Skip to content

Apollo witnessed UFOs on the Moon

“They’re Parked on The Side of the Crater – They’re Watching Us.” Neil Armstrong /Apollo 11 On The Moon

Published on May 13, 2017  By Arjun Walia

There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief” – Neil Armstrong (source)

It wasn’t long ago that the Russian government called for an international investigation into the U.S. moon landings regarding missing samples and photos not released to the public. This created a new wave of interest into what really happened when the U.S. went up there, and led some to question if they even went there at all. The topic is filled with a number of interesting facts and statements from credible people that make one thing abundantly clear: Something fishy is happening on the moon, and we’re not being told about it.
This uncertainty has been made apparent by various sources, which include multiple Apollo astronauts, academicians, and high ranking military whistle-blowers, not to mention official photos taken by NASA.

More points will be made as to why so many people are starting to wonder if there actually is, or was, an alien presence on the moon. These points make it easier to consider the lore that surrounds the moon landing.

Perhaps one of the most interesting is what Neil Armstrong communicated to Houston when we landed on the moon. According to multiple sources, after landing, the Apollo astronauts transmitted that they were being watched by very large extraterrestrial vehicles.

Where Does This Claim Come From?

One source is Dr. Steven Greer, founder of The Disclosure Project and The Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI). Greer was responsible for bringing forth high level military whistle-blowers from all ranks to testify about the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon. He’s also had high level meetings within the Pentagon about this issue, which was verified by Apollo 14 astronaut and 6th man to walk on the moon, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, in Greer’s film Sirius Disclosure.
Edgar is one of multiple NASA astronauts who have made some eye-opening comments about the extraterrestrial presence.

According to Greer, from a blog post a couple years ago: (If this link doesn’t work, you can check out a video of him speaking about the experience here.)

“Close friends and very close family members of both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have separately told me that indeed there were numerous, large UFOs around the crater where the Lunar Module landed and that these were seen by both Armstrong and Aldrin. I have also spoken to military officers that have seen the footage of this event- but it has never been made public.
One close family member of Buzz Aldrin told me ‘It is not my place to out Buzz on this, -someday if he can speak about it, he will…’
Neil Armstrong became somewhat of a recluse after the moon landing, and rarely spoke of the historic event. His friends and family have told me that this is because he was a man of such integrity that he simply did not want to be put in a position to lie to the public about such a momentous encounter.”

How tragic that our heroes have been placed in this untenable situation!

When we were organizing The Disclosure Project a few years ago, I asked one of Neil Armstrong’s friends if Armstrong would come to Washington to brief members of Congress at the 1997 Congressional briefing we organized in April of that year. I was told that Armstrong wished he could –but that if he spoke about what really happened during the moon landing, that Neil Armstrong, his wife, and children would all be killed. It was put to me this bluntly. (additional source)

Another source is a former NASA employee, Ken Johnston. Johnston was a Boeing engineer and a former fighter-jock and test pilot for Grumman Aerospace. He was also a marine and an F-4 pilot, as well as a NASA employee, working as the chief Lunar Module test pilot at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.
According to James Oberg, a U.S. space journalist, UFO skeptic, and space historian, “Johnston seems to be a sweet human being who did honorable service to his country in the military and in the Apollo program.”
Above is a picture of him wearing his gear, taken from a documentary in which he appeared that also featured Buzz Aldrin and other notable NASA colleagues. In the documentary, he reveals:

“While Neil and Buzz were on the Lunar surface, Neil switched to the medical channel, and spoke directly with the chief medical officer saying, they’re here, they’re parked on the side of the crater, they’re watching us.” (Source: 34 second mark) -not available in the USA..

Johnston is referring to a story put out by former NASA employee Otto Bender. According to Dr. Michael Salla, PhD., on a post written on his website, Bender confirmed that HAM radio operators had intercepted these VHF signals that were transmitted from Apollo 11, the ones that were kept from the public.
Apparently, this is how it went:

Mission Control: What’s there ? Mission Control calling Apollo 11.
Apollo 11: These babies are huge, sir … enormous….Oh, God, you wouldn’t believe it! I’m telling you there are other space craft out there… lined up on the far side of the crater edge… they’re on the moon watching us. (source)

William Tompkins and Admiral Larry Marsh.
As a teenager Tompkins had an eye for detail and loved to create Navy ship and submarine models. The Navy took interest in his capabilities and recruited him to do work on advanced technology projects. Recently, he has come forward with claims, as many others have, about clandestine Black Budget operation programs.

According to Tompkins:
The Landing Module (LEM) actually impacted the Moon surface in the Sea of Tranquility Crater, which had tremendous size vehicles parked around part of its rim. When astronaut Neil Armstrong made that First Step for Man on the Moon he looked up to the edge of the crater and said to mission control: “There are other ships here, they are enormous.”
The public did not hear that statement or see the massive alien starships. Armstrong panned his camera in a 360 degree motion all around the crater and the CIA then classified the information as way above top secret. (source)

Another source for this story comes from Timothy Good, one of the world’s leading UFO researchers, who has lectured at universities, schools, and many organizations, including the Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences, the Royal Canadian Military Institute, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Naval Air Reserve Branch, the House of Lords All-Party UFO Study Group, and the Oxford and Cambridge Union societies.

He says that a former member of MI6 revealed her conversation with Neil Armstrong at a NASA conference, when he confirmed that there were “other” spacecraft on the Moon when Apollo 11 landed in 1969.
Armstrong also confirmed that the CIA was behind the coverup. He also goes into more detail about it in this interesting lecture from 2013.
So you see, this story has many different sides to it, and given all of the information that’s now available in the public domain regarding UFOs it’s really not hard to believe, especially when we already have some compelling information about the moon.

Why The Above Story Could Very Well Be True

Maurice Chatelain, whose expertise allowed him to invent radio equipment used to go to the moon (here is an example of one of his twelve patents), has revealed that, “at no time when the astronauts were in space were they alone. They were under constant surveillance by UFOs.”
This statement has been backed up by several astronauts, one of them being Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon:

“Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered. . . . We are not alone in the universe, they have been coming here for a long time. I happen to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we have been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real.” (source) (source) (source)

It’s not only agency astronauts, but agency insiders as well. For example, Dr. John Brandenburg, the Deputy Manager of the Clementine Mission to the Moon, which was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization (BMDO) and NASA, has also made some fascinating revelations. The mission discovered water at the Moon’s poles in 1994. (Source: page 16 of 18)(source)(source) But, according to Brandenburg, the Clementine Mission had an ulterior agenda:

[The Clementine Mission was] “a photo reconnaissance mission basically to check out if someone was building bases on the moon that we didn’t know about. Were they expanding them? . . . Of all the pictures I’ve seen from the moon that show possible structures, the most impressive is a picture of a miles wide recto-linear structure. This looked unmistakably artificial, and it shouldn’t be there. As somebody in the space defense community, I look on any such structure on the moon with great concern because it isn’t ours, there’s no way we could have built such a thing. It means someone else is up there.” (source)

George Leonard, a NASA scientist and photo analyst, has obtained a number of official NASA photographs of the Moon which he published in his book Somebody Else Is On The Moon. Although the photos are small in size and their resolution is not up to today’s standards, they show details of original, massive prints.
Far more compelling than these photos, then, are his verified NASA credentials and his statements about what was found on the Moon. And he’s not the only one with a credible background trying to tell the world the truth about the Moon and the photos that were taken from the Apollo missions.

Dr. Norman Bergrun, a mechanical engineer who worked for Ames Research Laboratory, NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), and Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, now known as Lockheed Martin, has accused the agency of “garbling” photos that the agency does not want the public to see. He has also stated that there are a number of large UFOs out there. You can view some of his publications for NASA, where he worked for more than a decade, here, and watch that interview here.

There are also studies to consider. Members of the Society For Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) have recently published a paper in the Journal of Space Exploration about certain features on the far side of the moon that appear in the crater Paracelsus C. titled: “Image Analysis of Unusual Structures on the Far Side of the Moon in the Crater Paracelsus C,”
It argues that these features might be artificial in origin, meaning someone other than a human being built them and put them there. You can read more about that here.

“Shortly after I retired from the Air-Force, and I still was maintaining contacts with friends and associates at the various bases and one Col Parker in the Air Defense Command, the Space Command . . . mentioned an incident which I later confirmed. A spacecraft went to the rescue of Apollo 13, and they accompanied Apollo 13 on their voyage around the moon and back to Earth, and on two occasions they thought they might have to transfer the crew to their spacecraft. But they saw them safely back to the Earth.”

The quote above comes from Colonel Ross Dedrickson, who, in the 1950s, was responsible for maintaining the inventory of the nuclear weapon stockpile for the AEC and accompanying security teams checking out the security of the weapons, among many other duties throughout his career.  He is one of the hundreds of military whistleblowers to give some very interesting testimony.  [link to his interview]

Blueprint for a UFO – Mark McCandlish, US Air Force / Disclosure Project Witness Testimony Archive – YouTube

The Wayne City UFO Chase, The Ronnie Austin Encounter – A Case Study – UFO Insight

The Extraordinary 1982 Ota Air Base UFO Incident – UFO Insight

(6) Extraordinary Antigravity Devices That Can Make Faster Than Light Travel Possible – YouTube

UFO Disclosure events and witness testimonies

The Moon is Artificial and I Can Prove It: Alien Observatory – YouTube

The Longyou Caves or Grottoes | Cosmick Traveler

Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt – Spirit & Stone

Longyou Cave Complex; Proof of E.T. Technology

China is a huge and ancient country and it is the location of several of the greatest mysteries on Earth, which include a mysterious complex of caves, a soil-filled similar system a few dozen kilometres away, and the inexplicable man-made megalithic structures of Yangshan, the largest such ancient unexplainable machine-sculpted objects on the planet.


There is a place in Longyou, China that shuts down any assertion that extra-terrestrial machinery never operated on this planet.  It is direct evidence otherwise.  Its existence has no other explanation.  No human effort or method or technology can be ascribed to what is seen in a huge cave system that was completely unknown to Chinese history until a deep pond was drained in 1992 by a local farmer.  The draining went on and on and on because the cave was so vast.  Since then about 40 others have been discovered, and most have also been drained.

But we do not know what was found in them other than their excavated shape. Their dimensions were found to not interconnect but to come within just a couple of feet of each other. Such precise avoidance of penetration into any other cave in very close proximity indicates that the excavators had advanced sensor or directional detection equipment that was used to operate the mining equipment in a very exact manner.

What else has science managed to learn about them since 1992?
Their purpose remains unknown.
Their excavators remain unknown.
Their age remains unknown. But we deductively know one thing, and that is that they were excavated by use of advanced mining machinery that left clear evidence of the mechanical extraction of stone.  To where all of that vast amount of stone was taken remains unknown.
What is known is that the beautiful carvings were added to increase the appeal to potential tourists.

You need not rely on anyone’s claims or theories regarding the nature of the equipment used to produce the cave systems since high-resolution photos are available for examination.  Many photos are distorted by a very orange tinting caused by not adjusting the camera for the indoor light used in them, but with photo editing it was possible to greatly diminish the color aberration.  So here they are for your own analysis:


And here are two photos of the similar but ‘unexcavated’ system:

Here is a comparison of the impressions left at Longyou and those made by modern machinery:

The downward slope of the ‘ceiling’ (from which excavation began and proceeded downward) could be explained as an intentional way of using the advantage of an arch shape to distribute the weight of the unsupported stretches of the ceiling to the lower wall and through it downward to ground-level bedrock. Of course it is not a full arch but only half an arch.

The Youtube video from which all of these images were extracted is here:
“Massive Mysterious Longyou Caves Created by a Lost Ancient Civilization with Machines”
It is the work of a young woman who is new at sharing videos and so has only a few followers and viewers so far.  But the high resolution of the photos made the video indispensable.  It seems that only photos exist of the cave that is open to the public, no videos have surfaced that I’m aware of.

Learn more at Wikipedia.

NPR: “Mounting Evidence” Suggests COVID Not As Deadly as Thought.

 Did the Experts Fail Again?

The ‘experts’ may have subjected us to a blunder greater than any since the Iraq War.



In April 2005, Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, admitted in the CIA’s ‘Final Report’ that after an extensive search, no weapons of mass destruction could be found.

Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group. wrote:

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,”. “As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

Today it’s generally accepted that the presence of WMD was the primary basis for the Iraq War. Naturally, the absence of such weapons shook the world. The media blamed the politicians, the politicians blamed US intel, and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work.

The official word, chronicled in the Robb-Silberman report, concluded that “the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had—or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.”

The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations.
The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth.
If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided.

It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts (again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media) -may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.

A new NPR report suggests the global response to COVID-19 may have been reached on a flawed premise.

Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.

The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person’s blood rather than the virus itself.

The tests are finding large numbers of people in the US who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.

“The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

That’s in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person’s body.

Many people will recall the fatality risk debate that took place prior to and in the early stages of the lock-downs. There was much discussion over how deadly the virus was and what the collective response to the virus should be.

Some voices exercised caution.

Jeremy Samuel Faust an emergency medicine physician and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate:

“The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people,” “Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold.”

Similarly, on March 5 vaccine expert Paul A. Offit, who holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, told that he believed that the World Health Organization’s 3.4 percent fatality rate figure was too high, suggesting it was well below 1 percent.

“We’re more the victim of fear than the virus,” Offit said, adding that the world was witnessing a “wild overreaction” to the disease.

Voices like those of Faust and Offit were quickly drowned out, however. The 24-hour news cycle fanned collective fear and outrage that more was not being done. Runs on toilet paper and masks ensued. Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, predicted millions would die in the “best-case scenario.”

Following the example of China, one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, most of the developed world was placed in indefinite lock-down by their own governments.

The social and economic costs of the lock-downs soon became apparent. The US alone has seen 40 million jobs lost, many of which aren’t coming back. Recession looms. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have already been wiped away. The federal debt has surged to $26 trillion.

Unfortunately, the COVID disaster and the aforementioned Iraq War fit a familiar pattern. As the historian Paul Johnson has observed, most of the worst events of the 20th century were perpetrated by “experts” who used collective power to shape world events in a direction they ‘believed’ was beneficial.

Johnson wrote in The Intellectuals:

“One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is—beware intellectuals,”  “Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”

Nobody denies the immense cost of the lock-downs, but what was gained by them remains a subject of contention.

A May report from JP Morgan, as well as other evidence, suggests the lock-downs had little to no impact on the spread of COVID-19.

Marko Kolanovic, a physicist and strategist for JP Morgan, pointed out that a majority of nations saw declines in infection rates after the lock-downs were lifted, saying:

“Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lock-downs were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than Covid-19 itself.”

Similarly, a Bloomberg analysis in May found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Meanwhile, Norway’s top health official recently stated that lock-downs were not a necessary step to tame the virus.

On the other hand, the Washington Post this week cited studies claiming the lock-down orders prevented hundreds of millions of COVID-19 infections and saved millions of lives.

These findings come with caveats, however. First, one of the studies was submitted on March 22—well before the vast majority of COVID cases had even occurred.

The other study was conducted by researchers at the Imperial College of London, the same school from which Ferguson hailed! (He has since resigned after it was discovered that he broke the lock-down protocol he helped design by allowing his married lover to come to his home.)

Ferguson, who in 2005 said up to 200 million might die from bird flu (about 100 did), was asked by The New York Times in March what the best-case scenario was for the US during the COVID pandemic.

“About 1.1 million deaths,” he responded.

As of June 10, Ferguson is off by about a factor of ten. Why we should continue to listen to schools that have already proven to be so disastrously wrong is anyone’s guess. The “chicken little” story comes to mind.

In 2003, state actors led the world into a bloody, years-long struggle in Iraq to protect the world from mass-destruction weapons that didn’t exist—only to eventually learn how little US Intel experts actually knew about Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

In 2020, central planners from around the world decided to shut down the global economy to protect people from an invisible, highly contagious virus that will result in no or mild symptoms for up to 90 percent of its carriers.

Some lessons, it seems, are hard to learn.

Frogs Trapped in Rock, & Forms of Suspended Animation


Big Pharma and Deep State Lose Landmark Vaccine Lawsuit

WATCH THIS VIDEO! your jaw will drop.

Why Healthy People Should Not Wear Face Masks

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts began telling us to follow a number of disease mitigation strategies that sounded reasonably scientific, but actually had little or no support in the scientific literature. Community wearing of masks was one of the more dangerous recommendations from our confused public health experts.

The Pandemic of Bad Science and Public Health Misinformation on Community Wearing of Masks

Jim Meehan, MD June 14, 2020

Renowned neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock, MD had this to say about the science of masks:

As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”[R] Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission. – Russell Blaylock, MD

You can read Dr. Blaylock’s brilliant discussion of this matter at the end of this paper or at this link:

Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

Quarantining Healthy People – A Failed Experiment

We were told that everyone, even the healthy, should quarantine at home. All were told to “shelter-in-place,” isolate ourselves, hide alone, indoors, until the danger of the virus passed, despite the large body of scientific evidence that shows our immune systems thrive on diversity of exposures, sunlight, time in nature, and in loving company of others.

Furthermore, it seemed that the public health experts were ignoring the very real harms that result from shutting down the economy, putting tens of millions of workers out of work, and the shadow pandemic of suicides, drug abuse, overdoses, and other harms that follow massive economic downturns. [R][R]

Historically and by definition, quarantines had always been about sequestering the sick. Never before had anyone beat a virus by quarantining the healthy. We were not told that quarantining healthy people was a first-of-its kind experiment. And the experiment failed. More on this topic later.

Community Wearing of Masks is a Bad Recommendation

We were frequently confused by the mixed messages coming from public health agencies. Early in the pandemic Dr. Fauci, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the WHO all told the public, in no uncertain terms, not to wear masks. Then, over the course of the next several weeks and months, the CDC twice changed their recommendations, as did the WHO, and the recommendations always contradicted each other!

The CDC made the mistake of telling us cloth masks worked, and they even provided directions on their website for making homemade cloth masks.

To clear up the confusion, I will show that the scientific evidence not only does not support the community wearing of face masks, but the evidence shows that healthy people wearing face masks pose serious health risks to wearers.

Hiding our faces behind masks and isolating in our homes is not the solution, at least not for most people with healthy immune systems. Supporting the health of your immune system, confidently confronting all pathogens, and allowing herd immunity to develop and protect the vulnerable populations should be the goal.

What’s happening in the world today, including the misinformation surrounding community mask wearing, is about political agendas, symbolism, fear, and dividing and isolating the people. It has nothing to do with science.

