The Great Pyramid may be 25,000 years old, ft Randall Carlson and Dan Richards

In this wide-ranging conversation on the Cosmic Tusk Podcast, host George Howard sits down with geologist and researcher Randall Carlson and Pacific Northwest historian Dan Richards to dismantle some of archaeology's most sacred assumptions. The centrepiece is an Italian engineer's relative erosion study of the Khufu pyramid, one that dates its construction somewhere between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago, with a mean estimate of 25,000 BC. The methodology is elegant and controlled: a documented medieval earthquake 675 years ago stripped the pyramid's casing stones, exposing fresh limestone for the first time. That newly exposed surface shows almost no weathering. The original exterior, open to the elements since construction, shows deep, extensive pitting that requires millennia of heavy rainfall to form, rainfall that Egypt hasn't seen since the green Sahara period, thousands of years before the pharaohs. When you run the ratio, the official date of 2,500 BC doesn't survive the comparison. But the pyramid is only part of the story. Randall presents new terrain analysis pointing to exact impact locations from the Younger Dryas catastrophe, and dismantles the physics of the Missoula ice dam model, an ice structure that would have needed to hold a 2,100-foot hydraulic head, which the tensile strength of ice makes flatly impossible. Dan Richards brings an angle most people have never encountered: thousands of elongated skulls from Pacific Northwest Native American burial sites, systematically looted and quietly erased from the record, alongside tribal flood myths that map almost perfectly onto the Cordilleran deglaciation sequence. And when the Comet Research Group's recent paper retractions come up, all three lay out in plain terms what happens when inconvenient evidence meets institutional gatekeeping. Two of the researchers whose papers anchor this conversation have had their work suppressed, retracted, and ridiculed. The data hasn't changed. The question is whether you're willing to look at it.