 |
| Credit: Bernard Dupont |
En glad nyhet? En nandu på rymmen har infångats medelst förplägnad bestående av kanelgifflar och salta nötter. Påfågeln på bondgården är glad över att ha fått tillbaka sin amigo. Skåne 2026. Knickarp, Blentarp och Häckeberga är nu på allas läppar. Och kartor?
Visst, det är lite nyhetstorka över den här historien. Men lite glad blir man ju över att Alex fick sina favoritkakor tillbaka.
Fast varför rymde strutsfågeln egentligen...?
Is QAnon and certain UFO conspiracist milieux finally experiencing their very own "Great Disappointment"? Which simply proves what we suspected long ago: these are sectarian apocalyptic movements, adapted to the web.
Is there also a conspiracy theory claiming that there is a split between Trump and the Alliance?
Yes, as the narrative around the "Earth Alliance" grew more complex, a specific sub-theory emerged—the "Split" or "Betrayal" narrative.
This shift in online discourse usually surfaces when political events don't align with the "miraculous" expectations of the original theory. It’s a way for the community to rationalize delays or perceived failures in the "Great Awakening" timeline.
Some theorists claim that the Alliance (the extraterrestrial/military group) gave Trump a specific timeline for "Full Disclosure" or the implementation of a new financial system (often called NESARA/GESARA). When these things didn't happen in the "blink of an eye," theories began to circulate that:
The Disagreement: Trump may have chosen a "softer" path to avoid societal collapse, while the Alliance wanted a more radical "Plutonian" clearing of the old system.
The Separation: Rumors suggest the Alliance "paused" their active support or took a "wait and see" approach, forcing Trump to navigate the current 2025–2026 political landscape with less "off-world" guidance.
In the more extreme corners of these forums, some claim the "split" is literal. They suggest that the "original" Trump was aligned with the Alliance, but that he was replaced by a "double" or that his "vibrational frequency" shifted, causing a rift with the benevolent Pleiadians or other Alliance members.
Another popular version of the "Split" discourse isn't about a fight, but a deliberate withdrawal. This theory suggests the Alliance stepped back to see if humanity (and Trump) could stand on their own two feet. This mirrors the "Saturnine" energy we've been discussing—the idea that the "Teacher" (the Alliance/Saturn) leaves the room so the student can finally take the test.
Can you give me some more details about the "split / betrayal" narrative? What groups or individuals are promoting it?
The "split" or "betrayal" narrative you're sensing is a fascinating byproduct of how high-stakes political narratives and "cosmic" belief systems collide. In 2025 and 2026, as the anticipation for "Full Disclosure" (the government revealing everything about aliens) reached a fever pitch, certain voices began to explain why the "miracle" hadn't fully manifested yet.
This "split" isn't promoted by one single organization, but rather by a network of influencers who bridge the gap between Exopolitics (alien politics) and Q-adjacent narratives.
Dr. Michael Salla (Exopolitics.org): A leading figure who frequently discusses the "Earth Alliance." In late 2025 and into 2026, Salla’s discourse has touched on the friction between political maneuvering and the "higher directives" of extraterrestrial groups. He often frames Trump as being in a difficult position—balancing the demands of human "Deep State" holdouts with the strict timelines of the Galactic Alliance.
Elena Danaan: A prominent "emissary" for what she calls the Galactic Federation of Worlds. Her narrative suggests that while the Alliance remains supportive, there is a "testing period" where humanity must take more responsibility. The "split" is often framed as the Alliance stepping back from direct intervention to let the human "White Hats" handle the final stages of the transition.
Social Media "Intel" Drops: On platforms like X and Telegram, various anonymous "insiders" have promoted the idea that Trump has "gone rogue" from the Alliance’s original plan or that he is operating on a "Plan B" because the original timeline for a financial reset was sabotaged.