Medical Masks are Bad for Health

As a physician and former medical journal editor, I’ve carefully read the scientific literature regarding the use of face masks to mitigate viral transmission. I believe the public health experts have community wearing of masks all wrong. What follows are the key issues that should inform the public against wearing medical face masks during the CoVID-19 pandemic, as well as all future respiratory disease pandemics.

Face masks decrease oxygen, increase carbon dioxide, and alter breathing in ways that increase susceptibility and severity of CoVID-19

Mask wearers frequently report symptoms of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, anxiety, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, and other subjective symptoms while wearing medical masks. As a surgeon, I have worn masks for prolonged periods of time in thousands of surgeries and can assure you these symptoms do occur when surgical masks are worn for extended periods of time. The longer a surgical mask is worn, the more saturated with moisture it becomes, and the more significantly it inhibits the inflow of oxygen and outflow of carbon dioxide.

In fact, clinical research shows that medical masks lower blood oxygen levels[R] and raise carbon dioxide blood levels.[R] The deviations in oxygen and carbon dioxide may not reach the clinical criteria for hypoxia (low blood oxygen), hypoxemia (low tissue oxygen), or hypercapnia (elevated blood carbon dioxide), but they can deviate enough to cause even healthy individuals to become symptomatic, as occurred with the surgeons studied and published in this report:

Preliminary Report on Surgical Mask Induced Deoxygenation During Major Surgery

At the same time masks inhibit oxygen intake, they trap the carbon dioxide rich breath in the mouth/mask inter-space. Thus, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle.

Masks force you to re-breathe a portion of your own breath, including all the stuff (infectious viral particles) the lungs were trying to remove from the body (more on this later).

As medical masks lower oxygen and raise carbon dioxide in the blood, the brain senses the changes and the risk they pose to the maintenance of normal physiology. Thus, the brain goes to work to bring things back in order. To obtain more oxygen and remove more carbon dioxide, the brain tells the lungs to increase the rate (frequency) and depth of breaths.[R] Unfortunately, struggle as they may, your brain and lungs can not fully compensate for the negative effects of the mask. Some may even suffer the symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity.

For people with diseases of the lungs, especially chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), face masks are intolerable to wear as they worsen breathlessness.[R]

In the case of respiratory pathogens, the negative effects of masks and the respiratory changes they induce could increase susceptibility and transmission of CoVID-19, as well as other respiratory pathogens.

Viral particles move through face masks with relative ease. Studies show that about 44% of viral particles pass through surgical masks, 97% pass through cloth masks, and about 5% through N95 masks. Increasing tidal volume (depth of breaths) results in literally sucking more air, more forcefully through and around the mask. Any SARS CoV-2 particles on, in, or around the mask are more forcefully suctioned into the mouth and lungs as a result of the compensatory increases in tidal volume.

The changes in respiratory rate and depth may also increase the severity of CoVID-19 as the increased tidal volume delivers the viral particles deeper into the lungs.

These changes may worsen the community transmission of CoVID-19 when infected people wearing masks exhale air more heavily contaminated with viral particles from the lungs.

These effects are amplified if face masks are contaminated with the viruses, bacteria, or fungi that find their way or opportunistically grow in the warm, moist environment that medical masks quickly become.

Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, public health experts claim that medical masks do not cause clinically significant hypoxia (low oxygen) and hypercapnia (high CO2). I would like to ask those experts to explain the growing number of cases in which medical masks worn during exercise have resulted in lung injuries and heart attacks:

Two Chinese boys drop dead during PE lessons while wearing face masks amid concerns over students’ fitness following three months of school closure [R][R]

Jogger’s lung collapses after he ran for 2.5 miles while wearing a face mask [R]

If medical masks were perfectly safe and effective, then why would healthy boys suffer heart attacks or a 26 year old man collapse his lung while wearing masks and running?! In my opinion, these are tragic examples of the risks of wearing medical masks. And we are only getting started.

SARS CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline

Low blood levels of oxygen is a critical issue in the pathogenicity of CoVID-19. The virus’ ability to infect cells is markedly enhanced by oxygen desaturation, which we know occurs when wearing a surgical mask.[R]

One of the features that make SARS CoV-2 uniquely infectious is the “furin cleavage” sequence in the virus that activates increased ACE2 receptor attack and cellular invasion in low oxygen environments.[R]

The furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels)[R]

The furin cleavage site found in SARS CoV-2 is the likely result of the bio-engineering “gain of function” (increasing the virulence of a pathogen) research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This unethical, dangerous, and illegal-in-most-countries research is alleged to have been funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci (with $7.4 million taxpayer dollars) and Bill Gates.

Furin cleavage sites are found in some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza. The furin cleavage domain in SARS CoV-2 is cleaved by furin on the target cell.

Furin is an ubiquitous protease in humans. It is found in a wide variety of tissues in the human body: heart, brain, kidney, etc. It is expressed in significant concentrations in human lung cells, the common target of SARS CoV-2. When the virus encounters a lung cell expressing (both an ACE2 receptor and furin), the furin cleaves the furin cleavage site on SARS CoV-2, activates the virus’ surface S (spike) protein, and enables the virus to more effectively bind the ACE2 receptors and more efficiently invade the cell.[R]

Remember how medical face masks decrease blood oxygen levels? Well, now you need to know that SARS CoV-2’s ability to invade and infect our cells is greatly enhanced under conditions of low oxygen.[R]

Therefore, wearing a medical mask may increase the severity of CoVID-19. If that does not motivate you to ditch your mask, there are more reasons to come.

Some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza and HIV are armed with similar furin cleavage sites. However, furin cleavage sites are not present in other beta coronaviruses. The furin cleavage site is NOT present in SARS CoV-1, MERS, or the other “bat coronaviruses” postulated to be the progenitors of SARS CoV-2.

It is worth repeating: SARS-CoV, which is closely related to the newest SARS-CoV-2 strain, does not bear the furin cleavage site. So how did SARS CoV-2 gain the furin cleavage function?

Dr. Fauci built his career on HIV research, HIV vaccine failures, and unethical “gain of function” research. He undoubtedly knows a lot about furin cleavage sites and the suspicious origins of SARS CoV-2. Perhaps Congress should ask him…under oath…preferably with an indictment.

The question we should all be asking is how did the genetic sequence that codes for this serious gain of function that increases the potential for the virus to successfully infiltrate the host find its way into SARS-CoV-2? That’s the trillion dollar question; it demands a real answer.

Medical masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask interspace, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Face masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask inter-space.[R] The trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask wearer is thus forced to re-breathe the viral particles, increasing infectious viral particles in the airways and lungs. In this way, medical masks cause self-inoculation, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Asymptomatic or mild cases of CoVID-19 become more severe when an infected individual is masked, oxygen lowers, viral load increases from particle re-breathing, and the disease overwhelms the innate immune system.

  1. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[R]
  2. The innate immune system plays a crucial role in destroying the virus, preventing infection, or decreasing the viral load to decrease the severity of infection.
  3. The innate immunity’s effectiveness is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks increase viral particle re-breathing at the same time they create a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 remains actively infectious, the mask increases the viral load and can overwhelm the innate immune system.

This trapping, re-breathing, and increasing pathogen load delivered to the lungs becomes dramatically more dangerous when the medical mask becomes contaminated with the opportunistic viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can grow in the warm, moist environment of the mask.

“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” – Russell Blaylock, MD

Masks are unnecessary when asymptomatic spreading of SARS CoV-2 is “very rare”

Much of the recommendation for community wearing of masks was based on the belief that asymptomatic carriers of SARS CoV-2 were responsible for the transmission and spread of CoVID-19. There was no real scientific evidence for this belief. However, antibody testing began demonstrating larger numbers of people with antibodies to the virus than anyone imagined. Therefore, the belief was that these people must represent asymptomatic carriers that were spreading the disease.

Contact tracing has determined that asymptomatic cases are not causing secondary transmission:

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is “very rare,” WHO says

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she [Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit], said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”

More from the article:

Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections.

Some people, particularly young and otherwise healthy individuals, who are infected by the coronavirus never develop symptoms or only develop mild symptoms. Others might not develop symptoms until days after they were actually infected.

Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact, even if the carrier didn’t have symptoms. But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.”

The fact that asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease tells us that masks are unnecessary.

The Evidence for Aerosol Transmission is Weak

The likelihood of airborne transmission—especially compared with other routes, such as droplets or surfaces—remains unclear. Most researchers still think the new coronavirus is primarily spread via droplets and touching infected people or surfaces. So diligent hand washing and social distancing are still the most important measures people can take to avoid infection.”[Scientific American, 5/12/2020]

Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security

  1. Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security.
  2. People adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[R]

Inappropriate use of face masks:

  1. People must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose them correctly and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[R][R]

Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes.

  1. This generates an uncomfortable feeling and an impulse to touch your eyes. If your hands are contaminated and you touch or rub your eyes, you are infecting yourself.[R]

Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing

  1. The quality and volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised, so they may unconsciously move closer to improve communications.
  2. This increases the likelihood of becoming exposed to respiratory droplets containing infectious viral particles.

Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare.

  1. Asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease.[R]
  2. Therefore, masks are unnecessary.
  3. Furthermore, social distancing is unnecessary.

Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity.

  1. Only herd immunity can prevent pandemics.
  2. Only herd immunity will protect the vulnerable members of society.

Lack of Scientific Evidence for Community Wearing of Face Masks

There is no reasonable scientific evidence to support healthy people wearing masks. Russell Blaylock, MD had this to say about the science of masks:

As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that,“None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”[R] Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.[R]

Here’s what a group of physicians wrote regarding Universal Masking in Hospitals in the CoVID-19 Era in the New England Journal of Medicine:

We know that wearing a mask outside healthcare facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to CoVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic CoVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching CoVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The clinical research on this topic is clear: even when handled and worn properly, which is definitely NOT happening in the public spaces, wearing a mask in public offers little or no protection from infection. However, when masks are handled and worn improperly, they are a personal and public health disaster.

The “Hamster Study” is an example of weak science used to support bad recommendations

Here’s an example of one of the experimental studies used by some public health authorities to support wearing masks in the community:

Wearing a mask can significantly reduce coronavirus transmission, study on hamsters claims

Does this study of “masking” hamster cages sound like the kind of solid scientific evidence that supports recommendations or mandates for everyone to wear masks during the CoVID-19 pandemic? No. The hamsters were not forced to wear tiny hamster surgical masks, their cages were covered with a barrier made of mask-like material. The experiment was more about walls or barriers than it was masks.

The experiment did not create the same conditions experienced by masked humans. Placing a cloth barrier on hamster cages is nothing like masking the mouth and nose of humans. The way this experiment was set up, inhalations were unimpeded, therefore, arterial oxygen levels would not be expected to lower. Likewise, exhalations were not trapped in a way that would force the hamsters to suffer re-breathing their own carbon-dioxide or subject them to the dangers of re-inhaling the infectious viral particles released with each exhalation.

This study does not provide support for the recommendation for masking all members of the public to reduce transmission of SARS CoV-2. Those citing this study to support wearing masks in the community are inappropriately extrapolating and conflating the experiment’s findings to contrive a conclusion the experimental methodology does not allow.

Some studies even question the efficacy of surgical masks in the operating room

Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms—a costly and unnecessary ritual?

Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms, air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one meter from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.

Public Health Experts Are Confused and Contradictory on Masks

Since the first days of the pandemic, Fauci, Birx, the CDC, and the WHO have been confusing the public as they flipped, flopped, and contradicted each other on the community wearing of medical masks. We should expect more than confusing, contradictory, unevidenced advice from our public health experts.[R][R] Their lack of evidence and clarity was subverted to the belief that any level of protection was better than none. However, no one seemed to be fully considering the downsides of masks as I have presented them above.

Early in the pandemic – “masks are unnecessary”

In the early onset of the pandemic, nearly all organizations and specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci (March 8, 2020), advised against wearing a mask. The science simply did not support community wearing of masks:

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 Minutes.

While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands.”[R]

Fauci later walked back those comments and tried to explain his comments were taken out of context. Instead of saying he was wrong and pointing to scientific evidence that caused him to change his mind, he obfuscated.

Here’s an infographic made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in late 2019.

The Face Mask: A Powerful Symbol of COVID Oppression

“For healthy people, wear a mask only if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection”

There is no better example of the lack of scientific clarity on community mask wearing than the CDC’s flip-flopping on the issue. Initially, the CDC recommended against community mask wear, then reversed that position a few weeks later.


Canada Officially Recommends Against Community Wearing of Masks

On the official website of the Canadian government, a page lists many reasons why homemade masks are practically useless while also hindering oxygen intake.

Homemade masks are not medical devices and are not regulated like medical masks and respirators. Their use poses a number of limitations:

  • they have not been tested to recognized standards
  • the fabrics are not the same as used in surgical masks or respirators
  • the edges are not designed to form a seal around the nose and mouth
  • they may not provide complete protection against virus-sized particles
  • they can be difficult to breathe through and can prevent you from getting the required amount of oxygen needed by your body

These types of masks may not be effective in blocking virus particles that may be transmitted by coughing, sneezing or certain medical procedures. They do not provide complete protection from virus particles because of a potential loose fit and the materials used.

Regardless, the debate rages on the internet and in the public spaces everywhere regarding whether or not to wear a surgical mask.

CDC supports homemade cloth masks…but the science does not

Cloth masks have no place in disease mitigation. They have been shown to be ineffective and worse (see below).

The CDC currently recommends (and some states mandate[R][R]) that everyone wear some form of face cover anytime they leave their home and enter the public space.[R] The CDC admits compliments but does not replace the President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, 30 Days to Slow the Spread.[R]

(None of the studies referenced by the CDC represent clinical research on the public use of face masks.[R])

The CDC even provides detailed instructions for how you can make your own face covers from common household items.[R]

I have no idea where the CDC and state public health advisors obtain their science, but apparently it is not the medical literature.

Cloth masks: Dangerous to your health?

It should be well known that cloth masks, bandannas, or handkerchiefs will do very little to stop the spread of coronavirus. The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to medical masks with 44%.[R][R] In fact, they may actually increase your risk of becoming ill from CoVID-19 and other influenza-like illnesses.

One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a healthcare facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of infection compared with those who wore medical masks. The authors concluded, “Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting.”[R][R]

Another reason not to wear a cloth mask. It could burn your face, eyes, and lungs.

Tennessee bought 5 million cloth masks[R] treated with DuPont’s Silvadur, an EPA listed hazardous pesticide.[R]

Public health agencies made recommendations but failed to provide guidance on proper handling and wear

The public is untrained in the sterile techniques required to make medical mask wear effective. Medical masks, worn and handled improperly, will not protect the wearer or those with whom they come in contact, instead, they will increase the spread of disease. The public health agencies and experts failed to anticipate how the public might not understand the principles of sterility essential to proper mask wear. And they failed to provide adequate resources, guidance, and instruction to the public.

After seeing the public mis-wearing and mis-handling masks in the real world, it is absolutely clear how misguided and dangerous this recommendation was from the CDC.

I have watched as people continuously touch and fidget with their masks. I watch them pull them down from their mouths and noses and rest it on their chin or neck. In doing so they contaminate the mask and themselves and then increase the spread of disease. The public simply has no idea how to safely cover their faces or wear gloves in a way that might slow the spread of disease.

Medical masks must be properly fitted and sealed around the mouth and nose. Masks must not be touched. Every touch has the potential to contaminate the mask and the hands, thus increasing the spread of disease.

Medical masks are single use devices designed to be worn for a relatively short period of time. Once the mask becomes saturated with moisture from breath, which, if properly fit, takes about an hour, they should be replaced. The more moisture-saturated the mask becomes, the more it blocks oxygen, increases re-breathing of carbon dioxide, re-breathing of viral particles, and becomes a breeding ground for other pathogens.

The longer masks are worn, the more they are touched, and the more contaminated they become. In addition to capturing pathogens on their outer surface, masks also quickly become moist, warm breeding grounds for bacteria and fungi. Thus, these opportunistic pathogens increase the risk of disease as they are inhaled into the airways, transferred to the hands, and end up on anything touched.

Unless medical masks are worn and handled properly, with strict adherence to sterility practices, medical masks worn by the community are prescriptions for disease and disaster.

What the CDC and WHO should have said about when and how to wear medical masks

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are infected with CoVID-19 or another infectious disease.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing. Better yet, STAY HOME.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.
  • Mask type matters
    • Medical grade surgical masks should be handled properly, never touched, and never reused
    • Medical grade N95 masks/respirators work best
    • Cloth masks, bandannas, scarves, and homemade masks are useless and potentially worse than not wearing a mask

Rigorous sterility maintenance techniques required

  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent washing with soap and water and strict sterility management techniques.
  • Before putting on a mask, clean hands with soap and water. Only use alcohol-based hand cleaners when soap and water are not available.
  • Cover your mouth and nose with the mask and make sure there are no gaps between your face and the mask. Proper wear, fit, handling, and disposal are critical to efficacy.
  • Avoid touching the mask while using it; if you do, clean your hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • Replace the mask with a new one as soon as it is damp and do not reuse single-use masks.
  • To remove the mask: remove it from behind (do not touch the front of the mask); discard immediately in a closed bin; clean hands with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • No mask should be worn and reused (unless it is properly sterilized, which is highly unlikely to occur in the general public)

Experts Speak Out

If you don’t believe me, listen to what these experts have to say:

Dr. Brosseau, a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases

In April, Dr. Brosseau, a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases at the University of Illinois at Chicago published an article titled “Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data”. She wrote:

“Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.

Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households.

If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”

Top immunologist, Prof. Dolores Cahill

Top immunologist, Prof. Dolores Cahill, who has studied coronaviruses for years explains: once you’ve had the novel Coronavirus, you are immune; masks & social distancing do not affect coronavirus transmission; and how this lockdown was a mistake. Watch the full Dr. Dolores Cahill interview on the Highwire with Del Bigtree

Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mind

This is the letter Dr. Cahill wrote to the British Medical Journal:

In their editorial to the BMJ,[1] Greenhalgh et al. advise that surgical masks should be worn in public to prevent some transmission of covid-19, adding that we should sometimes act without definitive evidence, just in case, according to the precautionary principle. The authors quote a definition of the precautionary principle found on Wikipedia, “a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.”

However, while no single formulation of that principle has been universally adopted,[2] the precautionary principle aims at preventing researchers and policy makers from neglecting potentially-harmful side effects of interventions. Before implementing clinical and public health interventions, one must actively hypothesize and describe potential side effects and only then decide whether they are worth being quantified or not.

