Giant Bones

[tangatawhenua16]

There are countless pictures of giant bones on the internet, most of them copies of copies of copies of fakes. Generally a human could not exceed 9' without serious alterations to normal skeletal structure, due to the square cube law. This is covered in our website on the date - Jun 8, 2016. All these famous people making money from tales of giants and all they have is stories of stories, many of which are true (our website is examining some of these from November 2022 until April 2023). But not a single individual or group has anything physical to show. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

But we have. We are seeking evidence of an old story of very tall human skeletons uncovered years ago and known about by various people and verified by older Maori (without agenda) through old stories. While digging out our first cave (abandoned due to dangerous section inside) we found extinct bird bones, including moa. These were fantastic finds. These bones came in with the fill that was used to block the phreatic tube. The fill came from the hills nearby, hence old bones as well as newer ones... a strata of life from 150-a minimum of 800 years of successive death and cover.

We did find a human bone. It had come in with the fill and was carefully arranged and covered by a single large rock as if to protect it (as all but one of our numerous moa bones were). After retrieving, cleaning and assembling the broken pieces, a number of broken sections of what was thought to be another moa bone appeared. Its weight was far greater than the moa bones, suggesting it was as suspected, a human bone. The femoral ends were missing and it had evidence of fire attributed to it. (Yes, we believe is was part of a cannibal process by Maori) It was secretly taken to a few who could expertly verify what it was without it disappearing ( as it would if Maori or govt officials had it). It was verified by one professional as 90% human (without femoral ends) and another who was a forensic scientist - his job was examining bones of bodies found. He said 99% it was human but couldn;t give it 100% without femoral ends. 99%! Think about that!

Now all these people like Hancock and Viera etc. Do they have a single scrap of physical evidence of anything tall?. Oh tall...! Shoot, we forgot to mention it's length didn't we. This shaft is was examined alongside a standard human femur and if the formoral ends were present, it would be 66cm long. That equates to an average of 8'1". Now as males are taller than females (and no DNA/CD test has been done as yet as our target is not a fragment but a full skeleton), if belonging to a male he could have been 7'11", but if a female then 8"2".

Here is the link. Say what you will. It is genuine but certainly not enough to provide the proof we need. But there is also much we aren't saying too as three other locations were blocked and obvious in being so.

https://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the ... ood-enough

Questions are great, but maybe through the website contact... or here, we don't mind. Just know no one else has what we have (unless lying low about it).

[Minimalist]

Hello, Tang.

Well, "proof" is for mathematicians. Here we can consider the totality of evidence.

Do you have any scientific evaluation to share? That would be a good starting point.

[tangatawhenua16]

I have a shaft of a human bones verified by a surgeon and a forensic scientist. The surgeon sasy 90%, the Forensic guy says 99% but can't give it 100% without the femoral ends. It equates to 2.46m (8'1"). There are photos of it on our site. Obviously we need more but we aren't the only ones with proof in NZ it seems

[circumspice]

It's really hard to take a website seriously when it's riddled with misspellings, grammatical errors & editorial errors. If these people are so very erudite, why is their website on par with the offerings of a sixth grader? 0

[tangatawhenua16]

To help people with attitudes like a 6th grader understand it