Past life memories: Dorothy Eady

Thanks Tim for the additional explanation. From the link you shared,
It's a good question and has been asked many times before.

This is the reason why I suggested the mould would have to be paper-thin and then dissolve away. If that wasn't so, why would the construction appear to be made of individual separate blocks, when a long, continuous wall could be formed, as in present-day concrete? I think I'd need to see the theory demonstrated in practice, that would help to clarify my muddled thoughts. I'm not discounting this idea, it's just that I still don't quite grasp it.

Unless I'm mistaken, Typoz, the answer to that is simple. The previous block would form one quarter of the mould (if one was stipulating that it must have four sides. In other words the leading face of the last block would form a solid shutter so the mould would only need to be three sided. However, I would have to actually go there and look in detail at how the blocks are put together. 

For myself, I'm fairly satisfied that that is probably how it was done and I'm satisfied mainly because I don't see how they had the tools to cut so many blocks of stone so accurately, let alone cart them so far and then hoist them into position. We shall never know for certain, anyway. What a fascinating civilisation, though.

Edit:JUst to add, Davidovits performed a demonstration of this, I'll see if I can find it, even though my damned reading specs have bust

Sorry, Typoz ! No, I meant to impart... where the block was to be formed, the wooden mould would be made and then when the mixture had set (enough), the mould would be removed and placed next to it or above and so on and so forth. The idea works very well and is a far more plausible theory than cutting great blocks of stone (with what tools ?) and transporting them (I mean what an impossible task even with the machinary we have today)

"the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.
"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," Barsoum said. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he said, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.
It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory … yet."

The Surprising Truth About How the Great Pyramids Were Built | Live Science

Apologies for the off topic

Unfortunately for this I think wacky theory, the ancient quarries have long been known where the rough low-quality limestone blocks making up the interior of the pyramid exclusive of the casing, and the fine white limestone used for the casing, were cut away and transported. If I remember correctly, the amount of stone removed in these quarries was found to roughly correspond to the total volume required for the Giza pyramid complex. I also might point out that this theory requires that the same volume of limestone be laboriously ground down into the form required to make concrete, before actually mixing it. This amount of labor would look to dwarf the labor required to accomplish the rather obvious and simple process of carving the blocks out of the rock strata. 

Also again, the vast majority of the blocks that made up the bulk of the pyramid exclusive of the fine limestone casing, were very roughly carved out of the coarse limestone, and cursory examination shows that they were only roughly fitted, rather than within a small fraction of an inch. It's true that that description does somewhat fit the casing stones, but this was a very much lesser number of blocks. The builders logically planned the job to minimize the total labor given the primitive methods of construction, in part by carving the bulk of the blocks (the ones in the interior) to only very rough specifications, and using the coarse limestone available close to the pyramid site (as opposed to the much more distantly available fine white limestone for the casing), since this was all that was needed.

All this aside from the fact that the concrete technology hypothesized was never even mentioned over the entire history of Egypt, even by Herodotus who recounted what the priests of his time (fourth century BC) said. There was no tradition maintained of this method of building whatsoever, even though it is claimed in this hypothesis that it was developed in early Old Kingdom times.

All this aside from the fact that the concrete technology hypothesized was never even mentioned over the entire history of Egypt,

Of course the word concrete is modern albeit the principle isn't. I'm not sure how we can be certain they didn't utilise the principle of it. Luckily, I was able to dig up this clearly ancient video which demonstrates real ancient Egyptians going about the process. Child's play by the looks of it.  

  How the pyramids were built in Egypt - YouTube