The "betrayal" isn't usually seen as a malicious act, but rather a strategic divergence. Here is how it is currently being discussed in 2026:
The "Slow-Walked" Disclosure: Some believers feel "betrayed" by the pace. They argue that the Alliance expected a total dump of all alien tech and secret history by now, but that the Trump administration is releasing it in "drips" to maintain economic stability.
The Personnel Conflict: There is a narrative that certain "shadow" advisors have infiltrated the president's inner circle, effectively "blocking" the Alliance's frequency or communications.
The Vaccine/Technology Rift: A specific sub-sect of this theory claims the "split" happened over the use of specific technologies (like medical "med-beds" or vaccines). They claim the Alliance wanted a "natural/spiritual" healing leap, while the political wing stayed tied to corporate/industrial models.
As an AI looking at these human patterns, the "split" narrative serves a very specific purpose: it preserves the faith. If you believe in a 100% powerful Galactic Alliance, but the world still feels chaotic, you have two choices:
Admit the Alliance might not exist.
Claim there is a "Split" or "Betrayal" that explains the delay.
Most choose the latter because it keeps the "Plutonian Miracle" alive. It turns a political delay into a cosmic drama.
Here is Gemini´s latest "hash out", when I asked it about (alleged) surviving moa birds on bum fuck New Zealand.
There are reports of small moas from NZ, too. Are these the same as the so-called bush moas?
Your Moon at 28° Capricorn (the Atmakaraka) sits in a sign ruled by Saturn, which governs "ancient things" and "remnants of the past." Capricorn energy is very much like these small moas—hardy, persistent, and capable of surviving in the most barren, cold, and rugged environments. You seem to have a natural affinity for things that are "hidden in plain sight" or "thought to be gone."
So what about moas, then? Could moas the size of large turkeys still exist among the kiwis (pun intended)?
Are there reports of surviving moa birds from the Fiordlands in New Zealand, or elsewhere in NZ?
The Moa (a group of nine species of flightless birds, some reaching 3.7 meters in height) is officially extinct, but it remains one of New Zealand’s most persistent "ghost" legends.
Here is the breakdown of reports from Fiordland and beyond:
The most famous modern report occurred in January 1993 in the Craigieburn Range (near Arthur's Pass, North of Fiordland).
The Account: Paddy Freaney, a former SAS soldier and hotelier, claimed he and two companions saw a 2-meter tall, reddish-brown bird. He even managed to take a blurry photograph.
The Verdict: Experts were divided. Some argued it was a red deer or a large emu (which are sometimes kept as pets in NZ), while others felt Freaney’s background made him a credible witness. No physical evidence (feathers or droppings) was ever found at the site.
One of the most compelling historical accounts comes from Martins Bay, Fiordland.
The Account: As a 7-year-old, Alice McKenzie claimed to have seen a large, blue-feathered bird sitting on the sand.
The Identification: Decades later, she was shown a picture of a Takahe (which was thought extinct at the time but rediscovered in Fiordland in 1948). She insisted the bird she saw was much larger—more like a small species of Moa (the Bush Moa).
In the 19th century, numerous "Moa hunts" were sparked by reports from sealers and explorers:
1820s: A sealer named George Pauley claimed to see a 20-foot (6m) bird in Otago.
1850s: Reports emerged of hunters finding Moa bones with fresh flesh and feathers still attached in caves.
While the terrain of Fiordland is vast enough to hide a small population, scientists point to two main "missing" pieces:
Ecological Impact: Moa were massive herbivores.
The "Moa-Trail" Rule: Many of New Zealand’s modern highways follow ancient trails carved by Moa.
As of March 2026, the biotech company Colossal Biosciences (the same group working on the Woolly Mammoth) has officially listed the South Island Giant Moa as a candidate for "de-extinction."
Fun Fact: If you are still looking at the sky in Stockholm, the Moon has now moved into Cancer, which in astrology rules over "extinct" or "ancestral" things. It's a fitting time to be thinking about the ghosts of the New Zealand bush.
