Dementia.

Posted on 19-07-2013 20:20 | By robin bell

You are correct in your interpretation of indigenous.Unfortunately McGuinness and co will use any subterfuge to gain support for thier move into politics.In the end thier lies will be thier downfall. Robin Bell.

Wrong again!

Posted on 21-07-2013 08:09 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Yet again Mr. Parish and Mr Bell invent their own definitions of 'indigenous'. Maori emigrated to our country the same as all other inhabitants and only a few hundred years before most others. Their culture is Polynesian, not unique. If Maori are indigenous then so are everyone else. You can't run from your lies forever. The consequences are coming.

INDIGENOUS MEANS SETTLED HERE FIRST

Posted on 21-07-2013 10:15 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande does not say what his definition of indigenous is but the United Nations says that the indigenous people of any country are the descendants of the first settlers. "Twisting the Treaty" accepts that Maori were the first settlers, so Maori are indigenous. The idea that arriving only 500 years before other settlers is not long enough to be indigenous is ridiculous. It is like saying that winning a game by only 5 points is not really winning. Ridiculous. First settlers are first settlers.

No invention your wrong .

Posted on 21-07-2013 13:20 | By robin bell

Sorry MKvL. Indigenous is the word used by the British to describe the ihabitants of countries they were rediscovering.It comes to us from the latin Indigene meaning native.There is NO arbitrary timeline drawn through the history of human movement around the earth.Maori were here when the rest arrived.That is allthat is needed for inigenous status.As you are fond of telling other people Mike go educate yourself. Robin Bell

Wrong YET again

Posted on 21-07-2013 13:46 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Mr. Dey pretends that if he defines something then it is the truth and the same as fact. The fact is we are all settlers and all immigrants. Therefore we are all indigenous or we are all not. There cannot be one rule for some and a different rule for others. Mr Dey even hoists himself by his own petard as Maori were not the first settlers here. Maori called the people they found here Tangata Whenua and clearly stated that Maori were not Tangata Whenua. Please find some integrity Mr. Dey.

@ Robin Bell

Posted on 21-07-2013 22:15 | By Captain Sensible

Sorry to have to tell you but when the British arrived they had no real way of knowing how long the "natives" in NZ had been here. For all they knew they could have been real indigenous....like the Australian Aboriginies. It was only later that it was revealed that maoris were not indigenous, and even had myths and legends of the people here before them. A signature on a UN declaration does not alter history.

Go to UN. Mike.

Posted on 22-07-2013 11:53 | By robin bell

You are outnumbered by at least 147 nations.Maori were here when the Brits. arrived they recognised Maori sovereignty and the rest is history.Time to move on. Robin Bell.

MIKE VON LANDE IS DEFYING MODERN SCIENCE

Posted on 22-07-2013 18:10 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande should read page 296 of "Twisting the Treaty". The authors have science degrees and they accept the scientific evidence of Janet Wilmshurst that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand and that there were no settlers in New Zealand before Maori arrived. Mike von Lande has still not said what his definition of indigenous is, but the United Nations says that indigenous people are the descendants of the first settlers.l This makes Maori indigenous in New Zealand. Saying that Maori are not indigenous because they arrived only 500 years before other settlers is ridiculous. Did the All Blacks win the rugby World Cup? They only won the final by 3 points. The All Blacks came first. They won the Cup. Maori arrived first. They are indigenous.

Oh Dear

Posted on 22-07-2013 21:46 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Mr Bell and Mr Dey can't even get my name right so what hope for more complex issues? Part of your problem chaps is that you are relying on the UN. Sorry to have to educate you but the UN is the most morally and financially corrupt body in the world today. It's no wonder you are all at sea with your reasoning when you base your opinions on them!

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 23-07-2013 08:37 | By Captain Sensible

Just wondering what version of "Twisting The Treaty" are you referring to? I realise there's probably a book called "How To Twist The Treaty" by several maori griever authors, but I think you are getting these books mixed up!!!

Captain What ?

Posted on 23-07-2013 10:56 | By robin bell

You guys are starting to contradict each other.According to von Lande Maori are not indigenous.Therefore the aborigals of Australia cannot possibly be.Please Captain show us where it states the timeline.There is none.You speak in half truths.Robin Bell.

