A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[questionmark]

Actually, that's not quite true.

Geological and Geomorphological study of Giza

Additional info on karst weathering in the region:

CAVES AND KARSTS OF NORTHEAST AFRICA

The presence of groundwater in the limestone alone suggests some karst erosion. Most of it seems to be confined to minor surface fissure weathering though. The extent may be limited due to the aridity of the climate. Still nothing to suggest the extend being claimed though.

The point being here that we are talking about thousand tons of water (in fact enough to lift the pyramid with counterweights) that had to both come and go somewhere. And there are claims of more than 2" of rainfall at the time the pyramids were build. Both cases would have caused a bigger karsting than what is evident at Giza. While karsting does exist there in a very limited extend (the Tomb of the Birds [sic.] being a prime example) the erosion by sand storms is much greater hiding all tracers of superficial karsting (like water sinkholes and similar).

Even to this day there are small receptacles of water in small caves in Giza... holding like a few gallons.

Additionally we have to consider the sensibility of lime stone (as the material the pyramids were built with) to rain, especially acid rain (where we would need no more than natural acidity as occurs during volcano eruptions, i.e. Thira) leaves stone like this:

This is an example of the cathedral of Rennes, where the limestone tower construction collapsed after only 6 centuries due to rain erosion (it stood between the 6th and 12th century our era). Given the fact that the pyramids lasted millenia without noticeable rain deterioration can only lead to one conclusion: There was never any significant rainfall or water from the time when the pyramids were completed.

Ah, yes, the karsting image I posted is from Winslow Arizona with 8" of average rainfall. Compare that to this:

I rest my case.

Edited November 28, 2011 by questionmark

[cladking]

You BELIEVE the enclosure wallis are part of what is (obvious to you) a water catchment system.

A catchment system under the pyramid??? Don't get it, there's a rocky outcroping under G1 as you well know.

So we have no facts at all, just (once again) your beliefs.

Nobody knows what is under G1 because nobody can see through solid stone.

Nobody seems to give a whit about what can be seen under G1 where the pas-

sages pass through it. There's no mountain but there is what is obviously

an existing structure that was built over a cave, fissure, or depression.

We should be dealing with facts and one of those facts is there was a system

that actually caught water and channeled it even before the pyramid was

built.

People are skipping facts and going straight to inventing explanations.

[questionmark]

Nobody knows what is under G1 because nobody can see through solid stone.

Nobody seems to give a whit about what can be seen under G1 where the pas-

sages pass through it. There's no mountain but there is what is obviously

an existing structure that was built over a cave, fissure, or depression.

We should be dealing with facts and one of those facts is there was a system

that actually caught water and channeled it even before the pyramid was

built.

People are skipping facts and going straight to inventing explanations.

What facts are people skipping? They might not be able to see what is below the great pyramid (at a depth deeper than 60 feet, because we damm well know what is there. But other seem to take the liberty to "invent" what is there to support some hare brained theory.

And "fact inventions" are not facts, they are brain maxturbation.

[cladking]

Cladking is suggesting that there was a source of water under the pyramid that was pumped into the basin within the enclosure walls, and that this water was used to raise the stones. I like it. There is certainly evidence of a well in the subterranean chamber of Khufu.

I'm not ruling this out and find the idea that the pyramid was a pump to be

very attractive. But I don't believe this. I believe that there was a natural

source of water that delivered it to 80' above the plateau. This was probably

a cold water geyser.

[cladking]

Where we have to believe that cladking did not pay a geologist to write that part.

Limestone and water lead to karst landscapes, which Giza is evidently not

And there where water works on the underground you have little caves like this one, which don't exist in Giza either... except in the mind of a certain quack.

That means that this whole thing with the water thingy is a non-starter from the beginning.

One of the largest sinkholes in the world is in this geyser field. In the desert

with blowing sand these sinkholes would fill in very quickly.

There are caves all over Giza and an international TV program where the biggest

skeptic is led by the hand into one.

There is what is apparently carbonated water flowing under Giza today.

These are all facts. Deal with them.

[cladking]

Still nothing to suggest the extend being claimed though.

Thanks for the links. I might go back and read that first one.

There is ample evidence that there are caves. The Nile dropped 8000' in the past

so any limestone in the area is like swiss cheese with all the caves in it.

[cladking]

deleted

Edited November 28, 2011 by cladking

[cladking]

I rest my case.

It's been raining at Giza for millions of years and there have been extended wet periods.

