On July 15, 2005, I received the following e-mail from Holland:
Dear dr. Davidovits, I am a journalist of the Dutch leading newspaper de Volkskrant and I am doing an article on the building of the Cheops pyramid. Dr. Menno Blaauw of the Technische Universiteit Delft says he analyzed a piece of stone from Cheops and concluded that it is natural limestone, not a piece of concrete. His main argument is that the inside of the stone has not seen daylight for at least 400 thousand years. Since you are the designer of the concrete-theory, I would appreciate a comment of yours on this.
- Dr. Menno Blaauw is doing the same mistake as all other opponents to the theory. They deliberately ignore that the pyramid stones are made out of 95% by weight of natural limestone. By doing this type of analysis, they have 95% chance of analyzing natural stone elements. It is like analyzing the aggregates in a modern concrete; they will claim that the aggregates are natural stone, which is obvious. Any scientific investigation must be based on multiple sampling in different parts of the block, not only one.
- The natural limestone from the Giza plateau belongs to the Eocene period. It is therefore at least 30-40 millions years old. The 400 thousands years do not speak for a geological material of this period, otherwise it means that Dr. Menno Blaauw has to rewrite geology.
- On the contrary this young age (it is 100 times younger in comparison with the genuine Eocene age), could suggest that this piece of natural stone did receive some photons during the re-agglomeration of the block and that the analysed sample was too small, preventing the actual datation (<10,000 years, like the one performed by another scientific group on preliminary testing, not published so far).
So, by setting aside Dr. Menno Blaauw wrong conclusions, his analysis can be interpreted as a good clue for re-agglomeration!