Most scientific articles and guidelines in the context of the covid-19 pandemic highlight two potential side effects of wearing surgical face masks in the public, but we believe that there are other ones that are worth considering before any global public health policy is implemented involving billions of people.

The two potential side effects that have already been acknowledged are:

  1. Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security and make people adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[3]
  2. Inappropriate use of face mask: people must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose them correctly, and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[3,4]

Other potential side effects that we must consider are:

  1. The quality and volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised, so they may unconsciously move closer. While one may be trained to counteract side effect n.1, this side effect may be more difficult to tackle.
  2. Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes. This generates an uncomfortable feeling and an impulse to touch your eyes. If your hands are contaminated, you are infecting yourself.
  3. Face masks make breathing more difficult. For people with COPD, face masks are in fact intolerable to wear as they worsen their breathlessness.[5] Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those two phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and hence they increase the amount of inhaled and exhaled air. This may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs.
  4. The effects described at point 5 are amplified if face masks are heavily contaminated (see point 2)
  5. While impeding person-to-person transmission is key to limiting the outbreak, so far little importance has been given to the events taking place after a transmission has happened, when innate immunity plays a crucial role. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[6] The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks determine a humid habitat where the SARS-CoV-2 can remain active due to the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections. This phenomenon may also interact with and enhance previous points.

In conclusion, as opposed to Greenhalgh et al., we believe that the context of the current covid-19 pandemic is very different from that of the “parachutes for jumping out of aeroplanes”,[7] in which the dynamics of harm and prevention are easy to define and even to quantify without the need of research studies. It is necessary to quantify the complex interactions that may well be operating between positive and negative effects of wearing surgical masks at population level. It is not time to act without evidence.


Greenhalgh T, Schmid MB, Czypionka T, et al. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020;:m1435. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1435

Vu YA, London WM, Vu YA, et al. Precautionary Principle. 2013;:9780199756797–0046. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0046

Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)

Desai AN, Aronoff DM. Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Published Online First: 17 April 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6437

Kyung SY, Kim Y, Hwang H, et al. Risks of N95 Face Mask Use in Subjects With COPD. Respir Care 2020;:respcare.06713. doi:10.4187/respcare.06713

Chen Y, Zhou Z, Min W. Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress and Innate Immunity. Front Physiol 2018;9:1487. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01487

Potts M, Prata N, Walsh J, et al. Parachute approach to evidence based medicine. BMJ 2006;333:701–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7570.701

Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Health

  • Dr. Russell Blaylock warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.
  • As businesses reopen, many are requiring shoppers and employees to wear a face mask. Costco, for instance, will not allow shoppers into the store without wearing a face mask. Many employers are requiring all employees to wear a face mask while at work. In some jurisdictions, all citizens must wear a face mask if they are outside of their own home. ⁃ TN Editor

With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support being promoted to reduce the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandanna or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception.

This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection—mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals.

By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.

Russell Blaylock, MD

As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”1 Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 µm2, because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3 Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All participants felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9 Repeated episodes of hypoxia have been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13

It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.


  1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.
  2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.
  3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.
  4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.
  5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.
  6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.
  7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.
  8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.
  9. Aggarwal BB. Nuclear factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208.
  10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.
  11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.
  12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.
  13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.

Dr. Pamela Popper

Here’s what Dr. Pamela Popper said on her YouTube discussion of “What the Research Shows About Masks

Masking the public was never about science…

Community wearing of face masks was never about science, health, or disease mitigation; it was always about symbolism, fear, and psychological operations to control the population.

twitter sharing button

The Real Crisis in Cosmology – The Big Bang Never Happened

JULY 2020  200,364 views• posted Jan 21, 2020

This is a devastating look at the observed facts regarding the unsupported theory of “the big bang”.  It falls flat on its face in regard to all areas discussed except one which is right on target.  But it is the except among the results that leave the theory without a leg to stand on.

In this new series of monthly videos, LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric J. Lerner will explore the scientific evidence that the dominant model of cosmology is invalid. Instead, the basic phenomena of the cosmos can be understood without an origin in time for the universe, and without exotic hypothetical entities like inflation, dark energy and dark matter.

In the first episode of the series, Lerner focuses on the new work he presented at the January, 2020 meeting of the American Astronomical Society showing that the Big Bang theory of the origin of light elements has been increasingly refuted by data on the abundance of both lithium and helium.

The next episode in this series is here:

For a summary of what will be covered in this series and some peer-reviewed publications by Lerner and others:…

The Big Bang Never Happened e-book:…

Learn more about the connection between fusion and cosmology here:…

More about the need for fusion energy, the power of the stars:

Why the Sphinx Head May Be Geopolymer


sphinx-giza-wI don’t know a whole lot about the Sphinx, but from I do know, I know of no one who has ever mentioned a huge logic error in conventional thinking about it. Something I believe has gone totally unrecognized. It is in relationship to the limestone layer that constitutes the head.

One could look at it and concluded that it should not exist, but in its existence, it exists alone on the Giza Plateau. There is nothing else like it.  It rises above all other natural features of the plateau as an almost freakish out-of-place object.  How did it come to be?

We are told that it is just another natural layer of limestone that built up a zillion years ago, albeit a much harder layer than those below it even though they are the ones under the pressure of that harder thick upper layer, yet that is not the case.  It is not just another layer or else it would cover essentially the entire Giza plateau, yet it covers exactly nothing other than the Sphinx body below it.  How the heck can that be, naturally?


Well, we’ve all seen photos of huge masses of stone supported by a small pedestal of softer stone that has been eroded way for so long that there isn’t much left of it.


So it is assumed that such a situation explains the head of the Sphinx, and there are other examples in Egypt of large limestone protrusions jutting above the lower surface of the ground. There’s even a name for them. Inselberg. [An inselberg (or monadnock) is an isolated hill, knob, ridge, outcrop, or small mountain that rises abruptly from a gently sloping or virtually level surrounding plain.  Wikipedia]
But the other inselbergs appear eroded and damaged by eons of weather.  And that is where the problem lies.

The head of the Spinx shows no signs of wind erosion even after the supposed 4,500 years of its age.  My, how very hard it must be, right?


Again, that is a problem because if such a hard layer existed in the past then it should still exist today. And if such a localized singular example of such a hard layer of limestone only existed above the Sphinx body, then how far above the current head did that layer extend before the pharonic head was sculpted?

See the problem?  The narrative is that the original head was much larger but eroded as badly as the body, and so it was due for a remake, and the material of the re-sculpted head just happened to be the hardest limestone perhaps anywhere in all of Egypt.


There are only three possibilities regarding the preexisting Spinx head.
1. It was, as conceived, soft limestone like the body and thus eroded away.
2. It was soft limestone surrounding an inner core of the current hard limestone comprising the head. (Is that a plausible likelihood? How could that even happened geologically?  No one has an answer yet because no one has asked the question…as far as I know).
And 3. The original head was composed of the very same hard limestone as the current head.  But that possibility is essentially impossible because its hardness would have guaranteed that it still exists since the current head shows no distinct sign of wind erosion at all.

So, while possibility #2 is not impossible, it is a stretch to assign it as the explanation for the previous status of the head.  Therefore we might want to consider an alternate 4th possibility.  It is the possibility that the current head replaced a worn down original head carved in soft, vulnerable limestone that was perennially exposed to wind and weather, -but whatever was left of that head was trimmed down and covered with a thick layer of man-made geopolymer limestone poured in four layers into huge in-place molds in the shape of a pharaoh’s head.

This possibility is supported by not only the logic of the durability of the limestone of the current head, which has no good explanation, but by the work of Prof. Joseph Davidovits and his Geopolymer Institute which recreated Giza limestone and even cast multiple blocks of it in the size of the pyramid blocks, along with unrecognized facts that I will share in my next exposition, to be titled: Great Egyptian Sculpture Was Cast, Not Carved.
Arguing in favor of the stratification lines being natural lines of deposition and not lines of separate pourings of geopolymer concrete, it is readily notable that the width between layers of the limestone are essentially the same in the body as in the head. That gives us pause to wonder whether or it that is merely coincidence.  A good case could be made that it isn’t coincidence but due to some unknown natural periodicity that was responsible for the stratification lines.  I have a great profile photo in the best light possible showing fairly uniform lines in both the body and head, but I can’t relocate it yet. (too many thousands of photos and yet it is somewhere I haven’t looked)

But anyway, here’s a comment photo that I made back in Sept. 2019. It’s good because it is such high definition.


And now a word from the ‘experts’…

Geology. “The Sphinx is cut from the lowest layers of the Mokattam Formation, those layers lying directly on the hard, petrified reef. Most of the lion body and south wall and the upper part of the ditch were carved in Member II, -seven layers that are soft near the bottom and becoming progressively harder near the top.
The neck is carved in the base of Member III, which is softer than the upper part from which the head is sculpted.” ( Hawass & Lehner, 1994b: pp. 33-34; Figure 18).

Lal Gauri designates bed 6ii as the top of Member II in the Sphinx body. Lehner further notes that Sphinx head layers are found nowhere else on the Giza Plateau (Lehner, 1991: p. 16) .

No Prior References. No consensus exists on the conclusive date and sculptor of the Giza Sphinx as we know it:

“We are left to speculate about the meaning of the Sphinx for its builders because there are no known Old Kingdom texts that refer to it or its temple.” ( Hawass & Lehner , 1994b: p. 35).

“Although we are certain that the Sphinx dates to the 4th Dynasty, we are confronted by a complete absence of texts mentioning the Sphinx in the Old Kingdom.” ( Lehner, 1991: p. 95).

“None of the materials unearthed at Giza or anywhere else in Egypt make any mention of the statue’s construction; it is referenced as though it had always existed when it is mentioned at all.
It seems odd that so large and obviously significant a structure would not be mentioned anywhere by anyone at the time it was supposedly built.” ( Mark, 2016).


(Thutmose Stela) … “This is the only text that makes a historical connection between Khafre and the Sphinx and here the connection, if any, is problematic…” (Lehner, 1991: p. 104).
It would seem quite possible that the reason there is no mention of the Great Sphinx in Old Kingdom texts (see however Bauval’s contention that its celestial counterpart was the Horakhty mentioned in the Pyramid Texts; Schoch & Bauval, 2017: Chapter 6) is because it did not exist as a cultural image prior to the king carving his likeness into the head of a preexisting statue during the 4th Dynasty, though this has been challenged recently (Seyfzadeh et al., 2017; Seyfzadeh & Schoch, 2019).

Certainly, there are 2500 years of Sphinx-styled iconography after that time, but as Lehner observes: “Except for the Louvre head of Djedefre, no Nemes-coifed sphinx earlier than the Great Sphinx are known.” (Lehner, 1991: p. 352; Figure 19).
It should be noted here that the Djedefre head is conjectured to have been a part lion, part man sphinx image, although the altered image of his wife Heterphenes II may present the first appearance of recumbent lion with a human face.
The sphinx design of an animal body and a human head with royal and divine features appears to be a later concept and was without precedent at the time of Khafre as noted by Lehner.
It was not even called a Sphinx until 2000 years later when the name was applied by the Greeks.
However, lion, lion goddess and couchant lioness imagery are profuse throughout Egyptian iconography dating well back to pre-dynastic times (Figures 20(a)-(c)), and these powerful female icons helped shape early culture (Seyfzadeh & Schoch, 2019: pp. 12-13).

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

The following is the full text of an opinion piece written by climate activist and energy expert Michael Shellenberger which was originally published by Forbes but pulled a few hours later. Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner, told The Daily Wire in a statement hours after Forbes deactivated the piece, “I am grateful that Forbes has been so committed to publishing a range of viewpoints, including ones that challenge the conventional wisdom, and was thus disappointed my editors removed my piece from the web site. I believe Forbes is an important outlet for broadening environmental journalism beyond the overwhelmingly  alarmist approach taken by most reporters, and look forward to contributing heterodoxical pieces on energy and the environment in the future.” 


On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations including Britain, Germany and France since the mid-seventies
  • Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution.
At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20’s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.

Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.
The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them end-notes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980’s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to out-compete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neo-liberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year, after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism, are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.

Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here


Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins, June 30, 2020). He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over five million times.

Is Pompey’s Pillar Hollow? (Probably)


by adrien nash  june 25, 2020

After downloading and viewing several photos of the colossal Pompey’s Pillar in Alexandria Egypt I was shocked by what I saw at the base.  I saw what I would never have guessed that I would ever see under the base of a gigantic pillar, -one of the largest on Earth.  Something was very wrong and did not make sense.  It was evident immediately, so not being one to ignore what is inexplicable, I began to consider the implications of what I was seeing. And what I was seeing was this:

A massive stone base with a large square hole at its bottom;
It’s bottom was perched atop a haphazard jumble of unrelated natural stones that did not come even close to fitting together.  (I challenge all to find another pillar anywhere with such a ridiculous and non-solid sub-base for such a massive weight above.)
The corners of the huge base protruded noticeably beyond the edges of the stones beneath, suspended in air.

The size of the hole in the bottom middle of one side of the base prompts the conclusion that it was there for entry by humans.  And that conclusion prompts the conclusion that there would be no purpose or use for such an entry hole if the space into which it leads is merely a small cavity and not a significant space in which one could possibly stand and move around, -like a large closet or small shed.

Assuming that there is a small ‘room’ beneath the base, the question then is: does it exist only below the base…into the ground, or does it extend above the bottom of the base and into the base itself?  Does the base have a significant size cavity within its core?

Pompey’s Pillar-w

UPDATE: Later in the date I was directed to a 4K resolution video that contained a segment on the pillar. From that video I extracted numerous screen shots, and they reveal the interior of the cavity, which you can examine:

Such an oddity promptly lead to wondering what the base is really made of; is it solid stone as the official narrative probably claims?  Or is it semi-solid stone with a cavity carved into it from the bottom?  OR….is it even made of stone at all??  Could it be just another ancient Roman concrete creation?

[UPDATE: As seen in one of the captures, its solid granite bottom is the ‘roof’ of the cavity which is at least 12 square feet of unsupported surface…probably more.]

Now as a broader understanding of the situation, be aware that the pillar was erected at around the beginning of the fourth century, so Roman construction with concrete was highly advanced, with the massive Pantheon, (still the largest concrete dome roof in the world) having been completed about 275 years earlier.


So with their concrete prowess in mind, it is no leap of imagination to calculate that the builders were not so stupid as to attempt to quarry and shape a massive stone block to serve as the base when they could far more easily create a large mold and cast the base in position using Roman concrete.
If they did so, then constructing a smaller box within the mold box would provide two significant benefits, namely, perhaps 33-50% less concrete to make and mix and pour, and, a quicker and safer drying/ curing time for such an otherwise thick solid mass of concrete.
pompeys-pillar patricklandmann-sciencePixLib

So if we assume that they did the smart thing, the same thing that we would do, then what else might they have done by way of employing the greatest efficiency and simplicity?  Well, I had a thought, and it sprang from the brain-dead idiotic arrangement of odd stones as a ‘foundation’ beneath the huge base that should have been set on solid bedrock, and that thought was….since the ground level course of stones seems unstable, and the base itself might not be solid, how was such an arrangement expected to support the massive weight of a solid granite column that is estimated to weight 570,000 pounds??

Well I was curious about the concentration of that weight so I got some calculations based on its 2.7 meter diameter at the base (which is undefined) and they have the radius being 4.4 feet, and if you square that and multiply by Pi (3.4…) then you get 61.6 square feet.  Dividing the weight by the square inches comes to about 770 pounds per square inch. [apologies to those in the metric world 😉 ]

So that is a lot of pressure per square inch, but it would be less, perhaps much less, if the column was not so heavy due to it not being solid.  Of course it was impossible to hollow out a giant solid granite column but what would be possible is having the granite being merely a coating, and not a solid mass.

That would require that the core of the column be hollow….which would require that it be a cast Roman concrete creation…perhaps cast in sections that were joined together, sections that were like a concrete encasement (of a plaster column original core) which was removed by coating it in two applications, above and below, top and bottom, two halves one at a time while the first hardened.

And guess what.  They had plenty of experience in making such concrete tubes because that is how they distributed clean water. Concrete water pipes.



That seems really easy compared to the colossal chore of carving a solid granite column from a gigantic, unwieldy, super-heavy square block that had to be transported over 500 miles down the Nile river.  What machinery ever existed to manipulate and machine-shape such a gargantuan weight?  Well, none.  But if it was made in sections, hollow sections, the job would go far easier and faster. (and cheaper)

So then the only reservation left is in regard to coating it in man-made granite paste…i.e. reconstituted granite.  It is all dependent on that.  So at this point there are those of us who have learned that that was possible, and those who have not yet learned that fact.  I’ve found a lot of evidence of man-made stone in photos from mysterious places around the world, including Egypt…where this photo was captured by someone.

and these pre-historic cast concrete blocks from Peru


But there’s more.  While examining the base I noticed something that I’ve seen in other objects that appeared to be man-made stone, and that was an area where the granite veneer has delaminated and broken off.  That is what is seen in this image:



UPDATE Image: Capture12b

So in conclusion, even though nothing is finally concluded regarding such an odd object, it is highly reasonable to assume that by the Fourth Century the Romans would have been quite capable of producing something in a faster and easier manner than what one would guess by merely looking at it.

So until contradictory facts are made known, the verdict is that the base and column are both non-solid objects made of cast stone concrete and coated with a paste veneer of reconstituted granite.

UPDATE: It appears that the capital, the entire base, and the column were made of ‘stone concrete’, with the stone used to make that ‘concrete’ being granite. So there aren’t two types of material used, just reconstituted pink granite probably brought to the site from Aswan, either in crushed form or in chunks that were crushed on site.


But wait!  There’s more.  It is in regard to the design of the base. Rather than be nothing more than a boring square box, it had to have some pleasing aesthetic quality to it, and so it was naturally decided to include the style feature of a baseboard type molding, along with a wainscot-type molding around the four sides higher up.  They emulate the traditional look of the work of master carpenters who in the ‘Age of Wood’ built pedestals or bases for indoor wooden or ceramic or ‘soft stone’ statues, along with exquisite furniture and  crown & baseboard moldings for elegant homes.


But wooden moldings are simply attached to a surface, while any emulation of them in stone requires a huge and inexplicable amount of effort of stone removal from a wider block that has to be chiseled down to the wanted smaller-width of the flat wall of the object or base on which the molding is intended to protrude.  That would require an enormous amount of effort that no mason would attempt or even consider attempting.