You might want to reopen your case.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Can I add also the demand for mummy dust in Europe which contributed for a high number of mummy thefts.

[questionmark]

One of the largest sinkholes in the world is in this geyser field. In the desert

with blowing sand these sinkholes would fill in very quickly.

There are caves all over Giza and an international TV program where the biggest

skeptic is led by the hand into one.

There is what is apparently carbonated water flowing under Giza today.

These are all facts. Deal with them.

Bullcrap. All those caves measuring a few cubic feet like Collin's "discovery" have been charted in the 30s already. In fact they were all recorded on the Giza inventory catalog. They are hardly relevant because they could not hold much more than a few hundred gallons of water...if a dam was build on their mouth because they are generally at ground level into cliffs and would even spill that. A recent ground penetrating radar survey (as demanded by Collins) has shown, except a few insignificant cavities, nothing...zilch... nada. In fact it was a waste of resources.

The cave that Collins "discovered" is a few feet high and no more than 10 feet deep...the reason he needed to fake a rest light amplifier video (which would not work in a cave...as there is no rest light there to amplify.)

Now, if you can come up with a cave that nobody knows, accessible from the surface (no, karsting caves do not close themselves as they are etched into the stone by acid rain) please let Hawass know, he might even let you propose your theory (as general amusement during the annual archeologist's dinner) as reward then.

The other reason why there cannot be any significant caves in Giza is the total absence of small local seismic activity, typical for "cave ins" of caves. In fact all earthquakes ever recorded are caused by plate tectonics (as can easily be established by epicenter, magnitude and depth). And due to the fact that tectonic quakes are relatively frequent it is all the more surprising that there are no "cave ins".

And could you show me the "carbonated water at Giza (once we discount the 1" annually that due to its sour characteristics dissolves limestone?)" Because all carbonated water in Giza can have only one source: Karsting... that as we know is hardly existent there. And carbonated water in the amount you propose would have caused the collapse of the pyramids by now because the whole plateau would look like a Emmental cheese.

Sorry, but all that brain maxturbation does not (pun intended) hold water.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

OK I guess I needed to refresh the page before my last post cause I see I am way behind on the posts... ill go read and come back to the conversation.

[questionmark]

It's been raining at Giza for millions of years and there have been extended wet periods.

You might want to reopen your case.

A brain m********ion is no reason to open anything... except the mouth to laugh.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I hate stepping into the middle of arguments but it seems to me the Patrick Giles

has been attacked a few times. Skeptics often come off as being condescending. All

of us have a tendency to develop knee jerk reactions so it can be difficult to access

each others' considered opinions.

There was one personal attack and I made it. It was well deserved. So address me on the issue both you and Patrick Giles. Other than that his theme as well as yours have been addressed not Mr Giles. In the mean time Mr files has continued to belittle others and made personal attacks on posters that were Unwarrented and not pertaining to the addressed topic. I explained myself and spoke with Mr Giles here on the forum where he apologized for being arrogant and which in turn I acknowledged not many people are able to do that in turn I welcomed what I thought was to become an excellent conversation of minds with Giles and other posters only to see continuing attacks by Mr Giles to other posters. He even had the gaul to say he was goading the said poster to purposely get a rise out of that poster. Giles for two pages now has not addressed the information that does not run congruent with his theme and has continued to act in such a manner that has discredited himself... put his career in danger to certain self titles... and is trying to play a victim. A victim of himself is all he is turning into. If you disagree with anything I have wrote past or current address me on it. If Giles has more toaddress me on I hope he addresses it. That's all I have to say on this matter.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[kmt_sesh]

OK, I will admit that I have heard this argument a million times, and that I was actually just prodding you to try to understand your viewpoint. Sadly, I was wrong about you. I thought you would drop this whole thing and actually answer a difficult question about a complicated subject. I know you, and all others like you. You are predictable, and I toyed with you. I apologize. Yes, I agree. According to academia, I will never be considered an Egyptologist. However, I will continue to delude myself that I am. My theory is already accepted by so many. Actually, I will become famous for finally proving what the pyramids were used for. My book will be studied. Even you will one day have to study it if you wish to keep up with the times. "You have no thesis" is a desperate statement by a beaten man (or woman). You lose this round, but I will give you another chance. Academic variety is not something I strive for as far as your type is concerned. This is an alternate theory category. I agree. You won't read my book because you are arrogant. That is the real reason. We're all busy.

as far as orthodox research--I only use that type for my book, and I am a great fan. I am adding to it. In fact, my research is entirely orthodox. So, here is the question once again. If the great pyramid was in florida during a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain on the surface, and it all went to the base and got held within the enclosure wall, where would it go next? That is the question. Get outside of your head, man.By the way, I do not consider the word Egyptologist to be an accolade. It is a description of a person in a field of study. Only an academic fool would consider it an accolade. For me, its just a practicality.

