

By making the claim of indigenous whites, they could support the NZ nationalists. Much like the British National Party's identical claims...they could then offer to 'repatriate' the Maori non-whites to other places.

I can provide sources for everything I've written

 

[Kieran]

Last year I spent a lot of time looking in to the claims of celticnz. I found that the wiki pages had been authored by Doutre and associates. They linked back to each other to present a veneer of truth. Eventually Wiki had them removed for intellectual dishonesty and fraud. Wiki isn't perfect, but it maintains records of removed pages and reasons why. You can go along and see.

I discovered the actual landowner who built some of the walls claimed to be pre-Maori...Jim Crosbie in the late-19th Century. His photo and biography are available online.I found that the close-ups of alleged walls were either recent (19th Century) or familiar rock formations found in NZ.

The story of a banished Scotsman being a founder of NZ was without basis. It was a fictional piece presented to add credibility to the claim that the native population of NZ is white.

I'm a dedicated student and a teacher of history so I looked into the academic research history. The impact of Maori populations from 1200-1400 is found in the landscape. There's a layer of human activity in the earth from the period. This is represented by hearths, animal bones and the widespread extinctions of native fauna. The human remains are those of Maori and the assemblages are Maori. Prior to the period there is no record of human habitation.

Why would they do this? What could such a conspiracy seek to achieve?

By making the claim of indigenous whites, they could support the NZ nationalists. Much like the British National Party's identical claims...they could then offer to 'repatriate' the Maori non-whites to other places.

I can provide sources for everything I've written

Your view of History is all muddled as I have experienced before.You believe the Egyptians cut hardened granite with copper, for God sake.

Did I not state. The Maori migrated to New Zealand in 1200AD and my friend Dr Muriel Newman in her speech said as much. Paul took issue with this lady and her ability to understand History. Does Paul know her personally? Your posting stuff that has no relevance to the claims I have made.

But you and Paul are avoiding the hard questions. Do you or Paul deny my claim that archived document is authentic? It's widely accepted they found mummies why not carbon date their age and we could end this debate? The conspiracy lies in the fact the Maori believed they are the first to set foot in New Zealand. The mummies might be of Celtic origin or be of some other race who were there after or before the Maori . Nobody knows all we do is, they covered-up what they found and never released the information and put a date of 2063 on it, as the release date.

What is the big secret they found in the ground that they wouldn't release the information until 2063. 53 years from now. Leaks of information have suggested the People had Blonde and Red hair and were very Celtic/Nordic looking

 

[Will Penguin]

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the show. Sure, it was mostly a bunch of speculation, but it was fun, thought-provoking speculation.

 

[Kieran]

This is one of the reasons why i never started a new thread about the Hudson Valley case. People deny, even when a solid case can be made. When you talk about the sightings in the Hudson valley, you also have to bring up the stone chambers in the Hudson valley. Philip Imbrogno had strong evidence those chambers were built by the Celts. In his book, he said he attended a meeting at the Archaeological society at Norwalk community in Norwalk, Connecticut. He got talking to the president of the society, who at the time was the Assistant state Archaeologist of Connecticut.

Philip said he showed him a number of pictures of the stone chambers and he replied with a laugh "Colonial root cellars Then I showed him a picture of the balanced rock. He laughed and said OH you must be into the crazy theories of Barry Fell. Dr Barry FELL is an expert in Celtic History

Phil then asked what he thought of the North Salem Balanced Rock!! Nothing more than a erratic left over from the Ice age. Phil explains he has a strong background in geology and that he knew that the balanced rock was not a glacial erratic. And he explained why, too long to explain.

According to Phil. The society's president then walked away still chuckling under his voice shaking his head. It seemed to Phil, he wanted to avoid any further conversation and did not want to discuss the subject of the possible theories of the origins of the Balanced rock or the stone chambers. According to Phil, It was as if we just cornered a hard nosed astronomer and asked him if he thought that UFOs were in fact Alien Spaceships.

However unlike UFO's the stone chambers were there for all to see and although many of the Archaeologists present knew of their existence, not one of them was willing to go the record to discuss them. Younger graduate students talked about them to us, they whispered, fearing that their mentors would hear the discussion.

Phils says was this the Scientific method?

