Ok so theres one piece of advanced knowledge that is out of place. Way earlier than the orthodox narrative was saying. I think the same study found similar molded blocks on earlier pyramids. So this could go back even earlier. Now we can find other examples.
Since this will not go away lets look at this forensically which I know a thing or two about in the automotive industry.
The casing stone has a visible front and side face and the immediate question which arises if it is composed of a moulded piece of limestone concrete why is the front face smooth and the side face coarse? It is possible their casting tool produced this type of finish but why would the ancient Egyptians go to all this trouble? From an engineering design perspective it serves no useful purpose.
If however the casing was abrasion cut, stone pounded, chiselled with copper tools and abrasion smoothed it makes perfect sense, the front face underwent a final smoothing process with finer grit as it is the visible face to convey the aesthetic value of the pyramid, the side faces remained coarse as they are not visible.
The next point is the hydrochloric drop test which I mentioned in an off the cuff way in a previous post. It turns out to playing a major factor in refuting the moulded limestone concrete hypothesis.
Did the Egyptians cast the casing stones like concrete?
Joseph
Davidovits (1970s–2000s) proposed that the
outer casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were not quarried but
cast in place from a kind of
limestone geopolymer, a reconstituted “concrete” made by dissolving soft limestone with natron and lime, then moulding it into blocks.
That hypothesis has been tested many times by
geologists, mineralogists, and Egyptologists.
1. HCl Reactivity Test – Direct Evidence for Natural Limestone
| Observation | Geopolymer Expectation | Actual Observation |
|---|
| Reaction with dilute HCl | Weak or uneven fizzing — geopolymers are bound by aluminosilicate gel, not pure CaCO₃ | Vigorous, uniform effervescence, identical to natural calcite-rich limestone |
| Result | Suggests synthetic binding matrix (if artificial) | Shows crystalline calcite structure, not amorphous binder |
Explanation:
If the casing stones were made from a chemically recombined limestone slurry, the calcium carbonate would not crystallize in the same interlocking matrix found in natural sedimentary limestone. Instead, it would have amorphous or microcrystalline binding phases, with much weaker and patchier HCl reaction.
Geologists have applied the HCl drop test on both
casing fragments and
core samples — all respond
exactly like natural limestone from the nearby
Tura quarries.
2. Petrographic and Mineralogical Studies
Independent geologists (notably
Dietrich & Rosemarie Klemm, 1993, 2008) performed thin-section microscopy and X-ray diffraction:
- The grain structures, fossils, and cementation within the pyramid limestones match the stratigraphy of the Tura and Giza formations perfectly.
- They show biogenic microfossils, foraminifera, and oolitic textures typical of Eocene marine limestone — impossible to reproduce by chemical reconstitution.
- No evidence of amorphous aluminosilicate binder or reaction rims typical of geopolymers.
Thus, the stones are
unmistakably natural.
⚗️ 3. Stable Isotope Analysis (δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O)
Geopolymer fabrication using dissolved limestone and natron would
reset isotopic signatures due to recrystallization.
Yet isotope ratios of casing samples match those of
unaltered natural limestone from Tura — showing no sign of chemical reformation.
4. Textural and Tool Evidence
- Quarry tool marks remain visible at the Tura quarry faces where casing stones were cut and removed.
- Some unfinished casing blocks at Giza show chisel dressing, wedge marks, and lever sockets, not mould seams.
- The Great Pyramid’s casing blocks are dimensionally consistent with quarry-cut blocks, not cast pours — each with bedding orientation consistent with quarry strata.
5. Conclusion: HCl Tests and Geology Refute the Geopolymer Claim
| Evidence Type | Prediction if Cast | Actual Result | Verdict |
|---|
| HCl reactivity | Weak/non-uniform fizz | Strong, uniform | Natural limestone |
| Petrography | Amorphous binder, no fossils | Sedimentary fabric, fossils | Natural limestone |
| Isotopes | Reset by dissolution/reprecipitation | Unaltered natural ratios | Natural limestone |
| Quarry traces | Absent | Abundant | Quarried |
| Structural orientation | Random | Matches geological bedding | Quarried |
Scholarly Sources
- Klemm, D. & Klemm, R. The Stones of the Pyramids: Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Monuments in Egypt. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008) — detailed petrographic and isotopic data confirming Tura limestone origin.
- Harrell, J.A. “Archaeological Geology of the Giza Plateau.” Geoarchaeology (2004).
- Stocks, D.A. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (2003) — demonstrates quarrying and dressing with copper tools.
- Davidovits, J. (1990, 2009) — proposes the opposing geopolymer theory, but data inconsistent with observed mineralogy.
✅
Summary Statement:
The simple HCl acid test, combined with petrographic, isotopic, and field evidence, conclusively demonstrates that the Great Pyramid’s core and casing stones are natural limestones quarried and dressed, not moulded geopolymers or artificial concrete. The effervescent reaction with hydrochloric acid alone is one of the clearest and earliest field indicators confirming their carbonate, sedimentary origin.
we know what sort of gun and even the bullets from the hole in the wall it went though and the marks it left. Just havn't found that gun yet. Oh well I guess we will just have to conclude there never was a gun.