But, there is an easier way to accomplish the same thing, and that is to apply a thick band of granite paste along each side and then simply use a screed cut to create the ‘wood molding’ shape that one prefers and drag it from one side to the other, removing all excess paste while leaving the perfectly shaped imitation molding that would look convincingly resemble carved granite.  But man-made granite would not be as solid as natural granite, and hence the erosion that we see on the surface of the pseudo-molding.

[” granite is not a type of concrete , the bonding agent is liquid quartz solidified upon cooling”  As a general rule, reconstituted stone will not possess molecular bonds as strong as those of natural stone when the stone was the result of heat and pressure inside the Earth.]

Finally, about the solidity of the base, it’s composed of two pieces, being topped by a square block that is shown by the visible line between them, and while  I assume that the top block is solid, I do not assume that about the main body of the base (which I suspect was cast as a box-within-a-box, which left an inner box-shaped cavity in the center, making it hollow and of lesser weight).

I assume that since the column is most likely not solid, therefore the base need not be solid either.   That box would not have a top other than the upper square block that sits on the main section of the base.  The pouring would have been from the top so I suspect that the top of the main lower section is open where the inner box created a cavity.  But it is covered by the thick square block on top of it which distributes the weight of the column to the areas beyond the hollow opening.

Here is a small example:

The amount of unsupported surface of the bottom of the base alters the calculations of pounds per square inch born by the surrounding supportive mass of the base, and the  foundation of the base beneath it.
If a third of the bottom is unsupported, then the remaining surface area would have to support over 1,000 pounds per square inch.  You can be sure that no construction engineer assigned such a project would have allowed anywhere near that degree of weight-stress to be built into his work….especially given the horrible quality of the concrete-&-stone base below the base.
That lack of solidity can only be assumed to have been because great weight-bearing strength was not needed. And the only way that it would not have been needed is if the pillar was hollow and weighed significantly less than a solid granite pillar.

Here’s a summation of the points herein presented:

1. There was no need to craft such a humongous pillar out of solid stone.

2. The difficulties of quarrying and transporting a block that weighed in excess of 300 tons would have been incalculable.

3. There was no means or technology in existence to accomplish the milling of such a colossal quadrangular block into a cylinder.

4. Such a solid weight would have been too great for the base as it was built.

5. The Romans of the 5th century were fully capable of making a hollow pillar.

6. The masons of the royals knew the formula & method for making reconstituted granite.

7. The results of taking every short-cut possible would not be detectable.

So now let the testing begin!  Hollow? or solid?  Was does logic suggest?


The Disgraced Lancet Retracts Anti-Hydroxychloroquine Attack

The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?


The now retracted paper halted hydroxychloroquine trials. Studies like this determine how people live or die tomorrow.

The Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. Recently, they published an article on Covid patients receiving hydroxychloroquine with a dire conclusion: the drug increases heartbeat irregularities and decreases hospital survival rates. This result was treated as authoritative, and major drug trials were immediately halted – because why treat anyone with an unsafe drug?

Now, that Lancet study has been retracted, withdrawn from the literature entirely, at the request of three of its authors who “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources”. Given the seriousness of the topic and the consequences of the paper, this is one of the most consequential retractions in modern history.

The answer is quite simple. It happened because peer review, the formal process of reviewing scientific work before it is accepted for publication, is not designed to detect anomalous data. It makes no difference if the anomalies are due to inaccuracies, miscalculations, or outright fraud. This is not what peer review is for. While it is the internationally recognised badge of “settled science”, its value is far more complicated.

At its worst, it is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.

Regardless of how any individual paper is reviewed – and the experience is usually somewhere between the above extremes – the sad truth is peer review in its entirety is struggling, and retractions like this drag its flaws into an incredibly bright spotlight.

The ballistics of this problem are well known. To start with, the vast majority of peer review is entirely unrewarded. The internal currency of science consists entirely of producing new papers, which form the cornerstone of your scientific reputation. There is no emphasis on reviewing the work of others. If you spend several days in a continuous back-and-forth technical exchange with authors, trying to improve their manuscript, adding new analyses, shoring up conclusions, no one will ever know your name. Neither are you paid. Peer review originally fitted under an amorphous idea of academic “service” – the tasks that scientists were supposed to perform as members of their community. This is a nice idea, but is almost invariably maintained by researchers with excellent job security. Some senior scientists are notorious for peer reviewing manuscripts rarely or even never – because it interferes with the task of producing more of their own research.

However, even if reliable volunteers for peer review can be found, it is increasingly clear that it is insufficient. The vast majority of peer-reviewed articles are never checked for any form of analytical consistency, nor can they be – journals do not require manuscripts to have accompanying data or analytical code and often will not help you obtain them from authors if you wish to see them. Authors usually have zero formal, moral, or legal requirements to share the data and analytical methods behind their experiments. Finally, if you locate a problem in a published paper and bring it to either of these parties, often the median response is no response at all – silence.

This is usually not because authors or editors are negligent or uncaring. Usually, it is because they are trying to keep up with the component difficulties of keeping their scientific careers and journals respectively afloat. Unfortunately, those goals are directly in opposition – authors publishing as much as possible means back-breaking amounts of submissions for journals. Increasingly time-poor researchers, busy with their own publications, often decline invitations to review. Subsequently, peer review is then cursory or non-analytical.

And even still, we often muddle through. Until we encounter extraordinary circumstances.

Peer review during a pandemic faces a brutal dilemma – the moral importance of releasing important information with planetary consequences quickly, versus the scientific importance of evaluating the presented work fully – while trying to recruit scientists, already busier than usual due to their disrupted lives, to review work for free. And, after this process is complete, publications face immediate scrutiny by a much larger group of engaged scientific readers than usual, who treat publications which affect the health of every living human being with the scrutiny they deserve.

The consequences are extreme. The consequences for any of us, on discovering a persistent cough and respiratory difficulties, are directly determined by this research. Papers like today’s retraction determine how people live or die tomorrow. They affect what drugs are recommended, what treatments are available, and how we get them sooner.

The immediate solution to this problem of extreme opacity, which allows flawed papers to hide in plain sight, has been advocated for years: require more transparency, mandate more scrutiny. Prioritize publishing papers which present data and analytical code alongside a manuscript. Re-analyse papers for their accuracy before publication, instead of just assessing their potential importance. Engage expert statistical reviewers where necessary, pay them if you must. Be immediately responsive to criticism, and enforce this same standard on authors. The alternative is more retractions, more missteps, more wasted time, more loss of public trust … and more death.

 James Heathers is a research scientist at Northeastern University in Boston MA. He studies biosignal methodology and metascience.

 This article was amended on 12 June 2020 to clarify that not all peer review is unrewarded, as an earlier version had said.

Americans have had enough …

… and are marching for justice in unprecedented numbers. In small towns and big cities across the country, thousands of people are giving voice to the grief and anger that generations of black Americans have suffered at the hands of the criminal justice system. Young and old, black and white, family and friends have joined together to say: enough.

The unconscionable examples of racism over the last weeks and months come as America’s communities of color have been hit hardest by the coronavirus and catastrophic job losses. This is a perfect storm hitting black Americans. Meanwhile, the political leadership suggests that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. The president who promised to end the “American carnage” is in danger of making it worse.

At a time like this, an independent news organisation that fights for truth and holds power to account is not just optional. It is essential. Because we believe every one of us deserves equal access to fact-based news and analysis, we’ve decided to keep Guardian journalism free for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This is made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers across America in all 50 states.

Our business model is coming under great pressure from an unprecedented collapse in advertising revenues, and we’d love your help so that we can carry on our essential work. If you can, support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.


An Enigma Without Explanation


This may be the most enigmatic broken stone wall anywhere.
It displays inexplicable features that seem to require multiple exotic explanations.

But we can’t possibly determine the answers to
questions that aren’t even raised until we first examine
with an eagle’s eye the features that are visible.
Instead of waxing eloquent about its uniqueness, I will
instead just iterate exactly what I see in blunt terms.

1. The surface features both horizontal and vertical lines.
2. Those lines indicate where separate parts meet.
3. Horizontal lines indicate horizontal layers of the wall.
4. Vertical lines indicate that the wall was built not with a single width of blocks but with a double width, -two walls joined together intimately by means of the blocks of each row alternating, -with one side being wider and the other being narrower.  Thus there is no vertical line of separation between two walls of a uniform width.

So far, such a construction method is understandable, but next is
where things get inexplicably weird.

This would be the time to question whether or not the blocks were cut
from natural stone or were cast in molds using artificial man-made reconstituted stone. Well that question fades away in the face of what is actually seen. Two things are present together that should not be.

5. The mass of the blocks is comprised of rather large chunks of gravel.
6. Concrete is made with a similar mix of large gravel pieces.
7. If each block was made by casting in separate molds, then there would be no areas where the visible surfaces would be related by a visible common pattern between them, but there is.

8. In the center there is an area that is not homogeneous but instead
forms a visible vertical shape.
9. That shape crosses the boundary of one block and extends upward
into the one above it.

10. That is proof that that area was formed as one singular mass since
the areas on both sides of the block separation line are clearly connected.
11. That proves that the original size of the stone that contained that
feature was larger than the individual blocks that contain it.

Here’s where the problems begin.
If the original pre-cut mass was cast and not cut, then how do you
explain the inner shape that connects the blocks, and the fact that
it appears that individual pieces of gravel were sliced in
half in cutting the blocks out of a single larger piece.

It gets worse.
If the blocks were cut from one single huge piece of quarried stone,
then what tool did the cutting and sectioning?
12. The cut lines are not straight consistently, but waver a lot.

What saw is capable of not cutting consistently straight? None.

What tool could produce a hair-thin separation line that cuts through hard
granite or basalt gravel like butter, even slicing through individual pieced of gravel?

How could any such tool have existed when this pillar was
supposedly made??? Was not an advanced technology needed?
If the technology was possessed that could cut stone so easily, why wasn’t technology
available to easily lift & place sections without cutting them in half,
or available to produce a reasonably smooth surface?

So this non-descript broken wall (that goes unnoticed and is
treated as unremarkable) contains tiny features that archaeology
has completely missed or is unwilling to mention because of
the questions that they raise and the total lack of answers
to those questions.

and there’s this from India:Prasat Bayon, Angkor, Cambodia-b

The final unasked and unanswered question is: what did it take to break that wall?  It’s awfully thick. It sure wasn’t natural forces, so how many sledge hammer blows were needed to break it apart?  (great exercise if it you can take it. 😉 ) …and forget about asking ‘why?’.

Adrien Nash June 9, 2020

Feel free to share any ideas in the comments below, such as this one:

Those are seamless joints too. I spent hours examining them in 2017. Using a magnifying glass it became clear to me that no conventional method, technique or technology was involved in its making. Plus, similar megalithic features can be seen on many sites worldwide.

The Great Pyramid Design “Encoded”

[Note: The following author has a serious problem with understanding the methodology of factual discovery. He first states that some assumption is an assumption, but a sentence or two later he is restating it as an established fact on which he can then build an even bigger assumption. It boggles the mind how quickly such an intelligent person can instantly transform an unestablished theory into a solid fact based solely on his own preferred presumption and narrow logic. A. Nash
I’ve added emphasis where it should be noticed]


Source webpage

Essential Design of the Great Pyramid
Encoded in Hemiunu’s Mastaba at Giza

Manu Seyfzadeh
Independent Researcher, Lake Forest, CA, USA.
DOI: 10.4236/ad.2018.62008 PDF HTML 2,630 Views
1. Introduction
The Great Pyramid (a.k.a. Khufu’s/Cheops’ Pyramid, “Khufu Akhet”, Giza-1, G1) stands on the Giza Plateau in Egypt and is commonly dated to the 26th century B.C.E.
[“commonly dated” does not mean scientifically dated, but merely dated by the assumptions of the conventional narrative]
Its architect is unknown though circumstantial evidence suggests that it was Khufu’s vizier Hemiunu entombed in mastaba G4000 to its west. The pyramid’s unusual design has stimulated many theories about its origin.
Some have questioned whether its concept is compatible with the knowledge and know-how of Old Kingdom Egyptians despite *evidence*, albeit circumstantial, which anchors its construction to Khufu’s reign. [NOT evidence, but supposedly ‘logical’ speculation.]

In the absence of explicit written evidence which would unequivocally tie the idea behind its architectural design to this era, definitive proof will remain elusive, possibly forever.
However, if [IF!!!!] the architect was in fact a contemporary of Khufu, he may have preserved the blueprints of his creation [“HIS CREATION”??? When exactly was THAT established? oh, NEVER!] near the monument in a more durable medium than papyrus, i.e. stone, and recorded it in a more abstract architectural language than figures, i.e. numbers. [in other words, in a medium that no one would ever decipher until the inquisitive author applied his astute intelligence to ‘deciphering’ it. Ok, sure.]

This premise prompted me to investigate Hemiunu’s mastaba for numerical clues which may identify him as the architect and definitively date the bulk of G1’s conception and construction to the 4th Kingdom and thus more compellingly to Khufu’s lifetime. [so…he had a goal and intent in mind, yet wants us all to view his surmisings as purely unbiased and not titled in any particular direction. He not only failed to set aside his bias but openly declared it in effect. ]
“which may identify him as the architect…” Why did he not merely seek to ascertain whether or not Heminun was cognizant of the design features of the G.P.? Why assume the highly partisan role of seeking to authenticate and validate the baseless establishment ‘pyramids-were-tombs’ narrative as a stated goal? Why not just ‘let the chips fall where they may’? Because he is a charter member of that establishment, and as such would never consider rocking the boat. To do otherwise makes one a ‘persona non grata’ or worse, a pariah.

The architect of the “Great Pyramid” (G1) at Giza is believed to have been Khufu’s half-nephew Hemiunu.
While it is possible that Hemiunu conceived its design because he was both vizier and head of this king’s works, there is no direct proof of it to date.
[i.e. there is NO proof that he did design G1]

Absent the unlikely discovery of unequivocal written evidence, whether he was involved may never be known with certainty.
Here, I present evidence that Hemiunu himself was the likely brain behind the essential features of the Great Pyramid. The side length, height, the small indent into the core masonry on all four side centers, and even the factors ‘five’ and ‘eight’ which relate this pyramid with its smaller version at Meidum and which had significant theological meaning at the time are all embedded in the two original side lengths of Hemiunu’s rectangular mastaba G4000 in the west cemetery.
Furthermore, it appears that even the expanded sides of his mastaba enshrined key interior features of the Great Pyramid like the dimensions of the King Chamber and the shaft leading from it to the outside towards its presumed target in the northern night sky, the circumpolar star region centered around alpha-Draco Thuban. [why exactly was dynamite ‘required’ to open said shaft to the outside?]
Unmistakable numerical clues embedded in the dimensions of Hemiunu’s mastaba suggest that all this was done with intent, which thus lends compelling [unquantifiable opinion] support to the notion that Hemiunu was the architect of the Great Pyramid attributed to Khufu.
4. Conclusion In summary, all essential exterior and interior design features of the Great Pyramid at Giza can be found in the original and expanded dimensions of Hemiunu’s mastaba in its west-field once the unusual deviations from whole number values are noted. Their presence is compelling evidence that they were added intentionally as clues to reveal the essential design themes used to plan this pyramid.
While there is a remote [ignore that word] possibility that Hemiunu incorporated G1’s architectural design into his own mastaba without having conceived it, the much more likely possibility is that he wanted to record his design for posterity in such a way that it could be retrieved.
[the likelihood of a possibility is a subjective determination derived from the assumptions of the determiner. And the motive for his design, if true, would not be well served by hiding it for thousands of years in obscure, arcane measurements that only the author would ever ‘decipher’.]
G4000 thus became Hemiunu’s blue-print [note the subtle insinuation via the use of the term “blue print” which is ALWAYS the plans drawn up BEFORE construction begins] for G1 firmly anchoring its conception to the 4th Dynasty and the reign of Khufu. Likely, therefore, the Great Pyramid indeed belonged to Khufu.
[and there we have one presumption established on top of a prior one. He dishonestly implies that the mere knowledge of the measurements of the G.P., along with those measurements being ‘inscribed’ in the dimensions of his mastaba, PROVE that he was the builder, when that connection in fact established only that he knew what they were, -which was very easy for him to learn via the huge workforce that he commanded.]
The theory presented here makes the testable prediction that visible man-made marks may be found on either G4000’s original small-block masonry or on its post-expansion large-block façade to designate the fractional cubits amount proposed here and demarcate them from the overall dimension.
“The Khnum-Re-Horakhty Cycle: The Idea behind the Architectural Design of Khufu’s Great Pyramid” Amazon 2nd Edition Paperback; $59.89 new.
King Khufu (Cheops) built the first of the three pyramids of Giza in the 26th century B.C.E., the so-called Great Pyramid [did that read like the speculation that it supposedly is?? Is “built” speculation? or ASSERTION?].
To date, there is no generally accepted explanation for why his architect chose a design for the Great Pyramid which incorporates the particular dimensions found in this famous monument. [AND THAT’S A FACT JACK. NONE.]
The Architecture of the Great Pyramid bears a secret code which author Manu Seyfzadeh [alone] deciphers by showing how the timing of the most sacred celestial objects observed by the ancient Egyptians first became geometry and then the core design of the most famous monument in the world. [uh…no, he does NOT show that it became the core design; he merely assumes it must be so.]

The conclusion is unmistakable: [Really??]
The Pyramid of Khufu/Cheops encodes a resurrection calendar.
[whether it does or does not is not relevant to who did the ‘encoding’, but he continually implies and even states that it was he, Hemiunu, who enshrined the code because it was his own design, when no such connection can be made to who it was who built the pyramids or when.]
I am interested in how the ancient Egyptians imbued their monuments with numbers and words. In “The Idea behind the Architectural Design of Khufu’s Great Pyramid” I explore the origin of the stunning geometric design conceived by the architect to create the most mysterious building ever made.