SORRY MIKE KUIPERS VON LANDE

Posted on 23-07-2013 11:13 | By Peter Dey

My apologies to Mike Kuipers von Lande. I thought that Kuipers was a middle name. However describing the United Nations as the most morally and financially corrupt body in the world today is again a wild exaggeration unsupported by credible evidence. Mike Kuipers von Lande has still not given his definition of indigenous. The United Nations definition given by Wesley Parish as descendants of first settlers is now clearly the correct definition. The United Nations has 193 member countries. It may not be perfect but democracy never is.

THERE IS ONLY ONE

Posted on 23-07-2013 11:20 | By Peter Dey

The book "Twisting the Treaty" has got some things right so Captain Sensible should not object when I give references to it. Because many anti-Maori writers use information from "Twisting the Treaty" it is worthwhile to point out that "Twisting the Treaty" accepts the scientific evidence that Maori were the first settlers here and that there were no others before them.

Mike Kuipers von Lande

Posted on 23-07-2013 11:32 | By robin bell

Hope I got your name right thankfully you dont use your full christian name.glad to see that you have added the United Nations to your very long list of corrupt organisations and individuals.I dont take my leadership from them.I merely recognise them as the only forum we have to counter injustice handed out to Indigenous people of the world.You of course would rather take your direction from a book written by partime historians.Your arguments like theirs lack the credibility you so crave.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 25-07-2013 08:16 | By Captain Sensible

I have re-read page 296 of 'Twisting The Treaty' and other bits, and it says that according to carbon dating, maori arrived in NZ approx 1250AD, not the "have been here for thousands of years" as expressed by maori sympathiser and stranger to facts, Claudia Orange. So that puts maori in NZ for less than 800 years, which is very different to the 40,000 years that Australian Aboriginals are thought to have wandered Australia. The book does not say maori were the first here. You are twisting "Twisting The Treaty"! BTW, why are some maori so afraid of an independent review of NZs history? Is there something they don't want us to know?

Your at it again Cap'n.

Posted on 25-07-2013 11:54 | By robin bell

Please show us all,where does it state a time required to be classified indigenous.Wesley Parrish and Peter Dey are corrrect.You can't hide forever Cap'n.Robin Bell.

@ Robin Bell

Posted on 25-07-2013 20:37 | By Captain Sensible

My oxford dictionary defines indigenous as: "adjective, originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native". No mention of murdering and eating the people already here and then pretending. BTW, 40,000 years is enough to call the Australian Aboriginies indigenous, but 800 years for maori....no, not even close.

Still in the Mire Cap'n.

Posted on 26-07-2013 11:38 | By robin bell

Its the " occuring naturaly in a paticular place, Native" That undoes you.Native. A person belonging to a particular place or a person or people belonging to a non european race'as applied to the aborigines of a newly discovered country.I could go on but no point.The magority of people in the world accept that definition, why can't you and your friends.You simply do not have the ability to do it.

inconvenient facts

Posted on 26-07-2013 21:53 | By Captain Sensible

As I said Robin, maori are not indigenous just because they slaughtered the race here before them. Also, a signature on a UN declaration does not make them indigenous either. But keep telling yourself they are because there are no full maori left anyway and the part maori that are left may one day believe what you say as long as they disregard all the inconvenient facts.

untitled

Posted on 26-07-2013 23:13 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is ignoring the fact that "Twisting the Treaty" accepts Janet Wilmshurst's research. Her research shows that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand. Accepting her research results means that this result is accepted as well. The United Nations uses a more modern definition than the Oxford dictionary for indigenous. The United Nations definition is "descendants of first settlers" without any time period like 1,000 years. Saying that arriving 800 years ago is not long enough for Maori to be indigenous is contrary to the United Nations definition and without any credible justification at all.

Theodorus

Posted on 26-07-2013 23:35 | By Theodorus

The Maorioris were living in New Zealand before the Maori's arrived there So therefore the Maorioris most likely the indigenous people of New Zealand.Where are they now? What happened to them?

FACT WHO CARES??

Posted on 27-07-2013 11:08 | By crazyhorse

My son rang last night from Auckland university, they have just finished carbon dating some relics taken from a Dutch clog making factory, turns out they are a million years old, they were a small people, measuring a mere meter high and weighing under 15 kg, they were wiped out by hungry moa,and the huge hawk that lived here,are you not happy that someone has finally sorted who came here first.