The chambers were treated as if they did not exist since they did not fit in current theory. Phil says he found that attitude strange for a group of people with scientific backgrounds. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, to search for answers to make known what is unknown.
After a number of questions to several people at the meeting we found out that no archaeologist present at this meeting studied or researched any of the chambers, yet they all presented Skeptical opinions.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul did you not read the first archive document. Hope people here are not dumb and can see that confirms there was a Cover-up. The response later from the New Zealand Authorities is not relevant they had already been caught in the act.They were covering their asses from enquires about it. Paul if you want to be dishonest fine, but the document is plain as day and it's officially stamped as coming from the national archives.

You have Problem with Doutre, rightly so, but often people with bad intentions something's come across important finds, and use it for their own evil purposes.

This is the second time in the past couple of days that I have been called dishonest around here because I disagree with someone. I'm done.

 

[Kieran]

This is the second time in the past couple of days that I have been called dishonest around here because I disagree with someone. I'm done.

The first archived document clearly shows a cover-up,.You claim (your words)

The letter (national archives) provides a logical explanation for the first archived document, it doesn't. The agreement for the transfer of Archives has an restricted until 2063 and were in the second letter does it explain the reason for the restriction, logically? Its the date, that seals it Paul.

This letter was issued in 2000 and the agreement for the transfer of Archives it dated 1988. 18 years of confusion!! The letter is a smoke screen to explain away a document which proved the New Zealand government covered up important Archeological discoveries.

Your Highly intelligent and I see no reason, why you can't see what I see. Until you support your argument, I have to believe their is another agenda behind your reasoning. I apologise for the dishonesty remark, but be fair to me, support your case.

Doutre is a problem. I have said as much.

 

[Kandinsky]

Your view of History is all muddled as I have experienced before.You believe the Egyptians cut hardened granite with copper, for God sake.

Pointless commentary. Red herring. What's 'hardened' granite and why should God care?

Did I not state. The Maori migrated to New Zealand in 1200AD and my friend Dr Muriel Newman in her speech said as much. Paul took issue with this lady and her ability to understand History. Does Paul know her personally? Your posting stuff that has no relevance to the claims I have made.

Non-sequiturs. Your 'friend' Dr Muriel Newman is qualified in maths.

But you and Paul are avoiding the hard questions. Do you or Paul deny my claim that archived document is authentic? It's widely accepted they found mummies why not carbon date their age and we could end this debate? The conspiracy lies in the fact the Maori believed they are the first to set foot in New Zealand.

More red herrings. What does the document mean to you? Please explain clearly.

Kieran, I'll be honest here. From what I've read of your posts, you aren't interested in objective evidence. If you were you'd provide some credible links to support your opinions. Instead, you rely on links to the very same websites and claims that have been compromised by associations to the nationalist politics of the site owners.

I offered to provide sources for my earlier post and you've blithely side-stepped the opportunity for an informed discussion. You're evasive behind a pattern of proclamations, sneer tactics and accusations of agendas.

In your rebuttal to this post, I'd appreciate a sober presentation of your position with links to back it all up. Point, evidence, explain.

My position is that there is no supporting evidence for human habitation of New Zealand prior to the Maori.

 

[Kieran]

Your view of History is all muddled as I have experienced before.You believe the Egyptians cut hardened granite with copper, for God sake.

Pointless commentary. Red herring. What's 'hardened' granite and why should God care?

Did I not state. The Maori migrated to New Zealand in 1200AD and my friend Dr Muriel Newman in her speech said as much. Paul took issue with this lady and her ability to understand History. Does Paul know her personally? Your posting stuff that has no relevance to the claims I have made.

Non-sequiturs. Your 'friend' Dr Muriel Newman is qualified in maths.

But you and Paul are avoiding the hard questions. Do you or Paul deny my claim that archived document is authentic? It's widely accepted they found mummies why not carbon date their age and we could end this debate? The conspiracy lies in the fact the Maori believed they are the first to set foot in New Zealand.

More red herrings. What does the document mean to you? Please explain clearly.

Kieran, I'll be honest here. From what I've read of your posts, you aren't interested in objective evidence. If you were you'd provide some credible links to support your opinions. Instead, you rely on links to the very same websites and claims that have been compromised by associations to the nationalist politics of the site owners.