This journey took me from dimensions and angles to orbits and periods; from the movement of the Moon and the brightest star in the sky to the ancients’ keeping of time…and this journey ultimately led me to one of the most well kept secrets of the ancient builders: A code based on the creation of the universe as they knew it. [who can question a well kept mysterious secret code?? Do you feel qualified? I don’t. And that is not without effect & consequences that are intended, namely, acceptance.
Excerpt 4
…We have learned much about the technology involved to build the pyramids of Egypt, [uh, no. We have NOT “learned much” about how they were built since it must be in comparison to what we do NOT know, and we can’t claim to have “learned” that which is still mere speculation.]
but we still marvel at the mystery of their design, precision, and above all their meaning. [as well we should since we remain clueless.]
What was the Great Pyramid’s message [message? really?] embedded in the dimensions and angles of this first of three mind-boggling and puzzling structures built at Giza?
Why have we had such difficulty understanding it? Who was the audience for which these monuments were built? [where is there any evidence that they were built for an audience???]
Did they likewise not understand (as we still do not today) or was the meaning obvious to them? [if a “meaning” was intended, it could have easily been made clear since writing existed, yet there are zero inscriptions to be found anywhere in or on the pyramids of Giza. That’s a strange way to seek to ‘convey’ a message.]
How did ancient royal architects create straight lines, right angles, and inclines? [where is the evidence that they actually did??]
What design tools did they use? Did they employ advanced mathematics and had knowledge of the universe long before Urdi, Tusi, Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, and Newton discovered it for the rest of the world or did they stumble on a universal cosmological relationship rule without knowing it? [the short answer is: we don’t know, all we can do is speculate.]
This book is not about alien advice or time travelers from our future lending a helping hand to celebrated pyramid builders like Imhotep and Hemiunu employed by Djoser and Khufu.
[“celebrated”?? by whom? by geniuses of the past? Or by purveyors of institutionalized presumptuous orthodox dogmas of the last 1 1/2 centuries? “celebrated pyramid builders”….same question. Nothing connects them to ANY pyramid so why the disingenuous claim otherwise? ]
This book proposes a plausible theory which takes into account the available knowledge we have of what the ancients would have been able to do and, more importantly, what they were actually doing. [no, it does not take in account what we know about their ability to cut and transport huge and heavy slabs of granite since we know nothing of critical importance. Nor do we know anything about the challenge to cut around 11,000,000 blocks of limestone for the 6 major pyramids of Egypt, probably involving at least two cuts per blocks; top and bottom.]
What I am here proposing is a natural extension of what would have been known at the time of the Old Kingdom and what would have motivated someone at that time to to do what was done [not “would have” but ‘might have’].
Once you feel familiar, I believe you will be as baffled as I was by the power and brilliance of the elegant simplicity built into this one of the original Seven Wonders of the World…
[it gets really old when ‘experts’ refer to the “original Seven Wonders of the World”. They are mindlessly pretending that the middle pyramid of Giza never existed, and yet there it stands…as it has for who knows how many thousands of years. Essentially the same size and height as the Great Pyramid. So it and its astonishing size and permanence do not constitute a “wonder”? Think again. but they would rather NOT think about it because no one has any explanation as to why there is such a great dissimilarity between them inside.
Ignoring it allows pontificating about the G.P. and its features, and messages, purpose and construction and not have to apply any such examination to the middle pyramid to show that their “theory” holds consistency across the Giza plateau.]
about the author: Since 2002, he has worked as a clinical Dermatologist in private practice and at various clinics in California, Arizona, Texas, Idaho, and Wisconsin. He led the Medical Global Brigades on three charity missions to Nicaragua and Honduras and co-founded a charity called Esperanza 4 U to serve orphans and the poor in Tijuana, Mexico.
His entry into Egyptology and ancient civilizations came with reading a book, the Orion Mystery by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert, and watching a documentary film, the Pyramid Code by Carmen Bolter.
This exposure was instrumental in studying archaeo-astronomy, relearning geometry and architecture, and eventually self-teaching the Hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptians with the book Middle Egyptian by James Peter Allen.
Since 2016, Manu has authored a book about the architecture of the Great Pyramid and published several papers with Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval about the Great Sphinx, pyramid architecture, the Inventory Stele, and the symbols on the T-shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe.
With “Archive under the Sphinx”, he is making his findings available to a wider audience with the goal to bring the public at large closer to the magic and meaning of numbers and words in ancient Egypt and help to advance the progress of knowledge about how they seeded the origin of ancient civilizations.
[logical speculation is NOT “knowledge” since only facts are knowledge. And how would an archive under the Sphinx be worthy of an entire book when its very existence is merely speculative? Would that kind of speculation not fall under the category “a bridge too far”?]

Critique comments by A.R. Nash: visit my Ancient Stonework Mysteries (Facebook) group.

BAALBEK & the Megaliths of the ‘gods’ (II)

Here are some more comment-photos that analyze the ‘quarry’ blocks and the temple complex and it’s gargantuan size mega-blocks.  Here’s a bit of logic to chew on: those who had the advancement to cut such hard blocks from bedrock had technology beyond anything that we can conceive of.  If so, then they also had the means to make their own stone from crushed and/or pulverized stone by adding powerful binders derived from geochemistry and/or organic chemistry, including boiled and thickened polymers from terrestrial sources such as animal protein (collagen, blood, cartilage, milk, cheese, egg white), wax, tar, and plant proteins of many sorts.

Now prepare to do some in-depth analysis of my observations and conclusions. The plain-text from the photos follows at the end. (for translation capability)










Photo text…in random order.

Is this mystery block surrounded by bedrock
or gravel? Was this place a gravel quarry?
Why was the huge block not quarried more?
Because it’s too damn hard! Super concrete.
There are no signs of a hard stone quarry in the Baalbek ‘quarry’.
See those broken columns?
They were made of stone concrete
but not by terrestrial technology.
Same with the giant blocks.
They were poured in place.
The one on the right was clawed
by an excavation machine.
There are no known means
to make or move blocks
this size with primitive tools.
They had to have been
cast-in-place as stone
concrete creations.
Baalbek, Lebanon
Heaviest block in the world;
discovered and uncovered
in recent years after being
buried for many thousands.
The previous heaviest one
is on its right above it.
The scaffolding surround these pillars and lintels
is incredible, but imagine actually erecting
the massive pillars with only
primitive technology.
Stone Columns of such size and weight were never possible
for ancient or modern technology. They had to be cast using
non-terrestrial technology. For primitive tech they were Impossible.
That line that you see between the block and the ground cannot exist
if they are still attached. It is proof that they are not and never were.
That implies that they were dropped here, end first, pushing up earth
that rose and supported them at an angle. No where in the world is
stone quarried at a steep angle and here was no different.
What is she doing? It seems she’s
inserting an object between the block
and the ground to show that
they are not connected.
This block, and all others like it,
were cast in molds. From the look of
the missing area and the left edge we
conclude that the top 10-12 inches of the
block were added to it after the lower surface
had dried somewhat. But that final layer was not
adequately compressed and lacked sufficient binder to hold it
together solidly, -so it crumbles.
Was that column turned from a quadrangular block into a cylinder
on a massive powered lathe using super-hard diamond graving tips?
Well that is what quackedemia wants
you to subconsciously assume. But
instead of that nonsense, it was
cast in a mold as concrete
made from crushed stone.

The Disputed Origin of the Serapeum

These are comments extracted from a thread on the Megalithomania group’s Facebook page…lots of very interesting and enlightening responses to a post that I made centered on the photo below.

Adrien Nash
People can suppose that there was once a highly advanced civilization (that gave rise to those of recorded history), although it met a watery doom when sea levels rose dramatically.  My view is that there is a whole world of difference between ‘advanced civilization’ and advanced extraterrestrial colonists. They did not constitute a ‘civilization’ but their technology left its mark around the world. So it is fallacious to argue for or against the strawman of ancient civilization. That argument misses the character of the evidence which is quite sparse but quite impressive, -and not of terrestrial origin.

This box is clearly a result of a failure of the mold’s outer wall to hold securely the poured artificial stone used to make the box.
While it could have served some use, it could not be sealed hermetically because the upper surface of the wall was distorted, allowing a gap into which a lever could have been placed to pry the lid open.
Consequently, an attempt was made to remove it in order to replace it with a perfectly formed one.
It sits directly on the pavement with no intact transport mechanism below it.

Mohamed Ibrahim
This box is made from Granodiorite stone, and it is unfinished project, all the boxes were finished on site.  No my friend, it is not molded, and we have the quarry of granodiorite in Sinai and the eastern desert of Egypt. As I said it is an unfinished project because it was on it’s way to the room and something happened and the work stopped.

By the way, it’s lid is about 4 meters away from the box. If it is molded it must be done outside the Serapeum, and if it is a mistake, why then bother bringing it inside ?

David Eaton Edwards: Why bring it [the lid] inside in such an unfinished condition??

Mohamed Ibrahim @David Eaton Edwards Because the last 15% will be finished on site. Most of the work was done in the quarry and the rest was done on site.

David Eaton Edwards
Why not do it outside in a tent?? Seems silly to work in such a confined space where it’s all dusty to say nothing of having to lug an extra 15% unnecessary weight around. I can almost understand giving it a final polish in situ but taking it in in that condition makes no sense at all to me.

Mohamed Ibrahim @David Eaton Edwards: The energy of the site is very important, so they need to be in the presence of this energy while finishing the last steps.

Adrien Nash @David Eaton Edwards: Your concept is of Egyptians producing those boxes, but they were not capable of any such achievement, so…some other makers have to be ascribed to their creation, makers using advanced technology.

David Eaton Edwards
Seems a reasonable conclusion, Mohamed. Care to speculate on why that may be??
On the contrary, Adrien, I was thinking if I was an alien or a god with all the powers of the cosmos at my fingertips, why would I need to bring it in in such a state, (and you know I don’t buy aliens).

Adrien Nash
David Eaton Edwards Not if their technology made transporting it much easier than demolishing it. Keep in mind, I am not referring to terrestrial technology, but everyone seems to think that I am.

Keep in mind that most of what we “know” is not what we know as ‘evident fact’ but what we ‘know’ that was not possible with primitive technology. If a thing was not possible with terrestrial tech then we have to consider the alternative…which would not have had its limitations.

David Eaton Edwards: Do you think the energy properties of the Serapeum have anything to do with it being laid out like an ammunition dump with staggered chambers along the tunnel??

Adrien Nash @David Eaton Edwards: That is an intriguing observation. It is true that the layout could have included all of the boxes in one big room, yet they are each separated from each other.
Perhaps it was the equivalent to individual safe deposit boxes…each space, like the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, having a different owner, or…the contents included objects that were highly capable of detonation. Compressed hydrogen?

Adrien Nash
Mohamed Ibrahim There are several alternate considerations that can counter the assumptions that seem like the logical reality to you. 1. The quarry in the Sinai that you mentioned is the source of the stone that was converted into powder for mixing with organic and inorganic binders to create artificial stone. That powder was transported to the Serapeum where it was used to cast the boxes on site using a box-within-a-box formwork.
That is a few answers, but there are many more questions than answers, including the story of the tunnel box, its creation and its abandonment. As well as the box whose lid is of a different design altogether…like it was made by different makers at a different time.
Take a long look at this image and consider the effort/ or lack thereof, to produce its exterior design:


Adrien Nash @Mohamed Ibrahim I’ll bet the bottom of the abandoned lid is perfect….inner edges perfectly flat,…but the surface it was to mate with was not flat but was distorted and uneven. So, to prove me wrong, all you have to do is take a good long level to it and see if it is uneven or perfectly flat. Simple thing to prove one way or the other. Would you accept that ‘assignment’ so we can all learn what the truth is?

Adrien Nash
Mohamed Ibrahim Prof. Davidovits Geopolymer Institute may have attempted making a granite box on a very small scale during their search for new geopolymer formulas, but their main replication was using easily crushable limestone to replicate the limestone blocks of the Giza pyramids. Crushing hard stone is doable where quarries produce products from their mining (sand, gravel, powder,) but it must not be very inexpensive due to the amount of work to produce it.

Adrien Nash
Christopher Dunn has never proposed anything regarding artificial stone. He came before the publicly wide-spread videos of Prof. Davidovits, so when Dunn wrote (decades ago) that thought/ theory did not yet existed as far as he knew.

Chris Dunn
Adrien Nash I was fully aware of Davidovits’ work in the mid 80’s and refer to it in my book, The Giza Power Plant.
I also addressed in the book why the boxes and lids were brought into the tunnels before they were finished. To create the precision we find on these boxes and be assured that it doesn’t change, it is important that they are not subject to significant changes in temperature.

Adrien Nash
Chris Dunn That makes perfect sense,…IF it were actually possible for Egyptians to accomplish. I argue that it was not possible, nor were they created during Egyptian civilization. This would all be moot if they were date-able.
But I offer a counter theory to your quite reasonable one, and it is that it makes far more sense to cast such boxes in place than to have to have a means to cut and grind them and successfully move them, and lower them into their pits.
I see their precision as the inevitable result of casting in perfectly aligned molds with wall heights identical, making it possible to produce perfectly aligned level surfaces as a result of screeding across the top edges of the two boxes (inner and outer). I can’t see any flaw in that scenario. How about you?

Adrien Nash
David Eaton Edwards asked “why would I need to bring it [the lid] in in such a state?” It seems you missed my comment where I said that it was not being brought in but being brought out so a new perfectly made box could replace it. It was taking up valuable space. so your logic is right-on. There was no reason to bring it in but a good reason to take it out. TAKING OUT THE TRASH! 😃 😉

Adrien Nash @David Eaton Edwards I reject the whole concept of spiritual powers influencing mankind and planet earth. The powers that you imagine were actually mortal but with lives that lasted thousands of years, and their technology is unimaginable to us.

Sally Hughes-Allan: Mohamed Ibrahim has a collection of many such photos. The best example was in the Cairo museum where the box was abandoned because the cut went wrong! I will find the picture for u…many saw cuts also visible on statues in the old Cairo museum.

Adrien Nash @Sally Hughes-Allan Thanks, but I already have all of those photos, and ten thousand more…or more like 30,000 more. But what everyone needs to keep in mind is that ancient Egypt was not like Inca history in Peru, which is believed to have lasted only about 150 years. Instead it may cover as much as 100 times that length of time. Different times, different technologies.

Mohamed Ibrahim
Adrien, do you know that there are other unfinished boxes in the Serapeum ?

Adrien Nash Only vaguely, no details except one is said to be made (I think) of sandstone…or limestone. I ignore them as having been made by different makers…anomalies of time.

Mohamed Ibrahim
No my friend, limestone is indeed softer than granite but when it comes to a big piece of limestone, then we talk about high level of difficulty, could be more difficult than cutting granite, and again not because of the stone hardness but because of the capability to cut this big block of limestone without destroying it.

Adrien Nash @Mohamed Ibrahim
!! You mean to say that it would have been difficult not because of the hardness but because of the fragility of limestone. So again, we are dealing with a high level of difficulty. But that begs the question (for which there is no answer?) then why even use limestone? It must be because those who chose it were not capable of working stone that was twice as hard.
I don’t assume that ancient Egyptian masons could not have carved out a giant solid limestone box, but they had better have done it in place so they didn’t have to risk breaking it by moving it. Agree?

Freddy Silva
I’ve been researching the Serapeum for many years and published its potential purpose and dating in my new book “The Missing Lands.”
Cut a long story short, the style bears no relationship to Egyptian tombs, it is crude.
Only one bone from a bull was found among its myriad of boxes.
The only burial is of Khaemweset who was the pharaoh’s son and a restorer of temples already ancient by his time!
His is the only container to feature hieroglyphs, and what strikes me is the crude carving of the glyphs upon a box of superlative craftsmanship, they might as well have been carved using a Swiss Army knife, indicating that the original makers were from another period, and by this time the ability to work with diorite was long lost.

Based on astro-archaeology the site dates to c.9600 BC, but how I arrived at this date is too long to explain on social media. You can find it in here if you’re curious.



Adrien Nash
My view is that the two qualities of hieroglyphics on the two main inscribed boxes tells us a whole world of information if we only think about it. [see that second photo again]
The low quality of the imagery scratched into hard stone is reflective of the technology of the times, but the hieroglyphics on the box with the faux-wood slats are absolutely perfect…and that is only attainable via casting against perfect stencils. No chisel marks, all flat surfaces, flawless.
Different technology, different times, different creators.

Freddy Silva
As to the boxes, they are solid diorite, carved from bedrock in Aswan.

Adrien Nash @Freddy Silva: Mohamed Ibrahim has just written that they are from a quarry in the Sinai, so…I say one or both of those assumptions is wrong, but one is right in that the powder used to make the geopolymer stone concrete that was poured into the molds that produced the boxes did come from one or the other of the two sites. So someone is right…at least halfway. 😉

Freddy Silva
I’d not heard the Sinai connection, but am aware of the mrfz powder that is found there. It’s worth keeping an open mind on this one.

Mohamed Ibrahim
Adrien Nash; Now you are talking about another box, it is made from rose granite, rose granite quarry is at Aswan, the size and the height of this box is different from the other one, we have almost 23 boxes in this place, so did they have 23 molds, and what about the other granite ~blocks~ all over Egypt, thousands of granite blocks and millions of limestone blocks + Basalt, sandstone and Alabaster, how many molds required for them ???

Adrien Nash @Mohamed Ibrahim Those who created the main body of Serapeum boxes were not terrestrial masons, so their mold-making equipment was highly advanced, totally collapsible and scalable. I’ve begun to mentally design how it would have worked.

As for the huge blocks all across Egypt,


we can only ascertain their probable origin by calculating the potential to cut them with ancient technology. I believe that the ancient, dynastic Egyptians had undiscovered large pendulum saws that could cut through limestone and sandstone without great difficulty. I don’t assume that that was the case with granite or diorite, yet they both have been cut as the evidence shows. But the question is: In what volume were they cut? Rarely or commonly?
If the pyramids of Giza are pre-dynastic then the technology to cut the granite blocks inside of them pre-dates and exceeds any terrestrial masonry technology that we can assume existed.

Adrien Nash @Mohamed Ibrahim I have seen the photos of cuts in granite and doubt none of them. Sawing of hard stone was very real, but over a period of thousands of years, perhaps even 10,000 years, technologies did not remain static.
So…as I learned from your lecture (which showed a pre-dynastic bowl having an image of two pyramids), the pyramids of Giza, AND the Serapeum are thousands of years older than we can know or guess, so the technology is also unknowable, but guessible. 😉

Pre-dynastic pyramids

So we have to separate everything we look at along the spectrum of Time, and figure whatever that can tell us into our calculations.
As for stone boxes with sane widths and composed of softer stone, I think that most of them reveal the signs of chisel work, so they were carved and not cast.


But the giants, with walls a foot thick or more, and weights up to 100 tons, THEY have to be put in a category all by themselves, and terrestrial tools are not in that category with them.