I meant to come back to this post and respond to it after giving it a closer read, which I did not have time to do last night. Another post brought me back to it earlier today to answer your question, Mr. Giles, which is in the bolded portion above. I already provided an answer earlier today, in Post 595, so there is no need to revisit that part of it.

Now that I've given the entire post a full reading, I see there is really nothing worth responding to. The rest of this is just self-aggrandizement and grandstanding, with a bit of personal attacks on my character. None of that warrants a reply. I prefer to deal with evidentiary debates, not self-promotion.

All that needs to be said for the moment is a reply to your comment that your research is entirely orthodox. I don't doubt that you've read numerous orthodox books and articles, Mr. Giles, but you know as well as I that there is nothing the least orthodox about claiming the pyramids were rain-catchment systems. Several times in this discussion, for example, you have mentioned the Oriental Institute and how you have used its published materials. I work in their galleries and am acquainted with some of the professional staff, including Egyptologists. I've spent many delightful hours in the O.I.'s wonderful Archives. I think you must admit, Mr. Giles, that not a single paper or article or folio or book in the Oriental Institute, nor any single person on its staff, would agree in the least with your theme of the rain-catchment system. Again, let's keep it honest.

In conclusion, as for "losing this round," I don't regard this as a competition. I like to think of it as akin to a peer-review environment. You've delivered your arguments to us, and we're critiquing them. We're pressuring you to defend your theme. As is obvious, then, you've garnered no supporters except for cladking, who happens to be about as far from orthodox as one can get, so that doesn't help you. You've convinced none of us. By all means keep at it, but at least be honest enough to admit that you've not succeeded in convincing any of us and so have succeeded in nothing so far. This is not exactly a scoreboard, but let's just use the analogy that your defensive line is full of holes and you've yet to gain any ground in this game.

[kmt_sesh]

A brain m********ion is no reason to open anything... except the mouth to laugh.

You're slipping, questionmark. You forgot to jimmy the word m********ion.

[patrickgiles]

Then please don't refer to yourself as an Egyptologist. I am holding you to that standard because of how you're describing yourself and the amount of research you've said you conducted. Everything I have posted in recent days in this discussion is more or less basic to the history of ancient Egypt and to the people who've excavated and studied ancient Egypt. I train docents at a Chicago museum to work in the Egyptian gallery and interact with the public, and if a docent I was training made some of the mistakes you've made in these pages, I would have to schedule him or her for retraining.

It's fine if you enjoy the argument, and it's perfectly fine if you're not well familiar with other eras of pharaonic history, but it's not fine, then, to call yourself an Egyptologist. Nor is it acceptable to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not. Nor am I. Still, I and others can and have caught the errors in your theme.

I realize I might be coming across that way because I'm holding the flame to you and challenging your arguments, but I am not self-righteous. I do not think that I will change any fundamental understanding in Egyptology, nor do I have the temerity to suggest two centuries of concerted scholarship is wrong on so fundamental an issue while I alone am right. This certainly doesn't describe me--but based on this discussion to date, it certainly describes you.

I don't know how else it could be answered. The water would go into the enclosure. I've never denied the existence of torrential rains, because we know from monuments like the Tempest Stela that they occurred. Tombs packed with rain-washed debris also attest to it (e.g., Kent Weeks's work in KV5). But I am not suggesting such rain storms were common. They were not. They are not today. They were and are the exception to the rule. North Africa is not tropical, nor has it ever been in the course of human history.

I don't know how many gallons would accumulate, nor do I much concern myself with the math. Other posters who are better at math than I have already addressed that issue, so I leave it to them. I stick to my own strenghts: the archaeology of the sites and our knowledge of the culture which produced the monuments. This knowledge, achieved through many decades of hard work conducted by countless highly intelligent individuals, alone tells me your rain-catchment theme is incorrect. This is not a personal attack on you, Mr. Giles, but merely a critique of your overall theme. Nothing personal is implied here, but you must get used to people's reactions to your alternative scenario. As off-base and roundly disproved as cladking's ideas are, he deals well with our critiques and remains almost always level headed. Follow his example.

