Egypt's Ancient Pyramids: Massive Stones or Massive Lies?

Take a seat and get comfortable, because you're about to have your mind blown. I'm going to introduce you to a new perspective of Egypt's ancient pyramids and something that you (and 99.9% of people) have never considered about these massive marvels of architecture. What you learn today will change the way you see forever.

Ever since childhood, we've been taught the official and widely accepted story that Egypt's pyramids were built somewhere around the year 2500 BC. This puts them at about 4,500 years old. Several alternative theories exist showing they may in fact be much older, but it's not the age of these magnificent structures that impresses us - it's how they were built.

Modern Day Science, Half-Answers, and Mystery

One could spend countless days, weeks, or even months reading books, scouring google and watching youtube videos for explanations on how the pyramids were built. The theories are abundant, yet most share the same basic narrative - the Egyptians quarried massive stones, hauled them (often over long distances), cut them to precise dimensions, and assembled them into what that we see today.

You'll find that most theories lend their focus to three specific aspects of construction:

• How was it possible to move so much stone over such a long distance
• How were the stones carved/cut with such precision
• How did the Egyptians move these enormously heavy blocks

The answers offered are endless. From floating quarried stone down the Nile on primitive barges, to dragging them across the sand on sleek wooden sleds (the Egyptians didn't use the wheel at this point in time), nothing really makes perfect sense.

Some believe the stones were cut with a sort of primitive high-pressure water jet. Others think they were carved with copper saw blades embedded with an abrasive like sand, which would provide strength and create friction. Some believe that massive lenses or highly polished reflectors were used in conjunction with sunlight - similar to a magnifying glass - creating a focal point with the strength of a laser beam that could be used to cut stone.

As far as lifting is concerned, the theories are all over the place - from complex wooden cranes to specially built stairways, or even using increasingly larger piles of sand (placed on a shallow angle) to drag the blocks higher and higher. Some of the more advanced (and most interesting) ideas propose that the Egyptians held a secret knowledge of physics and were able to use sound frequencies, electricity, or magnetic arrangements to render the blocks nearly weightless.

While these ideas all seem plausible, every single one of them loses their credibility when you look into the logistics and sheer size of the project. None of the proposed methods could be applied quickly enough to build the pyramids in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, even if we figured out how they lifted the blocks, we're still at a loss for how they were hauled and cut. And if we discovered how they were cut, we're still without answers as to how they were moved and arranged. None of it really adds up, and even today we have no definitive answer.

Now, keep in mind it has been demonstrated that a single man can flip, spin, lift, and move huge blocks of stone with nothing more than primitive tools, as this man shows us. While his method might very well explain something like Stonehenge, it can't be effectively applied to a project as large as Egypt's pyramids.

There are several ways to lift heavy items. This includes hydraulic shafts, jacking systems, counterweights, and more. The problem with these methods is they're too time consuming, or over-complicated. Additionally, they don't hold water when closely scrutinized as a solution for the pyramids. Slowly, these theories fade out and eventually a new idea comes along. This happens like clockwork. Still, we have nothing that really screams "This is it! This is how they built the pyramids!"

For some, the only remaining possibility to the pyramid mystery is construction by someone or something else - from giants and extraterrestrials, to humans from a long-lost civilization who were further advanced then we are today. But let's forget about all of that for a minute. Instead, let's take a step in a radically different direction - one that might leave you in awe.

Massive Stones or Massive Lies?

One thing we know for sure is that the pyramids were made with giant (and extremely heavy) carved stones, right? Well, we can see it with our own two eyes, so there's nothing to debate about it really. But what if that's not exactly correct? What if they weren't built with stones at all?

According to recent scientific studies, believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth."
- Prof. Joseph Davidovitz

Keep an open mind here, but what if the giant stone blocks were actually artificial... or, cast from a mixture, something like... concrete? Suddenly, everything begins to change.

Prof. Joseph Davidovits is an award-winning materials scientist, author, and the inventor of geopolymer chemistry. He is also the founder of the Geopolymer Institute located in France.

Since the 1970's Davidovits has been examining ancient monuments, megaliths, and other mysterious structures. He proposed and hypothesized that many of the world's ancient wonders are not carved from solid stone, but were rather sculpted by utilizing simple compounds that not only resemble stone and granite, but look and feel exactly like these materials in their natural occurring form.

Wikipedia explains his stance quite simply: "Davidovits asserts that the ancient Egyptians did not possess the tools or technology to carve and haul the huge (2.5 to 15 ton) limestone blocks that made up the Great Pyramid, conjecturing instead that the blocks were molded in-place by using a form of limestone concrete. According to his theory, a soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of ancient cooking fires) and natron (also used by Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement."

Wikipedia goes on to state that "Davidovits' theory is inconsistent with geological evidence".

However, in the opinion of Davidovits and other materials experts, the analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant or correct.