Julian West
Have you all been living under rocks the last 50 years? Forget how to use search engines?
What is a geopolymer? Introduction – Geopolymer Institute
What is a geopolymer? Introduction – Geopolymer Institute

Louis De Jonghe d’Ardoye
Let us remain serious, it is not necessary to be a genius to realize that it is materially impossible – even with levitation – to set up the 22 boxes of 40 to 60 tonnes passing through the narrow access corridors. The boxes were necessarily made on site, it’s obvious !
For convinced unbelievers, I suggest that they take the access route to the Unas pyramid to contemplate the 40-ton granite box at the end of an impossible route …
The problem is the same except for those who do not want to see for other reasons …


Louis De Jonghe d’Ardoye
In the Unas pyramid, the access corridors exclude the possibility of passing the 40-ton box through it … It has necessarily been cast or manufactured on site…
This is the way inside for Unas pyramid
Inside Unas –

Louis De Jonghe d’Ardoye
Nicky Cruz -For a certainty the underground gallery of the Unas pyramid was dug in the rock mass; as for the Serapeum which is nearby… the obvious conclusion that I draw from it being the fact that except for teleportation (which is a hypothesis) this box must have been cast or shaped on the spot because it is physically excluded that it was sent there.
It is a statement of fact and not a hypothesis, but I can understand that there are very important interests in obscuring the truth …, It won’t last much longer
Pyramid Of Unas, Orion Text & Serious Questions –

Casimir ten Have
If they were shaped on site because they can not be moved there ’cause of narrow space, how did the raw material get there, or are the granites cast? Can anyone explain to me how to make a granite cast?

Adrien Nash
They employed advanced materials that were collapsible and adjustable to form the box-within-a-box mold. The bottom was poured first and then with the inner box added on top, the mold was filled to the top with stone ‘concrete’ between the boxes and then perfectly leveled with a very level screed across the top of the boxes. The boxes were precisely measured for perfect alignment between them.




Photo text: That flat surface inside the column is the upper surface of the first pouring
of artificial granite to cast this column. Before more could be mixed, its surface cured enough that it did not fully mix with the second pour, so that is where it broke.

Visit my Facebook Group: Ancient Stonework Mysteries.

bonus: Pyramid in Palenque,

~A Compendium of Quality Comments

Here’s a ton of collected comments that share insights that we all can benefit from, including testimonies by experts in the fields discussed. The verdict is conclusive.

the next poetician
Belief is confusing the impossible for the possible. Skepticism is confusing the possible for the impossible. I believe nothing. Facts are far more interesting.

Adrien Nash:  It is not a broad enough perspective to NOT see reality in terms of a spectrum…from infinite goodness to intense evil. And it is also a mistake to assume that those two extremes were never manifested by different entities here on Earth. They are and were opposites and eternally opposed because Self forever wants to rule all others while Love wants all to be free.
One group of e.t. colonists came to Earth long, long ago, and it was not the later but the former. They came from a world that could be described as “Luciferian”, where Self ruled in a vertical hierarchy.
In time, they created civilizations around the planet, and most of them were destroyed by natural catastrophe, but they returned centuries later when the Earth was far more stable and began again, working with their surviving progeny. Those progeny were rulers of nations because they had access to advanced technology from centuries earlier.

They built great works, but their nemesis civilization came to Earth to act as inter-stellar police to drive them from our world. They attacked their great erected self-glorifying monuments around the world and then left (leaving men to their own devices) but some of them remained to act as guides to shape the future course of human spiritual evolution. Those that were attacked left Earth and returned to their own home world where they remain.

This scenario does not deal with the issue of the creation or genetic alteration of the human race. That came long before.

Christopher Nordberg  Baalbek is indeed an enigma. But your breathless assertions that it’s flippen’ concrete are unsupported.

Adrien Nash That is true, but…it is not proven to be false and it makes perfect sense since no other explanation includes methodologies that were actually possible.

Christopher Nordberg It’s not proven to be false? That’s not how it works.

Adrien Nash: That is no different from what is accepted as the orthodox view of ancient stonework. It was put forward as an unexplainable theory, unsupported by any recorded facts, and passively accepted by all. So how is that not in the very same category as “not proven to be false”?
Then along comes someone who dares to call it false, but instead of bring out the proof of its veracity, all that is offered is a challenge to the veracity of its competition.
THAT is not how refutation works! The ‘ball’ is not in my court now. It is in the court of those who would defend orthodoxy. The truth will not be ascertained by claims but by facts and inerrant logic.

That being said, I am aware of a website (which I have open) that makes assumptions about Baalbek that are totally in support of an orthodox view, and yet its most fundamental assumptions are not actually supported by any facts, only by biased presumptions. I hope to sooner or later get around to exposing its errors of logic in order to debunk its debunking. 😉


3,000 Year Old Statue Reveals Advanced Technology?
I think I know how they got the “too-big” ball inside the “too-small” mouth of the stone creature. They used a geopolymer cement and binder. First they formed a ball that was just small enough to fit inside, then they placed it inside on top of some slick, non-stick surface. Then they poured the mixture over the ball and after it hardened enough they broke off the excess puddled compound that ringed the bottom, rounded the bottom area to match the rest of the surface, and then repeated the process after giving the ball a turn. That could make it too big with perhaps just three applications.
I don’t know how long builders have been using varnish (which is made from tree sap) but I’ll wager it has been for thousands of years, which wouldn’t be surprising since sap is visible and accessible right out in the open in most natural inhabited environments. Sap or boiled animal-skin collagen would make excellent binders, which when combined with powdered stone would make an excellent artificial stone, -not to mention various sorts of powdered compounds which naturally harden when combined with water.
“…plant oils, animal fats, tree resin, bee’s wax and bitumen +? = “black goo”. I think that another practical purpose is to seal airtight the burial, to avoid mold, humidity, silver fish, xilophagus, moths and other insects.”
“I find it highly amusing that no one bats an eye when confronted with the fact that ancient humans used clay and all types of mixtures of mud, clay, ash etc. etc… to build small structures. But when someone suggests that they also made large blocks of stone out of some mixture they’re a “conspiracy theorist”.”

MrAchile13 ​@Adrien Nash In the XIX century, miners used to crawl thousands of meters underground then spend the entire day hitting rock. Day after day for their entire life. In WWI soldiers charged machine gun nests through barbed wire and artillery fire. Carving a stone vessel seems like nothing compared to this. The Babolova Czar Bath Tub took 10 years to complete. 10 years to grind and carve the same piece of rock. This is why I don’t believe the argument is valid. What if the pharaoh commands you to make the vessels, are you gonna refuse?

The experiments (both drilling and stone vase manufacturing) were made with the use of corundum powder (no need of embedded jewels, it works the same) and corundum has been found in ancient drill holes. It seems that we are agreeing here.

Both of the vases made on the “Scientist Against Myths” Youtube channel were made in around 4 months each (information in the description). Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a skilled workman could do JUST 2 vases/year. In 500 years, he would make 1000 vases. The question is, how many workmen were in the entire country (on average)?

50? ==> 50,000.
100? ==> 100,000
200? ==> 200,000

More? We don’t know. They had both the man power and the time from pre-dynastic times to the 3rd dynasty to make plenty of vessels.

Here is where we differ. I see no reason for which these artifacts cannot be made with primitive tools. The most important part is the skill (just how people claimed the same about stone vessels and carving internal corners in granite). The circular traces are not surprising, as you see in the video about the Egyptian bird vessel, they replicated it with a spinning lathe and literally no metal tools.

The question is still unanswered, why would they carve stones, megalithic or not, if they could cast them? Why would they carve an obelisk (the largest of them all) if they could cast one?

Adrien Nash “What if the pharaoh commands you to make the vessels, are you gonna refuse?”
What if no one commands you? Are you going to attempt? The answer is “no”, because nothing you have is up to doing the work in any reasonable period of time. Would you toss out reason and decide to do something regardless of how unreasonable the amount of time needed might be? Sane people would not.

Corundum powder cannot produce a single or dual spiral groove in a drilled core as is seen on the Petrie core specimen # 7. Only a fixed graving jewel can do that.
As for the stone vessel math; there was no 500 years. That is an invented number when connected to the production of the vessels.

No record exists as to how long a period was involved in their production, nor who made them, nor how, nor why, nor where. Nor how many were actually made. How many were actually counted, and how many of them were ceramic or terra cotta? Petrie’s museum displays almost all clay pots. Why not stone vessels? I don’t know, but who does? And why not use alabaster or marble or soapstone? Why granite and schist, and basalt? One, I believe, was even made of corundum which is only exceeded in hardness by diamond!

“why would they have carved stones when they could have cast?” The answer is simple; because they had possession of the advanced technology that made it possible, but that technology gave them every option conceivable. They could have carved hard stone, or carved softened stone, or molded artificial stone or molded softened stone. They could do everything because they were not limited by primitive terrestrial technology. The had total power over stone.

MrAchile13 @Adrien Nash 1) please go to the you tube channel “Scientists Against Myths” and see granite being carved into an internal 90 degree angle with flint tools, -and granite being both cut and drilled (with drill marks) using copper tools and corundum. I can give you written academical sources, if you’re interested
2) The Romans worked in granite and porphyry just as efficient (sarcophagus of Helena, Column of Pompey, columns of the Pantheon etc.) But precision is given by measurement devices, therefore proving that such precision does not require advanced technology.

​ Adrien Nash @MrAchile13
What is accomplished in the videos is intellectually superficial and irrelevant to the actual reality of what was done in ancient times. The things made were not made by fools just trying to make a point that with all the time in the world they could do the seemingly impossible.
To ascribe such a mindset to the makers of 40k stone vessels is to deny that they were intelligent and practical people, along with the fact that what they did was on a scale so large that difficulty must not have been a problem for them in regard to both effort and time consumption. That means that they made what they made with only a small cost in time and energy, which is clearly the opposite of what was done in the videos.

And as for core-drilling, get back to me only after you can explain tapered cores with spiraling striations.

Also, you are presuming that great stoneworks of the Romans are not great casting of the Romans, but that is a false assumption, -as I shall continue to prove again and again.

Mani Narayanan
In Kerala we have a plant named “kallurukki” (means “rock melter”) which is prescribed for diluting/melting kidney stones from human body. [~similar to cranberry juice with its benzoic acid~]
This plant has to be taken from its root and crushed with its roots and leaves so that we get a concentrated liquid in small quantity. This liquid in small quantity (say 5ml) is added to full tender coconut water ( or any other liquid – water or milk) and should be drunk early morning after wakeup.

I came to know that this plant got the name cuz it’s used to melt huge rock (a small hole is made and this liquid is poured into the hole) to break them into two pieces or more. I don’t know how far the info I got is authentic. Needs citation. May this technology was used in those days.

A.Nash Don’t make the mistake of lumping all forms of stone into one single category. That which will dissolve calcium-based limestone will NOT dissolve hard stone. The juice that is acidic (not magic) dissolves the calcite bonds which are weak to begin with.

John Walker
Do you think the builders were not able to build compact hydro power plants along the Nile? -or they could not calculate the efficiency correctly, and accidentally built a pyramid that was not suitable for supplying electricity?

Adrien Nash
Excellent point. If the builders could make a power plant within the great pyramid then they could even more easily put mini-hydro-electric generators in the Nile. So if one seeks a practical purpose for the inner chambers of the GP, then perhaps it was to produce hydrogen fuel from water.  And the was once a massive explosion inside the King’s chamber.
Still, nothing practical explains the purpose of the massive size or shape of the great pyramids. The purpose had to have been something other than practical considerations.


[The handbags depicted in the hands of kings around the world] suggest a device of some importance. What uses can devices have?
Bio Physics (like mosquito repelling tones )
Protective bio Magnetic field or Medical function )
Energetic ( like a battery) or protective field generator),
Life support (like oxygen)
Communication (like a radio or telephone or gps)
Gravitional equalizer ( like a mass reduction)
Next, why the same hand position in front of the holder? For Safety, such as radio wave intensity or radiation) or optimum Field envelope diameter? ideas any one?

A.N. The handbags contained gifts from the gods, small useful objects like we would put in a survival bag, (I can think of a dozen very useful little objects) but most important of all was that they contained a radio transmitter & receiver with which the gods could communicate with the kings.
“On this day in this year, the Word of the Lord came to me, -saying…” That is how they helped to control the direction of major events in order to serve their purposes.

The analysis of photos: Aerial photographic and satellite image interpretation …
Photographic interpretation is “the act of examining photographic images for the purpose of identifying objects and judging their significance” (Colwell, 1997). This mainly refers to its usage in military aerial reconnaissance using photographs taken from reconnaissance aircraft and satellites.. The principles of image interpretation have been developed empirically for more than 150 years.

Andrew Barker
Geopolymer used well before Rome is an archaeological fact. Even in my small part of Spain (Andalucia & Extremadura) we have numerous sites and examples being worked upon. I would suggest you read the archaeological works of Elena Whishaw (1928) who with her husband headed the Archaeological schools of Seville and Niebla before jumping to conclusions.

At this minute there are sites such as the archaeological excavation of Turuñuelo, located near Guareña (Badajoz) in the Guadiana Valley revealing geopolymer usage. No one is saying aliens are involved; just geopolymer using different catalysts were a fact of life in the ancient world and those skills were lost over time (the Geopolymer Institute of today was only created 40 yrs ago?). The technology was just lost to human society – simple.

As someone who has to clean the Sahara Sand off my vehicles most weeks in the Sierra Nevada mountains of Andalucia I have no doubt that Hancock is largely correct. The Eye of Africa has had three scientific missions, all of which concluded different things. The first said it was an impact crater, the second a volcanic dome and the third volcanic remnants. Well my Space scanning says it is not 2 & 3, which leaves impact crater in my simplistic view and the size of it is more than sufficient to change the Sahara Desert and generate Mega Tsunami. Those who say it is Atlantis are incorrect (it is far too high); but did it cause the distruction of Atlantis? Thats a different story…

Adrien Nash @Rami Zentgraf  The quasi-wise “conspiracy theories” quote was written by a fool who failed to grasp reality. In the real world those with malevolent intent actually DO engage in conspiracies, and laws exist to punish conspiring alone even without committing a crime.
So please, explain to educated intelligent people how it is that ALL theories or suppositions that ‘conspiracies’ exist (or existed) are ALWAYS wrong. You won’t because you can’t because it’s impossible to prove that which is false.
As for your “burden of proof” link, -how lame-brain is it to refer to that which has no connection to discussion and proposal? Is this group a scientific peer-reviewed publication of any sort of establishment? And why am I having to point out such obvious flaws in your inadequate thinking??

re Baalbek: “Remains of pre-Roman monumental construction were found in excavations under the Roman floor level of the Great Courtyard in the time of French and Lebanese works in Baalbek.
Current survey and interpretation show that a pre-Roman floor level about 5m lower than the late Roman Great Courtyard floor existed underneath the later eastern courtyard.
The features includes a freestanding podium monument, and an earlier stair flight, both suggesting an earlier sanctuary entrance.
Furthermore, the foundation wall underneath the peristasis of the early imperial pseudo-dipteral temple could be proven to be of pre-Roman date. This formerly T-shaped terrace was already a gigantic construction, at least five meters higher than the Tell and any platform construction.

Adrien Nash @Roger Konopasek
You fail to grasp the concept of limitations. You think that you can assume that men of old could be credited with anything and everything conceivable no matter how impossible. That shows a significant conceptual blindness that can’t grasp that there is anything that one can’t grasp, and yet there is. And it is the mechanics and engineering required to do the almost impossible.
You want to believe that men with primitive technology could transport blocks of the Baalbek size? Well, to confirm your baseless assumption you need to research the features of the greatest modern cranes and only then will you grasp that nothing about them is comparable to what would have been needed to be produced using primitive technology.
They could not produce what was needed, nor could they have even imagined it, but someone did…long before they came along. Unless they did it all by casting-in-place all of the giant megalithic blocks.
But there would have been no reason to do that in a quarry, so we’re back to the problem of transporting that which has never been transported on soil or ancient roads.
(The Russian Thunder Stone was transported on ice with large numbers of steel ball bearings.)

The “details” are ‘enlightening’ but also deceiving because they are the product mostly of imagination. They can’t be substantiated nor applied universally to all obelisks.
And all theories fail to recognize that the greatest, most perfectly inscribed obelisks were not carved out of stone but were created by casting in perfect molds. No published theory includes the very real fact that the ancient royal masons around the world knew the formulas for making cold-cast artificial stone. And they used that knowledge to cast the most massive things on-site.

They did not carve them from hard stone because they lacked the technology to do so, but they did not lack the knowledge of how to make it appear that they did. So they pretended and everyone has been fooled to this very day. And I will prove it with evidence that no one is yet aware of because they have not looked hard enough.

re: the Unfinished Obelisk of Aswan, Egypt
You need to read this text again because it states that this technique of transport was IMPOSSIBLE for the unfinished obelisk at Aswan.
Do you realize where that leaves your assumptions? How do you place an obelisk that you cannot transport?
Without unknown advanced technology it could not have been moved by the very best of the primitive technology of the past. The massive weight put it far beyond terrestrial technology.
Also, tombs and temples were painted by *artists*, not construction engineers, and how does one know whether or not the artist who painted the transporting of a gigantic colossus of Memnon was even alive when the transport happened?
Where is the record of who painted the drawing (& when) versus when the colossi were made?
How does one know that what is depicted was not 100% a figment of imagination?
I have come to believe that it most likely was because I have concluded that the great colossal statues were all cast artificial stone except the ones at Abu Simbel (sandstone).
One great piece that confirms that suspicion is the form and size of the lotus-crowned columns of Tanis. They were all gigantic casting jobs as I’ve shown by pointing out the evidence.

Daniel Vasile
Obelisk was carved . U can even see one in the quarry today; 1,200 tons at Aswan.
U can go to visit and touch it. And we have the original description from Egyptians how they cut, moved, and raised in place the obelisks.
If u say they are molded, why would others bother to transport them in usa, in England, and in italy from egypt?
U are completely wrong on this subject Adrien.

Adrien Nash: You have not seen enough evidence to realize how much you do not yet know.
The Aswan obelisk has no inscriptions. The great obelisks that do, do not have chiseled inscriptions but molded inscriptions. There is a huge difference even though I am the only one to point out that fact.

So, you have two possibilities: either they were cast in molds with inscription stencils attached to the walls of the mold, or they were somehow cut from bedrock, shaped to perfection with primitive technology, and then their four sides were turned soft by advanced technology so that the inscriptions could be molded onto the surface.