As to the second part of your comment, I don't think you read my post well enough. I wrote that based on your rain-catchment theme, "the water was sluiced through the mortuary temple and down the causeway, to collect in the valley temple--what you call the cistern." I acknowledged that I understand the basic principle of your theme. That doesn't mean I agree with it, however.

You've referred to me and others as arrogant and have used other pejorative, personal remarks. You have addressed Swede in boldly condescending terms, and I don't think you realize the professional experience in these matters that Swede brings to the table. Yes, you're defending your theme, which you absolutely should, but in many instances you also resort to personal attacks, be they subtle or not so subtle. I have seen very few personal attacks on you yourself: it's your rain-catchment theme we're attacking, which we have every right and obligation to do. You need to develop thick skin. Again, follow cladking's example. I don't agree with nearly anything cladking has proposed over the years, and I have debated him in meticulous detail through the years, but I've always appreciated the even keel he maintains in the face of heated scrutiny.

I don't recall where I said anything about the King's Chamber being inundated. I've seen that argument from many fringe posters, but I for one would flatly refute it--in every case.

As for the Bent Pyramid, Sneferu obviously didn't abandon it because it was finished. Do I think he ended up being buried in it? No, I don't. Almost no modern scholar does (with minor exceptions), and I agree with the majority issue on this. I favor the majority view that Sneferu was ultimately buried in the Red Pyramid, even if definitive evidence is lacking.

[patrickgiles]

Wait a minute. I need to specialize in every facet of Egyptology in order to be an Egyptologist? Are you serious? As I understand academics as a scholar, a person normally goes to college and gets a degree in Near Eastern. Very general. Then that person gets a masters which focuses on a certain facet of Egyptology. A doctorate is the same thing. You focus on one thing. So, at what point does an Egyptologist acquire all this extensive knowledge about everything else in Egyptology? Do I need to understand diseases in mummies too? Do you know any Egyptologist that has mastered all the various areas of the field? I assure you, my friend, that I could study the New Kingdom my entire life and I will never be able to know everything about it. There is the inherent fault in your logic. I don't like you. Normally, I would not speak to someone so unreasonable and short sited. However, I am doing this for the purpose of education, and not pleasure. Perhaps that is why I get so irritated. I really do not enjoy doing all this research and writing and computer stuff. I'd rather drink a beer and forget about it. I do this because I feel like I can help the scholars with my new angle of research. In fact, it would take a true Egyptian expert to be able to read and understand my book. I am as much of an Egyptologist as you are. Don't deny that you are one if you don't have the official degree. Just be true to your statement, as I believe I have. I said I was an Egyptologist and I have proved it. Now back off, and stick to the subject of the rain catchment or forget about it. Forget about me. I am an expert in the study of the Old Kingdom pyramids. That is a fact that cannot be invalidated by you or anyone. I find it odd that you even care about my expertise. Oh wait, you don't. Well, enough about me. What is your area of expertise. Besides debate, I mean. If you accept that my theory is possible, you must accept that the water would go into the mortuary temple. I have described in my book how every single mort temp of the Old Kdingom functioned as a water management building. The purpose of this building was to receive and manage water. The only exit for the water was to the causeway aqueduct. why will you not accept this as so many already have? By the way, every causeway has a gentle declination that is constant. Perfect for the flow of water. I describe every aqueduct in my book. Every pyramid complex has a short chapter describing its entire function as a rain catchment system. All the cisterns are described. I have visited these sites in some cases. I spent seven years trying to disprove my own theory before I allowed myself to accept it as valid. I think it will take you less than that. Egyptology must evolve.

d

Then please don't refer to yourself as an Egyptologist. I am holding you to that standard because of how you're describing yourself and the amount of research you've said you conducted. Everything I have posted in recent days in this discussion is more or less basic to the history of ancient Egypt and to the people who've excavated and studied ancient Egypt. I train docents at a Chicago museum to work in the Egyptian gallery and interact with the public, and if a docent I was training made some of the mistakes you've made in these pages, I would have to schedule him or her for retraining.

It's fine if you enjoy the argument, and it's perfectly fine if you're not well familiar with other eras of pharaonic history, but it's not fine, then, to call yourself an Egyptologist. Nor is it acceptable to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not. Nor am I. Still, I and others can and have caught the errors in your theme.

