[FixitGuy]

I wasn't going in the direction of the ET's.

But ya gotta admit, studying the material itself shouldn't be that difficult to determine if it is natural stone or concrete (of some sort).

If this theory is corrrect, why wouldn't it be built similarly to Boulder Dam? (A single pour??)

I undersood also that the facing stone was bright limestone, some of which still exists.

Maybe we'll know someday.

I'm old and will reasearch this after death and let ya know.

Be patient.

[Jeff Chandler]

The facing stone was for appearance, and the poured stones were of a limited configurations--a few different sizes. Supposedly the forms could be reused.

[Jeff Chandler]

He claims to have spotted "bubbles" in the stones, and imprints of palm or other vegetation on the surface, which would indicate a poured product. Also, the stones are worn from the top down, instead of along the side as are natural stones.

He claims this for only the ancient pyramids, which are built of the gigantic stones with copper tools. The later ones are built with small (soft)sandstone blocks with bronze tools.

I've never been there, but I'd rather believe in a practical theory than a fantastic one.