Their surfaces have zero chisel marks. They are perfectly shaped regardless of the unbelievable degree of difficulty of achieving that, perfectly uniform in repeating patterns, and perfectly flat or perfectly rounded and smooth (semi-spheres).

The knowledge of how to cast artificial stone was never public knowledge but was exclusively known only by a small number of masons and engineers on the inside of the royal circles of ancient times. So it could not be repeated by any later government because that knowledge was lost since it was never written down. Secrets never are.

I know that it appears that I am 100% wrong because ‘experts’ have ‘figured out’ how the amazing feats of the past were performed, but what they figured out does not take all of reality into account.
Reality includes things that they could never explain and therefore never addressed since none (NONE!) of them were construction engineers with experience in quarrying and transporting massive pieces of stone. Therefore they could not realize the hindrances to cutting and moving hard heavy stone objects.
Had they known what they did not know, they would have realized that there had to be some other explanation, some other means.

When do we get an explanation as to how such a weight could be put onto and taken off of a sled?  No lever made by man could budge it. None would be big enough, nor would human manpower be adequate to depress any gigantic lever. They did not possess compound pulley systems made of steel, nor hydraulic jacks.

What crane could have tilted it and how? Its weight would have been distributed almost equally all across its base, so nothing could have dead-lifted such a weight.

Daniel Vasile For you everything is impossible.
But for primitive people with primitive tools, things was very possible.

Adrien Nash: Correction: for me, the impossible is impossible, -not “everything”, after all, I’m crediting their ancient unknown technology with having cast the greatest objects in the world. That was a monumental accomplishment that we can’t begin to appreciate.

Also, it would be simple deliberate blindness to not see that some things cannot be explained by any means other than casting or stone softening. It’s like refusing to believe your own eyes and thinking.
Logic is either not permitted in one’s thinking or it is applied regardless of what it points to. It refuses to reject a plausible answer when there is no other answer… because all of the others involve impossibilities for the technology of the times.

You think that I fail to grasp the unimaginable capability of those with a strong will and imagination, but what you fail to acknowledge is that all capabilities have limits, and some of the accomplishments were beyond the limits of what terrestrials were capable of accomplishing with purely terrestrial tools and methods.
I am convince (for reasons that I’ve articulated in my expositions) that ancient royal builders had access to e.t. tools and knowledge handed down from their ancestor of long ago, and that gave them capabilities that we otherwise cannot explain.

Daniel Vasile @Adrien Nash; u ever think that technology came from other big civilizations before the cataclysm of 10.800 b.c ?

Adrien Nash @Daniel Vasile: I assume that that is very likely, but also that those civilizations were founded by e.t. humans who colonized this planet long before human writing and reading were created.
I also assume that with the destruction of their civilization, many, if not most of them returned to their own home world, and remained there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before returning to Earth during an unknown age before history was written. It is not inconceivable that they spent that time colonizing some other world in the galaxy.

Brien Foerster claims that the Obelisks were re-inscribed by the Egyptians, but then he claims that they could not work granite with their technology…. talking about logical coherence….

​ Adrien Nash @MrAchile13 Wow! A total logical misfire by Brien. Even worse, he fails to see what his own eyes are seeing, namely that the surfaces of the interior of the inscriptions is as perfectly flat as the surface of the obelisk itself. That would not be something that would have even been attempted with chisels or grinders.
That’s a case of perfection being too perfect for the means claimed to have been used to achieve it.
Not a single tool mark can be seen anywhere on the great obelisks nor within any of their four sides of identical inscriptions. Such perfection is only achievable by casting in a perfect mold using 3-D stencil forms on the interior walls.

All of the willpower, passion and desire in the world along with genius level intelligence, cannot get anyone one bit close to leaving this planet. It requires advanced technology. The same reality applies to the movement of enormous colossal weight.

Those who draw diagrams have never confronted the mechanical engineering challenges involved in such an endeavor. Primitive ropes, sleds, and man-power cannot explain the stupendous amount of gravity that needed to be over-come. There are too many questions that can’t be answered to assumed that real-world answers are in our hands presently.

Ric Hochulski
Can bronze tools be used to inscribe on obelisks those markings that look pretty finished and deep into the stone?

Adrien Nash: No, they cannot. Those embedded inscriptions are too perfect to be the result of hammers and chisels. Too flat, too smooth, too flawless. They were the result of 3-D stencils on the inside walls of the giant mold in which the obelisk was cast using artificial granite concrete produced by a formula which is unknown and unimagined in today’s world.

Marty Hart
The drawing I provided shows known Roman construction machines (capstans) being used to generate enough force to drag these stones downhill to the Jupiter Temple. In this thread, people asked for information. I gave it to them. Whether they want to believe it or not is not my concern.
It is sufficient to say that this decades-old fringe chestnut has been explained, whether the explanation is the actual way it was done is beside that particular point. I.e. there IS a Roman explanation for this site that matches every scrap of the data and evidence ever collected there.
There IS no other explanation provided for the construction by anyone else. People like you just want to take pot shots at academia and don’t care to read, understand, and assimilate what is ACTUALLY known about ancient sites like these. You crave fantasy – especially now, while movie theaters are closed.

Adrien Nash @Marty Hart
“Once on the road, the sledges weren’t required.”
uh…what road? What road could support their weight? None. We do not even today build roads to handle such weight, so it’s for certain that they didn’t.

If the ‘road’ was not solid thick rock then it would simply be pressed down into the ground and friction would end any movement. What have the ‘experts’ said about that?
Plus, there is no proof nor record that the path to the temple was a purely downhill straight-shot from the quarried spot. That is because there are no records at all. It was a pre-historic construction.
Also, name one expert who can knowledgeably claim that any sled built for the job would not be crushed by the weight?
And then name one expert who can show where in written Roman history an account was given of how old the blocks are and when they were quarried and moved. No such record exists, and everything claimed as fact is 100% supposition, -no more respectable than most theories that have another view.

Adrien Nash @Marty Hart
“Personal incredulity is not an argument.”
What incredulity? I don’t see any. Lack of refutation by deflection into philosophy is not an argument. I asked questions for which you have no answers, nor does anyone else, and yet you ask “darkness? what darkness? I see perfectly well” even though you are blind to any issues regarding the limitations of technology. “Limitations? What are those?” Wake up.
That being said, it can’t be declared that even under PERFECT conditions they could not have been moved because perfect conditions can be shockingly helpful. But the odds that they existed are about as great as getting hit by lightning.

Adrien Nash @Marty Hart
“there IS a Roman explanation for this site that matches every scrap of the data and evidence ever collected there.”
“Every scrap” is essentially nothing conclusive but basically presumptive with a large pinch of faith. It all consists of: faith that the column section found under the trilithon wall was a discard from the temple of Jupiter, but that assumption can’t be verified. We do not know what that section was originally for, but if for the temple then we still can’t know when it was built, nor by whom. Perhaps the Romans, perhaps not. Perhaps older. Perhaps much older. Perhaps it was inserted by the Romans as needed repair.

The Roman inscription scratched on an upper section of a column cannot be dated, so it is worthless. It is not as if the Romans did not do extensive work and rehab on the site.

And why does no one have any idea why the Romans, or any terrestrials, would have even conceived of stonework on such an inconceivable scale??? Why? It was TOTALLY unnecessary and out of character. Where else in the world did the Romans, or anyone else, ever build on such a scale? No where. Explain that with a facile answer.

Justin Cullinan @Adrien Nash
-sorry Adrien you’re wrong. There is nothing to suggest the Egyptians couldn’t of carved the obelisks. Absolutely nothing. They were very obviously a highly successful and skilled workforce. There were some unknown architects with ridiculous skill akin to subsequent Roman sculptures or high-end Renaissance standard.

Adrien Nash: Did you really mean to use the word “carved”? If so, your thinking is uninformed. They had no tools with which to “carve” hard stone. All they could do was bash it with hard stones. But there is evidence of cuts in granite, spiral-groove core-drilled holes, and other inexplicables.
Almost every great thing that they made, and can be accurately credited to them, was formed in a mold. They get full credit for the original sculpture, the mold made using it, and the perfect casting of a perfect statue that looks just like some sort of natural stone.
They HAD that capability until they lost it, and the Greeks and Romans came with steel tools and lots of Italian marble to replace stonework in granite or basalt.

The superficiality that I referred to was not in regard to what is humanly possible but in regard to what is actually practical and sane. One needs to ask the question of whether or not any proposed action would have been something that sane people would do.
Mechanical or technological limitations were not and are the the only limitations. Psychological limitations and rational methodology limit what reasonable people would attempt.
Still, if grinding balls on the ends of sticks could have been made with embedded jewels like corundum, or corundum powder was used as an abrasive, then perhaps the time required would have been within the sane range when working hard stone.

What would not be would have been the quantity produced. Regarding that number, (40,000) I do not believe it for a second, nor any guessimate as to how long it took to produce them.
But we must learn from the evidence they reveal, which is examples of walls of hard-stone vessels so thin that they would be like thick ostrich egg shells. No primitive tool could have achieved that degree of thinness.
and btw, there is a video (rarely watched) which shows the scientific analysis of an obsidian bracelet that could have only been made by use of highly advanced technology, yet it is dated at 9,500 years old!
Your question about casting megaliths is central to understanding ancient stoneworks. I have moved to the conviction or strong suspicion that most of the megaliths were cast even though it required a gigantic scale in some cases.

The more I see, the more evidence I discover that indicates that that was the case. I’ve posted perhaps 100 images that point to that as the means of creation. So I hope to bring all kinds of evidence world-wide together in one huge exposition on the question so everyone can see the comprehensive breadth of the evidence.

Justin Cullinan
There’s been many many books written on the construction techniques of ancient Egyptians by engineers to architects. Just because you haven’t read any and are ignorant of the content and conclusions doesn’t mean we don’t have a solid understanding of the subject.

Rachel Thompson
As a construction manager I can’t say how it was done, but I can say it wasn’t done the way orthodoxy describes. These so called men of science should not take pot-shot guesses and admit they don’t know rather than make up bad stories.

John Curtis
Agreed. I always chuckle when I look at the resumes of those tossing out theories on how something like this was done. Especially in the face of zero record keeping. Typically the background of those folks, while highly educated, are in the archaeological sciences. None of them have backgrounds in engineering and construction; especially high-end stuff like this must have been.

So I always tend to look askance and discount any theories from those that are so clearly outside their realm of expertise. They’re simply talking out their ass in those instances. The irony, though, is that most of the time they’re too well educated to understand how stupid they are being.

But regardless of my criticism one thing is certain and cannot be denied. Obelisks, and other megalithic-styled stone forms were made, moved and placed in a planned fashion. .We may not understand why or how, but in any case they remain the most glaring indication that as powerful as we think our civilization is, we ain’t as good as we think we are, eh?
So it goes.  John~  American Net’Zen

Justin Cullinan @John Walker Plenty of respected, engineers and architects have written books on the subject. Just google it. Deny A. Stocks book “Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt” would be a good starting point for you.

​ Adrien Nash @Justin Cullinan
Simple minds fail to grasp reality…the reality of scale. It denies realty to think that the makers of great stoneworks simply discarded the application of rationality and practicality as irrelevant to what they attempted.
The Polygonal Geopolymer Casing Stones of the Bent Pyramid | Ancient Architects

kim Dier
So they used mudbricks for small structures and geopolymer for big structures? first where do you put the limit on the size to determine the material used, and second why not use the strongest material aka geopolymer to construct all your buildings if you have that technology?

​Adrien Nash @kim Dier -because clay (mud) is not used as a powder to make the equivalent of Quikcrete. It is used as a putty. Not desiccated. Whereas stone can be pulverized into powder, mixed with binders, and cast as artificial stone. That tech was only used by the Pharaoh’s masons, not those working for commoners. Only the royal masons knew the chemistry involved. It was not common knowledge.

kim Dier
We have no doubt that our dams are constructed with poured material, no one with a understanding of such material would be in doubt what it is. and finding stronger materials for building today’s high rises and dams are worth BIG money, so if there were the slightest possibility that the pyramids in egypt or megalithic constructions elsewhere where made from man-made materials, you can be damn sure that material researchers would be all over those stones trying to figure out the composition and method used. But they are not,and that should give a clue to the answer.

​​Adrien Nash @kim Dier You are offering an absurd false assumption. You know nothing about cement and concrete yet you dish out the impression that it is not sufficiently strong. Well guess what? IT IS!
How do you think they constructed a skyscraper 2,000 ft tall? Weak concrete? Concrete can be made is a hole variety of grades and strengths, including architectural concrete that uses no gravel…used to cast sculpture and moldings of building facades, pools, fountains, planters, etc. So what you are assuming would have a broad demand would receive some attention by some, but would be a blip on the concrete industry radar.

Watch Prof. Davidovitz’s live demonstration on creating a single multi-ton block. They used rudimentary tools and simple ingredients.
Just keep in mind we lost the secret to Roman concrete for 2,000 years. Roman concrete was superior to modern concrete for a very long time. It wasn’t until recently that we rediscovered the secret ingredient that made it so strong and able to last for millennia.

Now imagine ancient Geopolymer, if we lost the secret to basic concrete, which is from a civilization that we directly descend from….how easy is it to lose all knowledge of Geopolymer? Which came from civilizations far removed from our own.

Paul Sweeney
I think it’s more likely that they used whichever technique which “ended up resembling a geopolymer” in the finishing and having a uniform look to the blocks.
Did the study say whether the whole block displayed the characteristic or just the exterior? This is what we need to ask.

Adrien Nash
You raise an important point; what is inside an artificial stone block? Is it pure cement mixture or is a whole lot of original uncrushed material (even big chunks) contained in the mold in which the blocks were shaped? Have you seen the photo of the huge corner block seen on a street corner in Peru, -the one with the added external geopolymer stone missing and the solid hard stone interior showing?


Bo Zo
Look at Chartres or Notre Dame or Taj Mahal and then say that. The engineering and stone work in Gothic cathedrals is far more impressive and sophisticated than anything from antiquity or prehistory. Compare the Acropolis, Gobekli Tepe and Giza to Notre Dame – and weep.
The great pyramid is literally a stack of rocks. Chartres is a giant Faberge egg made of stone lacework. No contest at all. And Chartres was made by regular medieval masons using regular rocks and regular tools. So why even entertain the idea of superior ancient technologies?

fried spaghetti
It’s only the arrogance of “modern men” which assumes that so called modern techniques and technology were beyond the builders of the past.

Adrien Nash
Are you serious? Modern materials and modern tools did not exist until modern times. That’s why they are called “modern”. Want to know what the number one modern material is in building? It’s steel. Structural steel inside and outside of concrete. No ancient mason of any age had the ability to build with steel reinforcement. They only had natural and artificial stone. That is why the great pyramids are pyramids; so they won’t and can’t fall down.

Brian Taylor Just spit-balling…but one thing that I do notice in many pictures is that the edges of the Egyptian blocks butt up against each other on every side of the stone, whereas I’ve seen images that indicate the pre-Incan stones only do that on the face.

I truly believe that the only way to get every single casing stone to have perfect joints along every face of every stone is to pour a liquid mixture on site and allow it to form to the faces of surrounding stones. Davidovitz has an animation on the possible way that they were poured on site that I’m sure that you’ve seen. It makes sense IF the end result was absolute perfection.

UltimateJets I remember from my last visit of the Ghiza plateau that our guide said some key blocks were believed to have been cast in-situ as well.
These might very well be a mix of hand carved blocks and in-situ cast ones. One out of two. This would save a tremendous amount of time and provide the intricate auto-stable structure. This would also easily guarantee ultra tight joints as they would be conformal.

Adrien Nash @UltimateJets That also would not conflict with the construction design of J.P. Houdin who proposed the internal ramp. If every other block was cast, then the quarried blocks would not have to be perfectly shaped, and the cast blocks would not have to be exceedingly strong or uniformly mixed since chips and gravel and chucks could be added to the molded mix.

I find it sad & highly unprofessional that the main academic influencers within archaeology, & particularly Egyptology, have such a dogmatic fixation on their assumed theories that they willfully ignore hard scientific data & research which counters those theories. Instead, like stated in the video, they should only counter w/ better scientific data.

John Beyette
“why bother?” In the modern day, transporting sand/gravel, as well as quarrying gravel or sand, rather than solid stone blocks, is easier,… mainly due to the fact that quarrying solid stone blocks requires quality control, whereas gravel or sand allows you to just take the lower quality stone and use it. Plus this would allow them to use scrap material, and potentially save cost on materials… in the most basic sense, even modern concrete is essentially synthetic limestone,… calcium silicate gel, limestone grains and possibly diatomatious earth, is the proposed recipe.

Modern concrete is made of high calcium limestone, burned to create lime (in ancient times occasionally sea shells were burned instead of or in addition to limestone), and sand  (silica),….. all the Egyptians would have needed to create their concrete was fire, water, limestone and sand.

What is diatomatious earth [used as swimming pool filter powder] ? It’s calcified fossil seashells, from diatoms,….. Obviously in order to make it mimic stone to such a high degree, everything would need to be crushed to a much finer powder than is commonly used today, but even Roman concrete was mistaken for stone as late as the late 20th century,…. perhaps the Romans gained their concrete technology from Egypt?
…. it would be interesting to do some experimental archaeology, and attempt to recreate the artificial limestone, using our best guess at the original recipe.

Adrien Nash
Bulls eye! But I would add one thing. Organic (along with inorganic) binders could have been easily produced from natural materials such as sap, tar, wax, oil, gelatin from cattle, cellulose from plants, proteins from egg whites and milk, etc. All such substances could have been judiciously added and turned rock hard either with time or with heating of any given object.

Also, diatomaceous earth would not need further crushing today because it comes already powderize.  If a paper sack of it is left in a humid environment it will turn to stone all on its own.  I know because it happened to my bag.

Here are some video links that I saved but most of which I have not had the time to watch. No doubt they parrot the orthodox view, or some impossible alternative theory.
I remain an agnostic regarding their age and builders, but recognize that e.t. technology is the best explanation for some of their features and dimensions.

Lifting Giant Stones – Pyramid Building Tilt-Up Method

How I Would Build The Great Pyramids

Building The Great Pyramids! – Details! Answering Your Comments

Building Stonehenge – This Man can Move Anything

The Egyptian Hoist

Is This the Secret of Stonehenge’s Construction?