Sublime to Rediculous.

Posted on 27-07-2013 13:15 | By robin bell

Our friend the talking horse has managed to bring our discussion to an end with his or her latest comment. I guess people will make their own judgment on that.Hopefully its "over and out" from me. Robin Bell.

Just

Posted on 27-07-2013 15:53 | By The Master

Agree Crazy Horse, there are just heaps of real relics that are from all over NZ that are thousands of years old and non Maori, puts all the claims in perspective doesnt it.

SCIENCE SHOWS NO PEOPLE HERE BEFORE MAORI

Posted on 27-07-2013 23:37 | By Peter Dey

The science results of Janet Wilmshurst, accepted by "Twisting the Treaty", shows that there were no people settled in New Zealand before Maori arrived. So, Theodorus, Moriori stories are fiction; and crazyhorse, your son is pulling your leg. Modern man came out of Africa only 200,000 years ago. The Master has no credible evidence of any thousand year old human relics in new Zealand. Once again we have exaggerated claims totally unsupported by credible evidence.

Waky waky Peter :)

Posted on 28-07-2013 17:37 | By Plonker

Perhaps you could inquire about the 116 special orders in place on archeological finds from NZ (requested nay demanded by the Maori Affairs Department) you answer that mate and you will start to see the problem. The order prohibits reference to the names, places, what why or when. But we know ... :)

Moriori Pete

Posted on 28-07-2013 17:39 | By Plonker

Easy Pete, simple question for you ... Why did Maori paddle from NZ to the Chatham Islands in the late 1700's/early 1800's? PS: please refer to the application to the Courts of the day by Moriori seeking the return of "their" lands.

Jane at a whim past-it

Posted on 28-07-2013 20:01 | By The Master

The Twisting the Treaty book makes reference to the Jane Wilmshurst "research" for what is really is but does not accept it at all, in fact it completely discredits it for obvious reason. If you disagree with this then Peter please prove it with page and line numbers.

I'm Maori?

Posted on 28-07-2013 20:08 | By The Master

1/24th Maori and I am Maori ... I think it is crazy that is the case, then there are all these claims and the money and land, it is just wonderful, I am a millionaire out of it all and all from the taxpayer is paying everything and I can not see why but I am not saying no to it. Soon I will get to tell you all what to do and I will be paid to do that also, isn't the world great these days.

Posted on 28-07-2013 21:10 | By Peter Dey

The Master can read in "Twisting the Treaty" page 296 line 27 "The first Maori settlement in New Zealand was around 1250 A.D. This was reinforced by peer reviewed and published findings of a research group led by Atholl Anderson from the Australian National University in Canberra and Janet Wilmshurst from New Zealand's Landcare Research. "Twisting the Treaty" clearly accepts this research and does not discredit it at all. The research itself also clearly shows that there was nobody here before Maori arrived.

Master of what?

Posted on 29-07-2013 12:55 | By robin bell

Non of the compilers of your favorite book has the ability or the qualifications to discredit J.Wilmshurst.It is simply a book designed to feed your prejudice and make them a nice profit at your expence.There is a contemory claim or two going on in Tga.right now that has managed to send poor old Crazyhorse to the knackers yard, check it out it may do the same for you.

Peter Day dreaming

Posted on 29-07-2013 14:07 | By YOGI BEAR

Looks to me Peter you have stretched the truth on that, the Twisting the Treaty" reference is only to the fact that there is approximate agreement about the arrival date of Maori, it in no way means or even infers that Maori are therefore "first" to NZ. Even Maori hand me down myths talk of the fair/white mountain people here in NZ "when they arrived". You still don't answer and in fact can not answer the rafts of information available (carbon dated) that show non Maori in NZ from about 1800BC. Your quote of Twisting the Treaty actually confirms that, Oh I mean the twisting part.

Maori here first?

Posted on 29-07-2013 14:10 | By YOGI BEAR

Peter, your choice is 1. Maori were here first so all Maori myths and legends are wrong for centuries, or 2. you are wrong again ... please choose?

