Replies

"D.H.Childress" is none other than David Hatcher Childress, IMHO not a reliable source, although he's not dead wrong 100 per cent of the time.

Cracks In The Kaimanawa-wall Story?
by William R. Corliss
Mar-Apr 1997
It was bound to happen. The publicity accorded the Kaimanawa Wall by New Zealand newspapers (SF#107) stimulated the scientific community to take a close look at the controversial "wall." The New Zealand Department of Conservation asked geologist P. Wood for his assessment.

"He identified the rock as the 330,000-year-old Rangitaiki Ignimbrite. Following the line of blocks both horizontally and vertically, and photographing them in series, he revealed a system of joints and fractures natural to the cooling process in ignimbrite sheets. What Brailsford [see SF#107] had taken to be manmade cut, stacked blocks were no more than a type of natural rock formation."

P. Andrews, the author of this article likened the regular jointing of the "wall" to neatly hexagonal prisms seen in many basalt flows. He supplied two photographs of the "wall." One was like the photo in SF#107 and showed regular joints; the second, from the same outcrop, displayed angled fractures and joints that certainly do not look like the work of humans.
The Experts Challenged...
Mysterious New Zealand
Mar 01, 2005
"Barry and I discussed the possibility that the geologist had made a wrong call, and we sent a small sample of stone from the wall to an Auckland laboratory for further analysis. Tests revealed that the stone was in fact rhyolite which does not naturally occur on the eastern side of Lake Taupo. Further research indicated that the nearest rhyolite deposits are to be found at least 10 miles distance from the wall.

Based on this information, it could appear that stone was cut in situ and moved to the present site from further in the Kaimanawa Forest. It is now assumed that the wall is the only visible part of much greater structure buried under the volcanic ash of the 232AD eruption which formed Lake Taupo..."