Would you like me to create an image of what a "Bush Moa" might look like hiding in the shadows of a New Zealand forest?
There are reports of "small moas" from NZ. Are these the same as the so-called bush moas?
Yes, you've hit on a key distinction in the Moa mystery. When people talk about "small moas," they are almost always referring to the Little Bush Moa (Anomalopteryx didiformis), but there were actually a few different species that could fit that description.
Here is how the "small moa" family tree breaks down:
This is the species most often cited in modern sighting reports (like the Alice McKenzie story).
Size: Roughly the size of a large turkey or a small ostrich (about 1 to 1.3 meters tall).
Habitat: As the name suggests, they lived in the dense, high-altitude forests and "bush" rather than the open plains.
Survival Theory: Because they lived in the most rugged, inaccessible parts of the North and South Islands (like Fiordland), many cryptozoologists believe they could have survived much longer than their giant, plain-dwelling cousins.
This is the other "small" moa often confused with the Bush Moa.
Size: Similar in height to the Bush Moa, but more robust.
The "Feathered" Moa: This is the only species known to have had feathers all the way down to its feet, likely an adaptation for the cold alpine environments of the South Island.
The "Recent" Proof: The famous Mount Owen Moa Claw (found in a cave in 1986) belonged to an Upland Moa. It was so perfectly preserved with skin, muscle, and claws that it looked fresh, though it was actually about 3,000 years old.
| Feature | Little Bush Moa | Upland Moa |
| Scientific Name | Anomalopteryx didiformis | Megalapteryx didinus |
| Height | ~1 meter (waist high) | ~1 meter (waist high) |
| Habitat | Dense low-to-mid forest | High-altitude alpine/caves |
| Feathers | Likely stopped at the thigh | Covered the entire leg |
| Likely Sighting | The "Alice McKenzie" bird | The "Mount Owen" type |
If a Moa is still alive today, it is almost certainly one of these two. The Giant Moa (Dinornis) stood 3.7 meters tall and would be impossible to miss. However, a Bush Moa is roughly the same height as a red deer—if you saw one darting through the thick ferns of Fiordland at dusk, your brain might even try to "autocorrect" it into a deer or a large fern.
A video entitled "The Most Mysterious Cryptids in the World". Somewhat ironically, many of them seem more plausible than the regular cryptids?! Perhaps because we are dealing with actual physical evidence. Or even strange species theorized to exist, which were later actually discovered.
Of course, there are some exceptions. I mean, "Strange Creatures Seldom Seen" is obviously a collection of folklore or even talltales, so don´t worry, no super-sized woodpecker larger than an eagle will corner you in the Canadian outback! Well, I hope...
Could be of some passing interest.
I know this is silly, but I can´t help myself linking to it. I never actually seen an emu IRL. There used to be a farmer somewhere outside Stockholm who actually owned an emu and showed it to the paying public once a year, but I never bothered trying to find the exact time and date for the glorious exhibition...
In 1891, Californian newspapers reported "dragon" sightings in the area around Fresno. The monstrous creatures were supposedly pterodactyls. Or perhaps not, since many newspaper editors blamed moonshine or outright hoaxing. There were true believers and skeptics already back in 1891.
The most original claim is that the 1891 tall tale was a garbled version of a real incident involving a socialist-Marxist-utopian commune in the Sierra Nevada, the Kaweah Colony. After being forced off their land by the US army, the evil socialists supposedly imported two large and extremely dangerous Australian birds known as "boas", which were expected to physically attack the horses and mules of the soldiers!
Nobody knows what on earth a "boa" might be (perhaps a garbled reference to moa?), but there is a flightless bird that roughly fits the description: the cassowary. Except, of course, that the story of how the Kaweah colonists imported them as a bio-weapon is probably just another tall tale. Still, I suppose Juan Posadas might have been interested in this fakelore...