WESLEY PARISH HAS GOT IT RIGHT

Posted on 29-07-2013 20:46 | By Peter Dey

Wesley Parish pointed out in his original letter that nobody has yet produced evidence of mythical "pre-Maori European settlers". The scientific radio-carbon dating research conducted by Janet Wilmshurst was reviewed and published by The National Academy of Sciences of the United States. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States was set up in 1863 by President Lincoln and is the official scientific adviser to the United States Government. Janet Wilmshurst's results showed that there is no evidence of human settlement in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250 A.D. So, YOGI BEAR, Maori myths and legends are stories, not literal facts, and your rafts of carbon dated information do not exist.

Knackers yard for claim.

Posted on 30-07-2013 09:51 | By crazyhorse

Mr Bell? Brings up the claim i commented on, (maori look at Matakana claim)the people putting in this claim are just representatives of the families that originally lived there. So people are going to start claiming on behalf of other maori now??????? is this not a worry,while we are at it dingle berry we live in Newzealand not Aotearoa, we are not all in a partnership and the Treaty of Waitangi is not our founding document,it may be to treaty troughers and sorry ass apologists such as Dey and you of the alter ego clan, leave the rest of us out.

Wesley nobody who?

Posted on 30-07-2013 10:25 | By YOGI BEAR

Come on Peter that is the same trash you put up before you are really a "Goneburger" mate on this one. Janet's research has already been shown to be selective and end result driven, any credible professional would not be associated with her or her work, or her conclusions. Please go read what you said before on it where you confirmed this. As for Maori Myths, that means all Maori "stories" are not real so all claims via the Waitangi tribunal are equally so.

Still Horsing around Cazy!

Posted on 30-07-2013 12:35 | By robin bell

You certainly took the bait.The claims you refer to are exactly the same as the Raglan claim.Land taken under the Public works act, no compensation paid,transfered to another authority and now not used.Show some balls and stop being so greedy.The iwi own the land not individuals.You really need to catch up.Sill you must be all screwed up what with all the different names you go under.Robin Bell

Researcher asked to lie

Posted on 30-07-2013 13:09 | By crazyhorse

waitangi researcher asked to lie by gov't agency, read all about it!! http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2717/waitangi-researcher-asked-to-lie-by-govt-agency/

The Masters Question ?

Posted on 30-07-2013 14:12 | By crazyhorse

No one can deny there has been relics found around Newzealand that pose questions, those have supposedly been answered, we are told Maori were the first and only people to live here prior to us, we can find very little of this research, it is fact researchers working for iwi on their claims have been refused payment unless the facts stack up their way, where is the paper work for researching relics that are not quite maori, maybe not maori at all, just asking.

REJECTING MODERN SCIENCE RESULTS IS IRRATIONAL

Posted on 30-07-2013 14:19 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR says that any credible professional would not be associated with Janet Wilmshurst's work. Her radiocarbon research, showing that Maori are indigenous in New Zealand, was published by the most reputable scientific organisation in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences. YOGI BEAR is being irrational if he rejects this simply because he does not like what it tells him. Treaty claims are not based on mythical stories. They are based on written and oral evidence since 1840.

RELICS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT

Posted on 30-07-2013 15:49 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse and The Master ask about ancient relics in New Zealand. The information about relics is in museums where the relics are held. Only items that have previously been living material can be carbon dated. Relics can not be carbon dated. Settlements where people lived can be carbon dated from the dead twigs there. Relics by themselves with no known history prove nothing. Janet Wilmshurst's research teams carbon dated most if not all known early settlement sites in New Zealand. Somebody could still come up with some new discovery but this is most unlikely because the whole of East Polynesia has now been carbon dated and confirms the New Zealand results.

Deny the obvious Peter, why?

