Sidestep: Kaimanawa Wall
I’ve never wanted to do a post on this formation as it just never interested me. That was because it is a natural formation but I know there are many that would disagree with me. I’ve never been there and for me there is no need to, but even looking at the front face one can tell this is natural. The more photos that appear on the net, the easier it is to prove that without even going there.
Johns video is the first to do a walk around which reveals much. Most just stay at the bottom and concentrate on the front part which is not proper investigation. The front is unique, but the top shows shows what this really is. What we need are examples elsewhere that look like this. Of course many would say they too are man-made so you can’t please everyone. Mostly they use these type of structures below as examples. Below are all obviously man-made but are very different from Kaimanawa.
Peru, Rapanui, Middle East, Europe and Nan Madol are all shown above. While tightly joined not one shows perfect straight lines.
Now keep in mind who we say we are. At tangatwheua16 we are a group of people who have been physically digging to reveal 8' pre-Polynesian skeletons to the world - we are 'digging', not just talking about old photos and old stuff like everyone else is. As such, if we are skeptical about this wall, then you can be sure there is a good reason for it. The Kaimamawa wall is a natural phenomenon and there is no Maori legend attached to it either which should speak volumes. The blocks are in fact fractures that appeared as the rock cooled, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sadly, many people take the attitude that if it looks like a wall so it must be a wall. Ok, seeing as ridiculous minds need ridiculous examples, lets look at these....
They are natural formations. No one carved them although I'm sure there are a few in the world that think they were carved.
We have said in the past that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' (that's our quote). But there is evidence it's natural, it's just that some are not looking for it and they don't want to find it. Brailsford said the Kaimanawa wall was dressed stone, but Brailsford lives in a fantasy world that extended from a real one. Wanting it to be something doesn't make it something. It's like many who start with something good and get off into something where they believe everything they see if not what others see. Remember our previous post - https://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2017/05/07/99-Distinguishing-Artifacts-from-Ecofacts
So lets look at other formations with regular geometric patterns. These are all natural occurrences. If you click each picture you can view it in larger format.
The following is a quote from Dr. Woods’ report about the Kaimanawa wall. “The regular block shapes are produced by natural fractures in the rock. These fractures (joints) were initially produced when the hot ignimbrite cooled. . . . Near vertical and horizontal joints are common in welded ignimbrites of this type. The forces of erosion, gravity, earthquakes and tree growth (roots) probably have all contributed to the movement and displacement of the blocks over time. The apparent regularity and ‘artificial’ aspect of the jointing is spurious. Most of the joints are not cuboidal. The eye is deceived mainly by one prominent horizontal joint which can be traced almost continuously along the outcrop into an area (recently excavated) where it is but one of an interlocking series of irregular joints.”
We now want to be the devils advocate however, for when one looks for photographic examples of ’common’ horizontal joints in NZ - there are none. So while looking at the rock formation face, Dr Woods explanation seems to be inaccurate. However both scientist and the man-made believers only looked at the face. I did challenge people about two to three years on our first Facebook page before FB stopped it, to dig around the site. It appears some did hence the DOC sign asking people not to. But the front is NOT the key to what this is. I guess they didn't listen to my whole instruction.
There is no doubt this formation is unique, unusual even, but only at the front. And even then looking at the photo above the cracks are not as regular as certain angles seem to suggest. The overall shape viewed from the sides and above give it away for what it really is. And we (who are trying to prove 8' pre-Polynesian skeletons exist in NZ), are the skeptical ones saying that - pretty ironic aye!
Here are a host of photos from various sources that give differing views. Can you see the obvious? The last two are the beginning to the key. Now go back to the Youtube video link at the beginning and watch again.
If you're still not sure, that's ok, but there is $1000 to anyone who can dig in the correct place and find the same 'blocks' repeated on the top, that match exactly what is on the front wall. My money is safe because I know people won't want to find the obvious - but then maybe I'm just being deliberately provocative?
*****
February 2024 - and now someone has gone and carved a poor example of a Celtic Cross on the wall. It's only been there since 2022. There is no celtic connection with NZ and the only proven physical item that could be is the one I presented to the world back in June 2018. And it does not prove a Celtic connection but it is identical to one in England.