I offered to provide sources for my earlier post and you've blithely side-stepped the opportunity for an informed discussion. You're evasive behind a pattern of proclamations, sneer tactics and accusations of agendas.

In your rebuttal to this post, I'd appreciate a sober presentation of your position with links to back it all up. Point, evidence, explain.

My position is that there is no supporting evidence for human habitation of New Zealand prior to the Maori.

So Everyone has to have a degree to understand history, is that it!!!

Philip Imbrogno has seen first hand, what's happens when you run into people (Academics) who have preconceived notions about History, they can't accept there might be alternatives, when challenged. Even when there is substantial amount of evidence to prove that alternative theory.

So there was no Peoples in New Zealand prior to 1200AD, all that lush landscape went to waste for thousands of years until the Maori came to the shores of New Zealand. Even though the land was fertile for farming and hunting. Exploration of the seas was common place. But nobody found lonely Old New Zealand?

I Guess in your World there was no Europeans in the Americas before Columbas either!! Even though Philip Imbrogno, and other researchers have proven otherwise.

I have been debating this issue long enough. Whatever Evidence, I present to you. Is not going to change your mind. So I be only wasting my time getting, it for you.

Anyway when there is a Cover up very little information if any information gets out to the public. However the document from the National Archives, clearly shows, there was a withholding of information from the New Zealand public until 2063. You and Paul still haven't explained why the New Zealand Government wanted to restrict access to discoveries until 2063. Since you, haven't replied with a response. I don't feel obligated to answer any of the new questions you asked!!

Since I am nice Guy.

What does the document mean to me. You ask.. I explained already what it means to me.

Now if you are ignorant to the background of the whole case, it up to you research it!!

In fact, You shouldn't be here debating me on a matter, if you have not researched it properly.

These are the facts

There is no link between the Celts and the Nazis> Period ( nothing) What people have read is unfounded information.

Paul and you are questioning the website because of Doutre links to Neo- Nazism. Doutre and others probably do give lot of credence to Nazi myths, but the Celts existed before the Nazis. They lived thousand years before each other and the Celts lived a different way of life to the Nazis.

Celts were the first people to give women equal rights with men in the Ancient World.

Celts were mainly white skinned and they came from Germany and Turkey and spread out all over the World.

That still does not taint what he found, that is my argument. It well-known,this information can be found on lot of respectable websites too. There was a discovery and it was covered up. I have presented my argument throughout the thread. I have nothing further to add.

Kandinsky I'm busy at Home given the time. I could present the evidence you require. But Like I said above. No Point in wasting my time and yours!!

 

[paraschtick]

Haa haa this is great fun ... watching people who don't live in New Zealand have an argument about it . I live in NZ and have done for 11 years or so now, and although I don't class myself as a Kiwi (I'm far too British for that ... hehe), and some other people on the forums who also live in NZ can probably speak about these things in far more detail than me, I shall just say a couple of things.

1. I've never heard of this Doutre character in all my 11 years of living here ... but then again I never read the papers and as far as I know I've only seen a few very brief articles on news programmes discussing such topics. One bloke a few years back claimed that some round boulders on a beach here in NZ were actually the ballast from some Chinese junks ... and not just natural stone concretions ... which of course they were.

2. If my NZ history is correct, and its pretty uncool to say this but I'm British ... so what the heck ... there were people living here in NZ before the Maori. They were called the Moriori and were wiped out by the Maori ... as was a great chunk of the forests and native wildlife. So much for the Maori being noble and caring about the land etc...

3 The ACT party isn't particularly that fringe a party. They admittedly have only one proper MP, the terrible Rodney Hide. There may be footage of him on youtube somewhere on the NZ version of "Dancing With The Stars" (which was cancelled after a few series ... well ... probably because the country ran out of stars ) ... which is always worth a giggle. But they are well known and are forever trying to suck up to the National Party (our Tories). One of the main people who formed ACT used to be in the Labour party here in the 80s and brought in the horrors of privatisation etc..

4 And finally for the moment, I have after all heard of this Doutre character ... just visited the celticnz.co.nz website. And who knows? He could be right. I have no idea. We might have to wait until 2063 or whatever it is until we do. But I shall read his website and see if the hackles start rising ... watch this space.