Posted on 30-07-2013 16:29 | By YOGI BEAR

It is an "Inconvenient truth" that is why. Relics can be carbon dated, and you have confirmed the process, by carbon dating the material around it, this also applies to villages and settlements so thanks for confirming all as correct that there are six other ethnic groups in NZ, then Moriori, then Maori. All that has been confirmed for decades, not even Janet W wanted to look at that as her funding would have been cut dead in the water if she had not placed on the table the predetermined and paid for desired results. Her "research" (VERY VERY stretched meaning) was exceedingly selective by only picking up the bits that suited the desired final conclusion, ignoring all the rest (99.99%) that said otherwise, in doing so the research ended up being a farce. Seems everyone except those involved in "Treaty-gate" industry in Wellington realize that, no surprises there of course. Janet Wilmshurst's "team" as you call it was a hand pick group of the faithful all on the payroll and tainted massively as a result. No credible professional would have lowered themselves to that level and remain with a PHD except by sheltering behind the Maori Affairs skirt. No need of new discoveries of relics the evidence is already overwhelming and some. Not even the fat pay check of Janet could "bury" the real evidence and pretend otherwise, her game and yours Peter is sprung. I agree rejecting test results selectively (as Janet has blatantly done) is IRRATIONAL! Maori are indigenous in NZ as like the seven ethnic groups prior they were "born here. Go check the definition Peter, it would help. US publications mean nothing there was a time when they printed that the earth was flat to so that really puts things in perspective. Peter thanks for confirming that "Treaty claims are not based on mythical stories. They are based on written and oral evidence since 1840" You have just confirmed the obvious that Maori never had a language, that the stories were all "created" in writing since and that "creation" has not stopped since, hence the Why-tangi existence now.

Deep Breaths Roby!

Posted on 30-07-2013 17:02 | By crazyhorse

I was merely pointing out that you do not even have to be from that land to lay claim now, and you have my word there is only one of me, really just me!,it just that everyone else agrees. Is that beginning to be a problem (princess)or the(court jester) depending on who YOU!! are today??

Interesting reading

Posted on 30-07-2013 19:49 | By crazyhorse

This makes you think. read and make up your own mind,some of what other people have found and their ideas. http://uncensored.co.nz/2005/09/01/the-case-for-prehistoric-civilisations-in-new-zealand/

YOGI BEAR CANNOT BE SERIOUS

Posted on 30-07-2013 20:19 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR continues to write irrational nonsense. YOGI BEAR's description of Janet Wilmshurst's research is total fiction. Her report, showing that Maori are indigenous in New Zealand, is available on the internet. He believes that publication of her report by the US National Academy of Sciences means nothing, even though the Academy is the official science adviser to the US Government. We live in a scientific age. YOGI BEAR rejects scientific evidence. This is irrational. There is no carbon dated material from around relics that is older than about 1250 A.D. Oral evidence after 1840 is evidence of events after 1840 not mythical stories. YOGI BEAR cannot be serious. He is just fooling around.

PREHISTORIC CIVILIZATIONS WAS WRITTEN IN 2005

Posted on 31-07-2013 09:51 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, the article you refer to about prehistoric civilizations was written in 2005 before Janet Wilmshurst's radiocarbon evidence became available. It contains evidence from before 2005 that is no longer valid. It also refers to prehistoric evidence from the Pacific Islands which is no longer valid because Janet Wilmshurst's team radiocarbon dated all settlements in East Polynesia. They found dates consistent with Maori arriving in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. and no settlers here before Maori arrived.

Mr Dey

Posted on 01-08-2013 03:33 | By Crash test dummies

Bad news for you sir, even Maori leafership accept that Maori were not first to New Zealand.

lal lal land Dey and Night here?

Posted on 01-08-2013 11:44 | By YOGI BEAR

How possible is carbon dating of settlements in the Pacific Islands got anything to do with when general Zheng He and the Spainish dropped the odd lot off in NZ around 1300-1400AD or so, they were a little more observant that those dropped off as they noted the peoples already here i.e. Scottish in the New Plymouth area. For Maori to be arriving for the first time and people are already on the beach, have village and so on more or less leaves no question about Maori being 7-8th arrival in NZ that is "known" of and proved. These peoples have records (writing) from the time that record these things, just because Maori can not read and write until the 1800's does not means it is wrong, it is more a case of "no idea/clueless".

MAORI LEADERS WHO REJECT SCIENCE ARE NOT CREDIBLE

Posted on 01-08-2013 19:18 | By Peter Dey

JAFFA claims that Maori leadership knows that Maori were not in New Zealand first. Only one Maori leader, David Rankin, has rejected modern scientific evidence that Maori were first settlers in New Zealand, and therefore indigenous. David Rankin produces no credible evidence to back up his view, so he has no credibility. We live in a scientific world. Anybody who rejects solid scientific evidence is irrational, even if they are a Maori leader.

