We all know there’s something that doesn’t quite add up about the official version of history. And it’s not just the dates; it’s also the physical legacy our ancestors left behind. You don’t have to look far to see it. On every continent, there are man-made stone monuments weighing hundreds of tons. According to the conventional narrative, the quarries they came from are often hundreds of kilometers away, meaning our ancestors would have had to transport these colossal stones using methods we ourselves couldn’t readily replicate even with 21st-century technology.
Yet the stones are there, undeniably, immovably, standing as evidence that at least one—more likely several—pieces are still missing from the puzzle.
Building on a theory that others had proposed before him, Marcell set out to rediscover this lost technology. Through years of persistent experimentation, he came to the conclusion that he had found the long-lost ancient method. According to his findings, the answer is surprisingly simple: chemistry. The enormous stones, he argues, are not carved from natural rock but are artificially created.
Marcell argues that many people dismiss these ideas out of hand. But the laws of chemistry are the laws of nature, and ignoring them is unwise, especially when experimental results appear to support Marcell’s claims. Unlike many purely speculative theories, he has tested his ideas in practice, and even in their current early-stage form, they have produced promising results.
Marcell is not claiming to have discovered the Philosopher’s Stone (pun intended). What he does claim is that the path he has begun to explore is a viable one, that the destination is now clearly visible, and that with further experimentation this question could be resolved in the not-too-distant future.
Marcell believes the real question here is whether we’re prepared to accept the possibility that the long-lost, supposedly secret technology of the ancients wasn’t some miraculous machine or an advanced laser—but simply chemistry. And if that were true, why would that be any less mysterious or any less extraordinary?
Congratulations and you should be recognized for your work at unraveling such an ancient mystery in a common sense way. Many theories ranging from aliens to expert stonemasons, but yours is simple and it makes sense.
You have me convinced when you had shown that ancient sites with seemingly huge rock cut-outs are actually plastered surfaces.
Thank you for staying with this.
Thank you! It’s fascinating to see how the dots start to connect!
I just did an art project with children with Plaster of Paris. And now I read this!… after the children asked how it works?! Plaster of Paris is a fine white powder made by heating a natural rock called gypsum to about 120°C–180°C. This heating removes most of the trapped water. When you mix the dry powder back with water, it absorbs the water, heats up slightly, and turns back into a hard solid rock. Marcell Fóti is on to something!
Yes! And it’s so blatantly easy to do. No fancy equipment requred. Ablosutely low tech.
Yeah, this.
The stuff needed is naturally abundant in the places we find these objects. It would have been something that happened as a result of them doing something else or noticing fires (even naturally occurring ones, not man made fires, but results of lightning or other bushfire causes) in certain combinations of dirt and plants produced stuff that had these properties they could manipulate due to the chemical environment the accident occurred in. Even before we could actually make fire ourselves, it was theoretically possible to discover this technique.
Quite cool. Worth exploring.
Interesting stuff, if a little confusing in presentation.
I too have often wondered about the incredible stonework of the past and your work is admirable, but maybe a bit misleading ? Stone softening and making a rudimentary casting paste are wo different things. Perhaps soft ‘plaster’ type mixes were indeed used in some areas of the ancient stone work, as evidenced by your pictures, but how does this relate to the softening of stone to facilitate massive constructions which show no signs of casting and generally the rocks seem to be in their original state, with some polishing etc…
I don’t think there are no sign of casting. What’s more plausible is that we can’t read the signs! Stone softening is indeed a myth. Compare this: why just stone? Why we are not talking about mobile phone softening? Coffe machine softening? There is no difference practicly. We should not narrow our focus to stone softening 🙂
It actually does explain so many of the puzzle pieces we have with megalithic era masonry: for example, nubs, scoop marks, polygony, size, precision, distance, and it conforms to the mythic memory of chemistry as a form of natural magic. People who did not understand chemistry in our terms but saw the results of certain processes would have used magical language to describe what was going on. And you know, if some of those were also giants (or hobbits!) then why not?
Absolutely! Nubs, scoop marks etc. are all pieces of the very same puzzle.
Marcell Foti is most assuredly on to something, as I’ve worked for 20 years on the research of geopolymer concrete at University level under Prof. Vijaya Rangan with the guidance of Prof Davidovits who “reinvented” it…I had the pleasure of meeting Prof Davidovits twice during 2 of his presentations on geopolymer many years ago. Wonderful presentations that I remember well to this day, much like many of Hancock work I thoroughly enjoy. I’m so glad Graham has stumbled across the work of Marcell as it seems the most logical case how the ancients manufactured such mighty structures of such massive scales, precision and weight factors…great work! Love to see more information in this!
Read: joseph Davidovitz : they built the pyramids!
Very interesting,
Is the crystal structure in man made geo polymer rocks structured different to natural form rocks?. one will neeed to look at these micro crystal structures to see if it is polymer or done some other way. Also does Stone softening change crystal structure in these rocks, especially igneous rocks? Andesite is used in some South American sites.
The crystal structures in geopolymers are not the same as natural rock crystal formations. Geopolymers are formed through a chemical reaction involving aluminosilicate materials and an alkaline or acidic solution, resulting in a stable, covalently bonded, non-crystalline to semi-crystalline network. This structure is distinct from natural rock crystal formations, which are formed through natural geological processes and are typically more complex and varied in their crystal structures.
Next step is to take samples of these megalithic sites and put them under the microscope to determine which are geo polymers and which are natural rock formations.
Very interesting insights and information, but I don’t see how this would explain all megalithic sites. For example, three large stones associated with the Baalbek Temple still remain in a quarry nearly one kilometer from the temple site. Why would they have been pre-cut/pre-shaped beforehand?
A possible “why” for this in my view could possibly be: theatre. Those could have been cast in place to present an illusion: Seeing a block like that in a quarry leads one to reasonably assume it was cut from the bedrock and not cast from slurry. Then, when one sees the trilithon in situ, one believes these were identically cut and moved from bedrock quarry, an impossible superhuman task. The illusion is complete. A visiting dignitary or whatever may have been taken to see one and then the other to impress them and lead them away from any suspicion about a chemical technique which they could replicate at home if only they knew what it was. That is one “why”. But “why” is a secondary question. “What” and “how” are the things which are explained, partially, by this technique. “Why”, if we are talking about humans in another age, will always be ultimately unknowable. In my view, they were probably all just epic wierdos.
It would be nice if Marcel’s critics (cough, Dan, Ben) actually came forward and discussed their criticisms here in open debate so he (or more likely, they) can respond with either corrections or retractions. He has actually done the science, the practical science of chemistry. They haven’t. If he is being dishonest (as Dan has implied) this needs to be exposed, or those making the accusation need to apologize. Do it bitches. Actually engage, like grown-ups, directly, and talk about it to the actual guy. Not to an interview host. Not to your subscriber clique. To the guy, here, so we can see the conversation forever.
Since my early teens on 70s, I thought about the inexplicable features like Machu-Pichu, Cuzco, and similars. Your explanation, simple and plausible, look to me very concrete (pun intended). Meanwhile, I am sending this to my mom, Regina Coeli, from who I inherited the love for History and Archeology.