5 Oh and the Maori are fairly diluted as a race now. I doubt there are really any full blooded Maori left. I know of one woman who claims to be Maori, wears lots of pounamu etc (green stone ... which can only be dug up and sold by Maori!) is whiter than me. In fact ... I might be more Maori than her ...

 

[Kieran]

Haa haa this is great fun ... watching people who don't live in New Zealand have an argument about it . I live in NZ and have done for 11 years or so now, and although I don't class myself as a Kiwi (I'm far too British for that ... hehe), and some other people on the forums who also live in NZ can probably speak about these things in far more detail than me, I shall just say a couple of things.

1. I've never heard of this Doutre character in all my 11 years of living here ... but then again I never read the papers and as far as I know I've only seen a few very brief articles on news programmes discussing such topics. One bloke a few years back claimed that some round boulders on a beach here in NZ were actually the ballast from some Chinese junks ... and not just natural stone concretions ... which of course they were.

2. If my NZ history is correct, and its pretty uncool to say this but I'm British ... so what the heck ... there were people living here in NZ before the Maori. They were called the Moriori and were wiped out by the Maori ... as was a great chunk of the forests and native wildlife. So much for the Maori being noble and caring about the land etc...

3 The ACT party isn't particularly that fringe a party. They admittedly have only one proper MP, the terrible Rodney Hide. There may be footage of him on youtube somewhere on the NZ version of "Dancing With The Stars" (which was cancelled after a few series ... well ... probably because the country ran out of stars ) ... which is always worth a giggle. But they are well known and are forever trying to suck up to the National Party (our Tories). One of the main people who formed ACT used to be in the Labour party here in the 80s and brought in the horrors of privatisation etc..

4 And finally for the moment, I have after all heard of this Doutre character ... just visited the celticnz.co.nz website. And who knows? He could be right. I have no idea. We might have to wait until 2063 or whatever it is until we do. But I shall read his website and see if the hackles start rising ... watch this space.

5 Oh and the Maori are fairly diluted as a race now. I doubt there are really any full blooded Maori left. I know of one woman who claims to be Maori, wears lots of pounamu etc (green stone ... which can only be dug up and sold by Maori!) is whiter than me. In fact ... I might be more Maori than her ...

I brought up the Moriori in my discussion with Paul.

 

[CapnG]

Tom, please check out the article I posted (#3), by an actual astronomer that is using science to explain what the Moon is all about. I'd also urge you to pick up his book (Bad Astronomy) to dispel some common misconceptions about the Moon. It's a fantastic book, filled with facts.

The simplest argument against any bizarre explanation of the origin of the moon is the fact that geological surveys demonstrate it's mineral composition is roughly identical to that of earth. If it were a foreign body, it's compostiion (and elemental distribution) would be radically different.

 

[Ofaebtas]

Wow wow wow. I'm twenty minutes in and I can't believe the stuff this guy is into. The stuff people will believe. He does sound like a nice guy though, but still, wow.

Also, he needs to learn about the rotation of the moon. He's got it completely wrong and he's falling victim to bad Astronomy. He should take a look at this:

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions

Excuse me, but that "article" and the guest don't contradict each other as far as the moon's orbit/rotation goes.

Both, the article and the guest, pointed out the peculiar fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is in almost perfect sync with the rotation around its own axis. From the plane of reference of the earth, at least.

I don't see why that fact couldn't be used to support theorization on the moon's "weirdness." As far as I know, and I don't know much, not many satellite bodies share the same relationship between rotation vs. orbit. But I don't know.

The guest did use the term "dark side of the moon" however.
OH NO!
The "dark side of the moon" is a figure of speech that we have come to use. Nobody says "the far side of the moon," which would of course be more proper and accurate.

Posting that article in this context, to me seems a little silly. Like, someone posting an article written by an elementary school english teacher where he/she goes into how Singer XYZ singing "ain't no" isn't proper english.

"There ain't no dinosaurs on the sun" Waiiiiit a minute! that statement is suspect because of the double negative and "ain't" isn't really a word! There are dinosaurs on the sun!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Excuse me, but that "article" and the guest don't contradict each other as far as the moon's orbit/rotation goes.

Both, the article and the guest, pointed out the peculiar fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is in almost perfect sync with the rotation around its own axis. From the plane of reference of the earth, at least.