Peter Pan Plan?

Posted on 02-08-2013 10:21 | By YOGI BEAR

Please confirm that David Rankin is "wrong" because he disagrees with you? We do live in a scientific world but you have none is the important thing to know here, still waiting on the "evidence" Peter, PS Janet W's writings reside in the fiction section at the library so please don't go there unless you wish to confirm the truth of it as "Fiction".

DAVID RANKIN IS WRONG BECAUSE HE REJECTS SCIENCE

Posted on 02-08-2013 16:43 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR is confused about David Rankin. Davis Rankin puts forward Maori oral history stories to support his claim that there were pre-Maori settlers in New Zealand. Educated people now recognised that Maori oral history is just stories not literal fact because radiocarbon evidence now shows conclusively that there is no evidence of human occupation in new Zealand before Maori arrived.

Theodorus

Posted on 08-08-2013 23:51 | By Theodorus

It looks very strange that the Maori's did not settle in Australia as it is so much larger than New Zealand and therefore much easier to find? There must be some very good reasons for it! What were they??? Is there any body with the likely answers???

AUSTRALIA TO TAHITI 4000KM, NZ TO TAHITI 4000KM

Posted on 09-08-2013 12:50 | By Peter Dey

Theodorus, the ancestors of Maori who reached New Zealand travelled 4000km from Tahiti. Australia is 8000km from Tahiti. The inhabitants of New Guinea, just north of Australia were not long distance sailors.

TAHITI TO AUSTRALIA 8000KM TAHITI TO NZ 4000KM

Posted on 09-08-2013 16:50 | By Peter Dey

Theodorus, Tahiti to Australia(8000km) was twice as far as Tahiti to New Zealand (4000km). This must have been too far for the ancestors of Maori to reach Australia.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 11-08-2013 10:15 | By Captain Sensible

If Tahiti to NZ is 4000 km and the distance from Tahiti to Australia is 8000 km (as you say on 9-8-13 at 1650) then you are therefore telling us the distance from NZ to Australia is 4000 km.... which is absolutely not true. Come on Peter, you are good at making up "facts" but you have been caught out this time.

Theodorus

Posted on 11-08-2013 11:23 | By Plonker

It is "very" strange, the reason for that is that Maori did not "sail" to New Zealand, they were dropped off here by a number of others in real ships. There is no chance of a trip in a hollow log for thousands of kilometers, it is just not a real or practical thing. If that was possible then Kangaroos would have made the trip across the Tasman thousands of years ago.

Theodorus

Posted on 11-08-2013 22:00 | By Theodorus

Did Maori's originate from Tahiti? I have been there and the people there are much more peacefull and caring.Some people say they came from Taiwan?

CORRECT CAPTAIN SENSIBLE, WRONG PLONKER

Posted on 12-08-2013 17:06 | By Peter Dey

Correct, Captain Sensible, Tahiti to Australia is 6000km, but still too far for Polynesian voyagers. They managed Tahiti to Hawaii 4000km and Tahiti to Rapanui 4000kmR

MAORI ORIGINS

Posted on 12-08-2013 20:16 | By Peter Dey

Theodorus, scientists seem to agree (check with Wikipedia) that the ancestors of Maori migrated from Taiwan to the Bismarck Archipelago to Fiji/Tonga/Samoa to Tahiti and then to New Zealand. The scientific evidence is combined from archaeology, language, DNA, and radiocarbon dating. Polynesians have a history of long ocean voyages. This is supported by radiocarbon dating, and Plonker has no evidence to show otherwise.

MAORI ORIGINS

Posted on 12-08-2013 20:45 | By Peter Dey

Theodorus, scientists seem to agree (check with Wikipedia) that the ancestors of Maori migrated from Taiwan to the Bismarck Archipelago to Fiji/Tonga/Samoa to Tahiti and then to New Zealand. The scientific evidence is combined from archaeology, language changes, DNA changes, and radiocarbon dating. Polynesians have a history of long ocean voyages. This is supported by radiocarbon dating, and Plonker has no evidence to show otherwise.