Davidovits has held firmly in his position and says "Geologists cannot tell the difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule. To show the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods (analysis by synchrotron, transmission and electronic scan microscopy SEM TEM, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Paleomagnetism, Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission, Particle Induced X-Ray Emission, X-ray fluorescence, X-ray Diffraction). These tools are seldom used in this situation. Studies have been made, and all show that the pyramid stones are artificial."

He continues, "This last paleomagnetism study is simply the ultimate proof that the pyramids blocks are not natural. You may find various papers or opinions challenging the theory, but all prefer ignoring these independent analysis. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth that is still fought by some people for irrational purposes."

To backup Davidovits' statements, one only needs to see the following scientific papers:

• Paleomagnetic investigation of the Great Egyptian Pyramids, Igor Túnyi and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, Europhysics News 2012, 43/6, 28-31.

• Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Kenneth J. D. MacKenzie, M. E. Smith, A. Wong, J. V. Hanna, B. Barryand M. W. Barsoum, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 350.

• Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Barsoum M.W., Ganguly A. and Hug G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12], 3788-3796, 2006.

• The Enigma of the Construction of the Giza Pyramids Solved?, Scientific British Laboratory, Daresbury, SRS Synchrotron Radiation Source, 2004.

• PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Guy Demortier, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS and METHODS in PHYSICS RESEARCH B, B 226, 98 – 109 (2004).

• X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries., Davidovits J., Science in Egyptology; A.R. David ed.; 1986; Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology Symposia”; Manchester University Press, UK; pp.511-520.

• Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22.

• How Not to Analyze Pyramid Stone, Morris, M. JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, VOL. 41, P. 364-369 (1993).

• Comment a-t-on construit les Pyramides: polémique chez les Égyptologues, HISTORIA Magazine, Paris, No 674, fév. 2003, dossier pp. 54-79 (2003).

We know the Egypt of the Pharaohs quite well, thanks to its numerous steles, frescos and papyrus describing all kinds of religious, scientific, technical knowledge, the craft industry, agriculture, medicine, astronomy, and so on. However, there is not a single hieroglyphic document revealing the pyramids’ construction with carved stones, ramps, and wooden sledges. On the contrary, we find many texts showing that the ancient Egyptians had the knowledge of man-made stones.

You can read the complete summary of Davidovits' argument and evidences here. It's an absolute must-read. This information has been around for more than 40 years, and although the proof continues to pile up, it is constantly ignored by archaeology, geology, and science in general.

The following video provides a basic example of how the Egyptians would have created the pyramids. It's a simple experiment that completely eliminates the problem of heavy lifting, cutting, or carving of solid stone. Using this method, the construction of the pyramids is totally possible within less than the popularly recognized time frame.

Have we been wrong all this time? Have we spent decades seeking answers to "impossible structures" when the answers were right under our noses? Have the never-ending hypothesis about these and other ancient sites been nothing but wasted time, misunderstandings, or outright lies? Were the countless millions of hours spent thinking, wondering and problem-solving throughout history and around the globe nothing more than a failure to recognize the obvious?

Is there a reason that Egyptologists are hiding this information, or at a bare minimum, trying to suppress it? Are rose-quartz granite and limestone-based compounds made from pulverized stone the answer to the mystery? Were the fine details and perfect symmetry of enormous monuments around the world actually made by using wooden molds or by working with a wet, buttery media before it properly hardened? Are all these "granite" blocks and statues left behind from ancient civilizations truly carved as they've had us believe, or is it all just a simple combination of artistry and ancient stone alchemy?

If you find this intriguing, here's a much longer video that goes into greater depth.

It's often said that the simplest answer is usually the best. Why spend more time imagining the special tools and high-technology required to cut and move multi-ton stones when the best evidence to date shows they weren't cut at all? Is this why so many impressive stone works and monoliths show no evidence of cutting or chiseling? Were these ancients nothing more than masters of their craft?

Further Evidence

There's much more information and details to share, so I'll be writing a series of articles on this subject. We'll take a closer look at the "stone" of the pyramids, the characteristics of decay, chemical compositions, material analysis, and more. We'll examine side-by-side photos of the pyramid stones and natural examples to see the difference in their erosion patterns and aging. We'll also explore the possibility that the pyramids were completely underwater at some point (or survived an ice-age), explaining the pyramid stone's striking similarities to submerged concrete. The evidence and details I've posted here today all point in one direction.

Because the artificial stone theory is the truth, they don’t know how to counter it. They are missing the big picture.
- Prof. Joseph Davidovits

When you look very carefully at this theory and research the immense amount of information available from the Geopolymer Institute's websiteand other sources, there's no denying that you're forced to stare the truth right in the eye.

Thanks for reading, and for keeping an open mind. The answers are out there and together we can find them. Not all mysteries are what they seem. Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series.

(images sourced from Pixabay)