Gee ,could it be that they interpreted it the way they wanted it because they went into the study looking to prove it is concrete?
Quite possible.
Let me try to boil it down. I am sure someone will correct me if I have misunderstood anything.
The mainstay of the moldy concrete as I understand it is that is is easier to carry buckets of concrete than 2.5 ton stones. Yet I have shown that obelisks and colossi up to 500 times this weight were handled. Even more importantly I have shown that the Grand Menhir in Brittany was not only transported but erected vertically about 2000 years before the GP.
To follow this, the work of pulverizing limestone, mixing it with roughly the same amount of water and transporting this mix would be many times the work of just cutting and transporting blocks.
I have also pointed out that much of the insides of pyramids was rough stone, some as small as could be carried by two men. Of course the moldy concrete proponents do not like this as the number of blocks which had to be cut and dressed becomes a tiny fraction of the pyramid, and one of their arguments is that it was too much work to cut and dress all that stone. But they didn't.
You only have to look at the blocks (inside where visible and outside) to see they are not poured. You can also see chisel marks and quarry marks. Why do you need quarry marks if all the blocks are from identical moulds?
Also why cast concrete into blocks? Why not pour a whole layer at a time, or a large area. Why restrict to 2.5 ton blocks. If poured, how do you remove the bottom of the mould (mold - I am English)? Why have a bottom to the mould? But the block does not run into the one below. They make a lot of the fact that the blocks fit closely. This whole poured concrete hypothesis makes no sense to me.
When it comes to sample analysis I am very suspicious. I am a graduate chemist and I know a bit about samples. Are these samples accreditied by egyptologists? Were they removed by whom from where? The AEs did repair the pyramids (see especially Bent Pyramid) with concrete and modern concrete repairs have been made. Who is to say what has been analysed?
That is my summation in a nutshell. I would welcome your coment.
Cat