Fairies in the Mountains

Posted on 13-08-2013 10:02 | By YOGI BEAR

Maori legends talk about the white haired fair skins people in the clouds of NZ, that was at the time that Maori were dropped off in NZ, i.e. that means when Maori arrived that there were already people here of non-Maori ethnic origins. The scientific of recognized and astute researchers and historians (does not include Janet Wilmshurst) verify the time line here also. Add to that of course that the astute Maori leaders realize the truth of it and have also acknowledged the obvious evidence and facts of it. Peter it only suits the black suit brigade in Wellington to keep the claims gravy train going as long as possible, everyone else is paying and few benefit. That is how it is.

YOGI BEAR IS DENYING SCIENCE

Posted on 13-08-2013 20:38 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR continues to believe oral history stories about Maori origins. These oral stories are only stories not historical fact, because they cannot be verified. The scientific radiocarbon evidence of Janet Wlmshurst can be verified and is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the official science adviser to the US Government. Her evidence shows clearly that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand, and that there were no people here before Maori arrived.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 14-08-2013 09:29 | By Captain Sensible

By saying I am correct, then you are admitting your statement was wrong. I see you put a slant on it to disguise your error.

8000KM OR 6000KM IS STILL TOO FAR

Posted on 14-08-2013 16:56 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is getting worked up over nothing. I first said that Tahiti to Australia was 8000km. I corrected myself. Tahiti to Australia is 6000km. It is still much further than Tahiti to New Zealand so this could be a reason why Polynesians did not reach Australia. My mistake does not change the point that Australia was too far from Tahiti for Polynesians to reach.

DNA TESTING,NOT FOR MAORI

Posted on 14-08-2013 18:07 | By crazyhorse

The National Geographic wanted to do DNA testing on maori to tell where they actually came from, some testing was done but maori were told not to participate?? this makes you want to ask a few questions, like why not??. The testing done showed, some woman were from asia, some men were melanesian, and some were from taiwan. This is scientific research, DNA does not lie, sounds like people came from a few places, but, how did they get here if they are not all the same race.swam, hollow log, dropped off by ship, or a waka taxi that whipped around picking up who ever for the land of milk and honey or to eat as many mori hori as you wanted.

MAORI MELANESIAN POLYNESIAN ORIGINS

Posted on 14-08-2013 20:38 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, most internet websites seem to agree that the Polynesians came from Taiwan(Chinese) to The Bismarck Archipelago and Fiji where they mixed with Melanesians, then on to Tonga/Samoa as a new Polynesian race, then to Tahiti, then to New Zealand where they became Maori. So Maori have Chinese, Melanesian, and Polynesian DNA.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 15-08-2013 07:43 | By Captain Sensible

No Peter, I corrected you and then you agreed in the face of the evidence I posted. You had no choice. It was simple maths and you got it wrong. Fact.

MELANESIAN POLYNESIAN ORIGINS?

Posted on 15-08-2013 17:40 | By Plonker

So Peter what you are really saying is that Maori are not from New Zealand, they are not Indigenous to New Zealand at all, they just appeared here all by accident and not that long ago? That would about sum it up wouldn't it.

SCIENCE PROVES MAORI ARRIVED HERE ABOUT 1250 AD

Posted on 15-08-2013 20:06 | By Peter Dey

Plonker the scientific evidence of Janet Wilmshurst proves that Maori arrived in New Zealand about 1250 AD and that there were no people here when Maori arrived. This scientific evidence can be verified, and is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the official adviser to the US Government. Anybody who argues about this has lost the plot.

CAPTAIN SENSIBLE'S MOUNTAIN OUT OF MOLEHILL

Posted on 15-08-2013 20:17 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible has failed to present any credible evidence to support any of his statements. Now he wants us to be impressed because he knew that Australia was not 4000km from New Zealand. Big deal!

I'm Impressed.

Posted on 16-08-2013 09:34 | By robin bell

C'mon Peter,give the Ca'pn a break.When it corrected you on your small mistake,it was the first only chance it had to get something right, Its bound to be exstatic.Both the Cap'n and 1st Mate Plonker are desperate to prove you wrong.So desperate they even bring up Indigenous again.The original "Poms" new Maori were Indigenous that is why they used the word to describe them.Its not Rocket Science its all about context.As Kuipers von Lande loves to say "go educate yourselves.Robin Bell.