Great Pyramid Mystery Solved? | National Geographic

Michelle Renee
The second problem is the polygonal stones which serve no purpose if the casing stones of the Egyptian pyramids were poured. The casings would likely be poured in very consistent shapes and sizes. A third problem with poured blocks is the thermal expansion and contraction involved in making concrete, which is totally why those little pads are between the pieces of a sidewalk. The pads are called thermal expansion joints.
I totally don’t see any advantage to pouring the casing in place, nor in casting them. Seems like such a waste of time, and creates a lot more problems making stones than just getting the stones and cutting them to fit on the pyramid.

Adrien Nash
uh…how little are you figuring that those pyramid blocks weigh? Not much? Just lift them with a crane and place on a steel-wheel roller-trolley? And with what saw do you saw about 44 million block faces on about 11 million blocks for 6 huge pyramids of Egypt?
There are no easy answers when the only tech is primitive tech.
But about the odd shaped blocks; they may have been repair for spots where the poured limestone was not moist enough and therefore was too dry and crumbly. The poured blocks may have been tested in spots that looked suspiciously inferior, and then repaired by replacement in sizes that matched the area excised.

Robert Pyrosthenes
Occam’s Razor points to carved stone and molded bricks.
Chemical analysis that can’t be duplicated point to bad chemical analysis, which seems to be very common. It’s hard to do this stuff and get it right.

I disagree that the onus is on Egyptologists to prove that the casing stones were not cast. There are literally hundreds of years and thousands of papers showing that they were carved, along with every other stone object in ancient times. The development of mortar and concrete is well known and well documented. The proof is done.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that proof is sadly lacking for ancient Egyptians or South Americans casting geopolymer casing stones or geopolymer anything.

Before I’ll believe this is scientific I’ll have to see the science done. Where are the experiments designed to disprove the hypothesis, the replication of results, or the prediction of outcomes based on the research? Where is the cast geopolymer stonework made to match any single casing stone or H-block?

Adrien Nash @Robert Pyrosthenes
Absence of evidence is never proof of anything. A thing is either true or it is not, evidence or the absence of it does not change that. So to take a position in opposition to completed scientific test results is to take a position in opposition to science since you have zero basis for skepticism, because if you had, you would have mentioned it. Sounds like the logic error of “argument from incredulity”.

As for ‘papers’ showing that the casing stones were carved, why is it that no one can name a single one that is based on scientific testing? …rather than conjecture of Egyptologists with an agenda to defend?

“Chemical analysis that can’t be duplicated…” It seems that you began your screed with a big fat falsehood since there is no claim by anyone that the analysis cannot be duplicated? Who are you attempting to deceive and why?

If I may be so bold as to ask a personal question; are you a self-confident, self-centered, credentialed, entitled, first born son of Progressive atheists? Just wondering. Have a nice day!

alan littlemoon
The reason to cast instead of carve makes sense if they are cast in place over the rough-cut core blocks. Going from the rough core blocks to a single plain of a smooth finished surface is a night mare to carve. Each block must be fit to the core on one side and a perfect plain on the other.
That means either carving the casing stones there on the spot to allow multiple fittings, or hauling those blocks back and forth from the place it’s carved to the place it is supposed to fit.
Casting in place only requires a flat in-plain surface to cast against and a supply of the geopolymer. That’s a lot less labor and not fitting.
Remember, fitting carved blocks precisely means a process of check-and-reduce until fit is met.
If you remove too much then you need a new block. The benefit to cast in place is screamingly obvious to anyone who has tried to fit any sort of carved parts together.

Samuel Phippen
Perhaps the “why?” is similar to why “geopolymers” are used today.
The best example is kitchen counter tops. Natural stone counter-tops, like granite and marble, have long been considered the pinnacle of luxury and longevity.
But now, man-made stone counter-tops have risen in popularity. Several of the “engineered stone” counter-tops are more expensive than granite!

The man-made stone is often preferred for its uniform look, free from imperfection. It performs as well as its natural stone counterparts, and is available in a wider array of colors and shapes.
While the manufacturers of man-made stone insist they are not trying to mimic natural stone, and wish to be seen as a stand alone product; the actual use of man-made stone is more often than not, used in a way that mimics natural stone.

Pointedly – irregularities are artificially added to give the appearance of natural stone.
It’s possible that “geopolymer” stones were purposefully made in irregular shapes and sizes simply to mimic the look of painstaking masonry work.
It’s not unreasonable then, to assume ancient Egyptians were willing to do likewise.
Rachel Thompson [more wisdom of experience! A.N.]
Why? Pouring concrete is simple and doesn’t require massive levers to haul blocks.

You build the form in place and pour in place in exactly the same way the Hoover Dam was made.
Persons can carry the add mix and water by the bucket and mix the stuff right inside the form.
It is less labor intensive than dragging blocks and making all the ramps and crane work necessary to lift and place.
Why is easy. It’s easier and cheaper. How do I know?
I’m a retired construction manager.

I read Prof. Davidovit’s book and it makes perfect sense from a builder’s perspective. Making aggregate and moving it is way easier than cutting and perfecting stone and then installing it perfectly right.
If you form in place it isn’t necessary to make uniformed blocks and then place them, you don’t need to set up a cement block facility. So many advantages to form-in-place work it’s crazy not to do it that way.
I could go on, but I don’t want to write the book all over.

Mark van der Bijll
Some of these polygonal blocks in the casing stones of the pyramid seem to be repair jobs they did during construction. Perhaps some of the casing stones partially crumbled during construction (eg. by unintended load concentrations) and they sent someone up (or down) to patch it up with smaller polygonal blocks.

At 6:11 you can see the protruding block slightly right of the center, and that one is even supported up by a smaller rectangular block. To me this seems like a repair job and I suspect it won’t go very deep.
I’m also not convinced that all the casing stones are geopolymer. Some of the erosion marks on the casing stones appear to be very natural, forming horizontal strands (see 1.33). I doubt this kind of erosion forms when you have a properly mixed batch of geopolymer stone.

Ken Klakowich
This idea that the stones were artificial rock or concrete makes absolute good sense. By crushing the rock at the quarry and mixing the concrete on site and filling a form (mold) would make the construction go much quicker and with fewer labors needed to move the blocks.

If they were able to do this in Egypt, why could they not have done it in Peru or Mexico. The question in the back ground is; “was there any connection or cross pollination of cultures between the New and Old World in the time of the Old Kingdom or before?????

How old is the megalithic work in Egypt and Peru? Are they both older than the main stream says???????
I am very suspicious of what has been hidden by archaeologists of the past to protect their personal theories and reputations. The truth will win out in the end as the new generation breaks the barriers created by the old.

Adrien Nash
or…as another comment suggested, they may have used BOTH cut blocks AND cast blocks, intermixing them with the cut blocks acting as walls and floors for poured blocks. Greater strength and speed of construction in not having to wait for poured artificial limestone to fully cure.

Mike Woods
Could natural limestone blocks have been soaked in calcium solution, -possibly for strength, durability or appearance? This would explain their apparent artificial material.

Adrien Nash
The casing stones are the only ones in the spotlight, and they were made from Tura limestone which is fine and white already. Only a serious polymer in a limestone calcium solution would add strength and durability, since without it the weathering of rain and wind would take their toll much more quickly.

uncle tungsten
At a nearby city – Toowoomba- they built a modern geopolymer airport. Both landing strip and buildings are made from geopolymer.
Robert Temple has discussed in detail the process and supported with depictions from artwork and text in various temples in Egypt.

There are publications and videos at where extensive application of this very precise science is discussed.
There is no shortage of confirmation that geopolymer fabrication was well known and studiously applied in Egypt in the construction activities in antiquity.

Geopolymer blocks are simple to make, create 80% LESS CO2 than cement and fly ash based products, give the same mechanical hardness, are simple to mold, and even as vase and bowl and urn devices (such as in ancient Egypt).
It was likely a strategic science in its day and clothed in great mysticism and priestly monopoly. [it was a strategic national prestige issue, if not also a national security one.]
James Stewart
Isn’t it amazing how much sense geopolymer makes to have made these megalithic structures all over the world.
That people with such an advanced degree of intelligence (as many claim this people had) would not have some kind of advanced geopolymer… they would argue they CNC machine-carving the colossus of Memnon! Unbelievable.

They so stuck on quarrying the stone, -hauling it for miles over miles of impossible terrain without the wheel, then no less then ‘hand carving’ it… only to fit their narrative.

If you could transport these people back in time and let them see and talk with the ancients mixing geopolymer… At which point these so called experts would tell the ancients that they were doing it wrong, to stop it!… and start cutting it with diorite rock balls.
Advanced or secret geopolymer technology is so obvious at this point that the the experts are going to have to change their narrative or get out of the business.

Their ‘con job’ is now a dead issue for most who follow the subject.
Lab results and the amazing weathering on this stone is starting to make the obvious reality.
The similarities in these structures world-wide that had been known for years has now reached the forefront of studies on this subject partly due to Ancient Architects’ Youtube channel.

Why would they use geopolymer stone over actual carved stone?

First off, it is more materially efficient. Why would you transport tons upon tons of whole rock (that is already an amazing feat), only to spend more time on site to carve it, then place it.

Think about all that rock you transported that would end up as debris. Debris represents wasted time and energy. It means you didn’t need to transport what you threw out on site. Then think about how heavy it would be to place it.
All the amazing Megaliths are geopolymer molded products. Especially Andecite and Granite.

First off, it is easier and highly efficient to transport pulverized stone. The Geopolymer mix on site is then easy to apply (no need for cranes or any other crazy contraptions people still cant find any consensus on).

It is also highly time efficient. It is possible to build multiple pyramids to the quality we see in Giza and elsewhere with Geopolymer in a person’s lifetime.

It is NOT possible to cut stone to that precision and assemble it into a single pyramid like these, and imagine, there are dozens of pyramids, 3 pyramids in Giza alone. Not possible! Even with power tools and heavy machinery to move it all.
Even if time were not an issue, the final product of Geopolymer is superior to anything that could be cut.

There is evidence for the Geopolymer solution the ancients used all over these sites. Testing the material itself is one glaring form of evidence

Randy Williams
I’m starting to believe they were masters of this method. As an artist, I look at the giant colossal statues that have large block internals under a smoothed skin (polished) and think they also used this in the sculptures and hieroglyph reliefs found all over. So much easier to work with material as a sculptor when it’s soft then chisel it away.

The pyramids are built the same way, rough blocks on the inside with nicely smoothed surfaces on the outside. The shape of the internal blocks really doesn’t matter as long as you get the bulk of it where it needs to be.


Aluminum Tobermorite and Phillipsite were used in Roman concrete. Can’t make it today because these ingredients are rare and can’t be mined in sufficient quantities.
It creates an elastic property not found in modern concrete.

Ancient architecture is interesting but I think people should look a little closer in our past with the questions that you present in this video. America is loaded with thousands of grain elevators that have stood for over a century, -with many in perfect operation to this day.
This concrete is so hard even after 100+ years that it takes 3 days to drill a 1 1/2 inch hole to a depth of 6 inches. I know this because I was on the end of that drill. Hard as a rock and yet elastic enough to be earthquake proof.

The fact that they are still standing all over North America confirms this fact. You have to poor the concrete for these structures mono a mono. Meaning all at once and nonstop from start to finish to prevent cold joints that will crack over time and weaken the structure.  [and that is how the colossal statues of Egypt were poured; non-stop day and night for days, perhaps weeks. A.N.]

These things are massive. The largest [storage complexes] having 246 cylinders that are 30 feet wide, 120 feet tall, at 1/2 mile long and holding 20 million bushels of wheat. Many built before slip jack forms utilizing hydraulic lift.

They say they used manual screw jacks. There is even a patent on record just to give it some legitimacy. What a load of nonsense. Impossible. No convincing construction photos to be found. Dates that keep getting moved ahead.
(I discovered this in looking at Spokane Wa. structures) I find these were built to impossible standards that cannot be replicated today and the more I look the more fallacies that I find in the official narrative!
I could go on and on but will leave it there. Have a look and you will see it for what it is. So now the question is “why”?


Other points. Shot at 7:.42 could be showing cot blocks used to infill holes left by timber scaffolding. These holes can be seen on many later stone work constructions, and the same method of external access could have been used for these facings.

At 7:45 to 7:.50, there appears to be at least three methods of work carried out, with what looks like a carved chisel mark on a perhaps cut corbelled facing-stone set out from the roughly placed and haphazardly bonded stonework behind, -and what looks like sections of poured reconstituted stone work to its side, with markings underneath that could represent later rain spoiling or that was left behind by shuttering that could have contained poured stone blocks.

Similarly, the shot at 8:18 seems to show a varying thickness of the casing stones, with many of the thinner layers apparently bonded to the rough inner stonework, and with what looks like today, a similar mortar being used to either infill between the casing stones or to bond these casings deeper into the adjacent slab.

The so-called Bent pyramid looks more like the creation mound of earlyNile valley culture than it does a pyramid, -legend says that a mound rose out of the waters of chaos, and the concept of whether this mound was a replica or the original does not conflict with the legend. This mound is also said to contain original wooden support beams in its inner chambers, which possibly adds credence to the poured on site reconstituted stone idea, and if this is the case, then dating these support beams would possibly provide a relative time sale for its construction, or perhaps for one of its later adaptations and refurbishments.
I recommend to look at the theory of Mario Buildreps (name of YT channel), it’s all about orientation!  [I have no idea what this video is about.]

Robert Ratliff
They used all sorts of stuff.
That’s the whole point, they were industrialized…period.
That means they had the ability to cast, cut, spin lathes, mills, possibly CNC, all sorts of techniques!
How absurd would our progeny be if they looked at the remains of our civilization and thought we ONLY cast or ONLY cut?
That would be ridiculous!
The smarter ones in our future would look at EVERYTHING, and say, “they were industrialized, they had it all!! They had the ability to do ALL this different stuff!”

Whoever is unable to consider the pyramids as being an example of industry, is not grasping the whole picture!
The Younger Dryas event and the Neolithic decline suggest we’ve been civilized before and regressed in our industrial ability.
It’s not this “cut VERSUS cast…FIGHT!” thing that y’all are trying to make happen!

Adrien Nash
uh…the “cut VERSUS cast…FIGHT!” is not descriptive of the over-all outlook, but of specific individual objects. “Was this thing made by casting or by carving or cutting?” If that question is not asked then the default assumption is that everything was carved in stone and nothing was cast. So it’s not a matter of all or nothing.
For example; the colossal statues of Egypt were all cast…except those that are exceptions like the temple to Ramses at Abu Simbel. Carved out of sandstone bedrock. So you are right, it is BOTH.

Adrien Nash Because of the total absence of chiseled holes for the splitting of Giza quarry blocks, we have to assume that they quarried blocks via another method. The only other method would have been the use of large pendulum saws with heavy copper/bronze slab blades that relied on course silica and quartz sand to act as an abrasive to cut the relatively soft limestone.

If its crescent-moon shape had long ends that were attached to the ends of a beam of almost the same width as the blade, then it would almost swing horizontally rather than semi-circularly. I have to assume that they could have figured that out since it’s fairly easy to imagine. With a dozen or more such saws working simultaneously, a lot of blocks could be cut in a relatively short period.
Still, that would not preclude the technique of splitting blocks in ways that would not affect their appearance or usefulness. Both methods may have been used since that may have been the most efficient means to produce the blocks desired.

Do you think they used the dust because they had a lot of it as a byproduct from quarrying the limestone already, and it was a way to get the results they were looking for, with using up all the materials they had, and saving time and energy without having to quarry the actual blocks for casing.. Or perhaps the manufactured casing blocks had a better visual effect than the natural stones would?

Adrien Nash
They could have used the dust to produce a very wide range of objects or blocks, including statuary or paving stones for example. The artificial-stone blocks would have looked identical to the pure limestone used to produce the cement used to make them. So appearance wouldn’t have been a factor, but not having to move and raise tens of thousands of multi-ton blocks definitely would be a big consideration.

unknown commenter:
The more interesting thing is that the Great Pyramid (GP) is based upon Pi. Its dimensions are 1760 x 280 royal cubits in circumference and height. So the GP represents 2 x Pi x r (using the 22/7 approximation of Pi). [uh…the circumference would be a Pi multiple of the height?, not equal.]
Furthermore the GP is a 40x multiple of Pi.
Surprisingly we still use these units of measure today. The circumference of the GP is 1760 royal cubits, while the imperial mile is 1760 yards.
Likewise the chain is 22 yards while a rod is 5 1/2 yards. Why such absurd units? Well, they are all Pi numerator numbers – the imperial measurement system was a Pi-based metrology system.
And while the absolute length of the mile and yard have been altered over the millennia, the nautical mile retains the original measures – so the GP measures exactly 1/2 a nautical mile in circumference. (Like Erastothenes, the GP architects had estimated the circumference of the Earth.).
See the book Thoth, Architect of the Universe for all the answers. [“all”?? really?]

Ralph Ellis
These blocks are not geopolymer – you can see the strata in the blocks.
They are natural blocks. However, the more interesting problem is the quality of the pink mortar-plaster that holds them together.
The mortar is stronger than the blocks, and given some stress it is the blocks that break, not the mortar.

P.S. What is the point of making synthetic blocks, when Tura limestone blocks are freely available? And if you could make synthetic blocks, why construct with blocks, rather than pouring and casting the casing blocks as a single sheet of ‘concrete’…? Makes no sense.

Adrien Nash
The point would be to avoid having to move and elevate the massive casing stones of the lower elevations. Also, as you point out, the artificial plaster (whether used as mortar or in making blocks) is stronger than natural limestone since it is made of a much finer grain of material (powder), so it could be relied on with greater confidence to never crumble due to the weight of the blocks above, or erosion over the centuries.

It seems that we are caught in a self-deceiving linguistic conundrum. We can see that the blocks of the bent pyramid are bound together with a very durable mortar and yet we fail to grasp that any such mortar can also be used in bulk, not just between blocks, but AS blocks.
We fail to label that mortar as artificial stone and just go about wondering whether or not they could have made artificial stone when the mortar is right there in front of our eyes, and deserves no lesser description. We need to put two and two together.

I’ve been wishing that this video existed for what seems like a very long time, and now it is finally here…at last. People need to have their eyes opened to the amazing extent of the use of artificial stone in sacred and royal constructions of antiquity.
The formulas for producing it with powdered stone and organic or inorganic binders was known to an elite class of masons who only worked for the monarchs and the religious leaders. Everything else was made using the common mud bricks. But statues of god-kings and other objects like obelisks and boxes were made with architectural-grade cold-cast powdered artificial-stone concrete, including granite.