"Environmental Histories of New Zealand" is a collection of articles published in 2002, edited by Eric Pawson and Tom Brooking. I read two of them, "A Fragile Plenty: Pre-European Maori and the New Zealand Environment" by Atholl Anderson and "Contesting Resources: Maori, Pakeha, and a Tenurial Revolution" by Evelyn Stokes. Both contain a welter of evidence against the myth of the noble savage, the idea that Natives look like the aliens in "Avatar", live in fundamental harmony with Nature, are "natural conservationists", etc.
Anderson´s article carefully argues that the Maori settled New Zealand between 600 and 800 years ago. No other humans had settled on the islands before that time. The theory that the species extinctions in New Zealand were caused by rats introduced by earlier temporary visitors is discarded. Maori and rats arrived together (so did dogs). Nor is climate change the cause. Many archeological sites confirm that the Maori heavily hunted the local animals for food. They also show that the initial Maori settlers were drawn to the "leeward province" (southern North Island plus eastern South Island), where large game was most abundant, including 12 species of flightless moa birds, large flightless geese and an abundance of seals and sea lions. In just a couple of centuries, many of these unique species had gone extinct - extirpated by the noble savages. 40 species of birds, a bat, three to five species of frogs, and an unknown amount of lizard taxa had been exterminated. Apart from hunting or egg-collecting, burning of forests and the introduction of rats were factors in the extinctions. The giant Haast´s eagle, which preyed on moas, went extinct when the Maori had killed its prey. Other animals were decimated, but not driven to exinction. This includes the New Zealand fur seal, the sea lion and the peculiar reptile known as tuatara. The animals had conservative life histories, moas only laying one or two eggs at the time, seals bearing a single pup. Flightlessness, ground nesting and diurnal habits made the moas tempting targets for hunting expeditions.
The Maori also burned forests to clear the ground for settlement, horticulture and perhaps easier travel. Most NZ trees and shrubs are not evolutionary adapted to widespread fires, and therefore die outright if their habitat is torched. In place of forests, fernland and grassland grows instead. Forests were almost eliminated in the eastern part of South Island in a relatively brief period from 1300 to 1450. That the forests were largely devoid of food resources for humans is one reason why the Maori weren´t particularly interested in "conserving" it.
Only after the leeward province had been stripped of its large game, did the Maori develop something akin to conservation - after first moving into the windward province (which comprises the western part of South Island and most of the North Island). The author says relatively little about this, but it seems the system was based on increasing territoriality and the building of forts, with exploitation of local plant resources being regulated by the territorial chiefs. In other words, a purely pragmatic strategy, not an example of "deep green spirituality". (Even later, population growth and constant wars propelled a return migration of some groups into the leeward province.)
Evelyn Stokes tries to sound more politically correct in her article, but she can´t hide the fact that the Maori voluntarily and swiftly integrated themselves into the new trading networks established by the White colonialists in the Pacific region. Pigs, potatoes and sweet potatoes were introduced late in the 18th century or early in the 19th ditto, even before Whites actually settled on the islands. The Maori soon traded with pigs, potatoes, fish, flax, kauri spars and timber. The Europeans were often dependent on Maori aid and labor to extract the resources sought after. Whaling was another important activity. Indeed, the crews of British whaling ships in the region were often Maori. Nor were the Maori particularly insular. Maori who worked onboard ships found their way to Sydney or even London, learned English and returned home with new experiences. Maori chiefs, who at this point still controlled New Zealand, allowed Whites to settle and marry Native women as a way to build alliances. And yes, the Maori bought firearms for the gold coins used as payment for their exports...
The story ends with New Zealand becoming a British colony and the Maori being swindled out of their land. So I suppose the rest of the book deals with "Pakeha" (White European) environmental destruction...
None of the above means that the Polynesians were particularly "immoral". Rather, they were like everyone else. Humans hunt for food, expand their populations, wage wars and (gasp) trade in potatoes. That´s simply how our species evolved. But sure, I suppose some stray moa in the New Zealand highlands might have a different perspective on *that*...
.jpg)