I don't see why that fact couldn't be used to support theorization on the moon's "weirdness." As far as I know, and I don't know much, not many satellite bodies share the same relationship between rotation vs. orbit. But I don't know.

The guest did use the term "dark side of the moon" however.
OH NO!
The "dark side of the moon" is a figure of speech that we have come to use. Nobody says "the far side of the moon," which would of course be more proper and accurate.

Posting that article in this context, to me seems a little silly. Like, someone posting an article written by an elementary school english teacher where he/she goes into how Singer XYZ singing "ain't no" isn't proper english.

"There ain't no dinosaurs on the sun" Waiiiiit a minute! that statement is suspect because of the double negative and "ain't" isn't really a word! There are dinosaurs on the sun!

Actually, I'm quite sure they do contradict each other, as Plait is explaining that the moon does actually rotate, whereas the guest seemed to insinuate that it does not. Another thing, which Plait discusses in his book, the Moon is actually moving away from the Earth (4cm per year, so really slowly) so it will eventually not cover the Sun during an eclipse. Now if you choose to believe that the Moon is an alien made satellite it's fine. I'm just letting you know that you are absolutely wrong. I have no problems asserting that fact. This isn't like a UFO case where there's no evidence to refute a claim. Arguing that the Moon is an artificial construct is like arguing that a god created the Earth and everything on it in six days - both have mountains of evidence against them.

 

[Ofaebtas]

Actually, I'm quite sure they do contradict each other, as Plait is explaining that the moon does actually rotate, whereas the guest seemed to insinuate that it does not.

The guest did say it rotates. I just checked and I remembered right.

The guest:
"...the moon has this odd rotation that keeps the back side always away from the earth"

The article:
"Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon does not appear to rotate. This is because from an outside frame of reference, the Moon rotates once for every time it goes around the Earth."

 

[campbell71]

You are all wrong. If you'd watched the excellent documentary "A Grand Day Out" you'll see the moon really is made of cheese.

On a serious note, I enjoyed the enthusiasm of Childress, it made for an entertaining show though I would like to have heard him have spoken more about his archeological work. AS to wheter or not the moon is hollow - its not dafter to believe in this than to believe in god.....

 

[justcurious]

You are all wrong. If you'd watched the excellent documentary "A Grand Day Out" you'll see the moon really is made of cheese.

That certainly explains a lot. You devious Americans are trying to destroy the cheese-based French economy, hence the Apollo cover-up.
Gene, get me on the show- I'll show you the truth!

 

[inuk2600]

I used to be into the David Childress material before I knew how to do critical thinking, however it was fun to unplug the old brain again for a couple of hours of self-indulgent nostalgia.
For the record, Childress was not incorrect about his description of the moon's tidal lock on the earth. However he was arguably incorrect in his assertion that it is a rare occurrence, see Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The guest did say it rotates. I just checked and I remembered right.

The guest:
"...the moon has this odd rotation that keeps the back side always away from the earth"

The article:
"Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon does not appear to rotate. This is because from an outside frame of reference, the Moon rotates once for every time it goes around the Earth."

The word I take issue with is "odd," not "rotation."

 

[SLVA]

Back to the title of the thread for a moment and some feedback on the show.
The Paracast is sounding more like the Rob Simone show. Your guest tonight had not a single original Unfounded theory of his own. I see on the thread you are thinking of inviting him back!
The forum on the other hand has become uber confrontational, the zero tolerance for 'paranormal' discussion has dulled any debate. This is a show in transition. As always I'm open minded as to the outcome may be. I would like to say though, that I came to the paracast because people on other shows get away with talking about 'nazis' and 'atmosphere on the moon'. Jeez...

 

[Ofaebtas]

The word I take issue with is "odd," not "rotation."

Really? I thought somebody suggested that the guest implied the moon isn't rotating, just a few posts up.

Plait is explaining that the moon does actually rotate, whereas the guest seemed to insinuate that it does not.

Whether the rotation should be described with the adjectives like "odd," "peculiar," "weird," "unique" or not can be debated I guess. Myself, with limited knowledge of astrology and physics, tend to think it's pretty odd how evenly synchronized the rotation and orbit are. That doesn't mean it's "proof" for anything. Just a little odd.