I realize I might be coming across that way because I'm holding the flame to you and challenging your arguments, but I am not self-righteous. I do not think that I will change any fundamental understanding in Egyptology, nor do I have the temerity to suggest two centuries of concerted scholarship is wrong on so fundamental an issue while I alone am right. This certainly doesn't describe me--but based on this discussion to date, it certainly describes you.

I don't know how else it could be answered. The water would go into the enclosure. I've never denied the existence of torrential rains, because we know from monuments like the Tempest Stela that they occurred. Tombs packed with rain-washed debris also attest to it (e.g., Kent Weeks's work in KV5). But I am not suggesting such rain storms were common. They were not. They are not today. They were and are the exception to the rule. North Africa is not tropical, nor has it ever been in the course of human history.

I don't know how many gallons would accumulate, nor do I much concern myself with the math. Other posters who are better at math than I have already addressed that issue, so I leave it to them. I stick to my own strenghts: the archaeology of the sites and our knowledge of the culture which produced the monuments. This knowledge, achieved through many decades of hard work conducted by countless highly intelligent individuals, alone tells me your rain-catchment theme is incorrect. This is not a personal attack on you, Mr. Giles, but merely a critique of your overall theme. Nothing personal is implied here, but you must get used to people's reactions to your alternative scenario. As off-base and roundly disproved as cladking's ideas are, he deals well with our critiques and remains almost always level headed. Follow his example.

As to the second part of your comment, I don't think you read my post well enough. I wrote that based on your rain-catchment theme, "the water was sluiced through the mortuary temple and down the causeway, to collect in the valley temple--what you call the cistern." I acknowledged that I understand the basic principle of your theme. That doesn't mean I agree with it, however.

You've referred to me and others as arrogant and have used other pejorative, personal remarks. You have addressed Swede in boldly condescending terms, and I don't think you realize the professional experience in these matters that Swede brings to the table. Yes, you're defending your theme, which you absolutely should, but in many instances you also resort to personal attacks, be they subtle or not so subtle. I have seen very few personal attacks on you yourself: it's your rain-catchment theme we're attacking, which we have every right and obligation to do. You need to develop thick skin. Again, follow cladking's example. I don't agree with nearly anything cladking has proposed over the years, and I have debated him in meticulous detail through the years, but I've always appreciated the even keel he maintains in the face of heated scrutiny.

I don't recall where I said anything about the King's Chamber being inundated. I've seen that argument from many fringe posters, but I for one would flatly refute it--in every case.

As for the Bent Pyramid, Sneferu obviously didn't abandon it because it was finished. Do I think he ended up being buried in it? No, I don't. Almost no modern scholar does (with minor exceptions), and I agree with the majority issue on this. I favor the majority view that Sneferu was ultimately buried in the Red Pyramid, even if definitive evidence is lacking.

Edited November 29, 2011 by patrickgiles

[patrickgiles]

I have heard several very strong arguments about the fact that the KIng's chamber was never entered until Al Mamum or whatever name in 820 CE broke into the ascending corridor accidentally when his workers dislodged the stone that covered the entrance. I have also read that the well shaft was plugged until very recently. It was not made by tomb robbers, and this is evident by the very carefully carved top part of the shaft at the base of the grand gallery. This was sealed during the Old Kingdom by the builders of the pyramid according to most experts. Therefore, I think it has been established that nobody entered that chamber since it was sealed. The Greeks did not know about it because there is no Greek grafiti. But more importantly, it is certain that the Arabs were the first to enter the chamber, but they found nothing at all.

Can I add also the demand for mummy dust in Europe which contributed for a high number of mummy thefts.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Can I add also the demand for mummy dust in Europe which contributed for a high number of mummy thefts.

Here's a page that touches on the subject briefly

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/6_2Mummies%20Mummies%20and%20Disease%20in%20Egypt.htm

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I have heard several very strong arguments about the fact that the KIng's chamber was never entered until Al Mamum or whatever name in 820 CE broke into the ascending corridor accidentally when his workers dislodged the stone that covered the entrance. I have also read that the well shaft was plugged until very recently. It was not made by tomb robbers, and this is evident by the very carefully carved top part of the shaft at the base of the grand gallery. This was sealed during the Old Kingdom by the builders of the pyramid according to most experts. Therefore, I think it has been established that nobody entered that chamber since it was sealed. The Greeks did not know about it because there is no Greek grafiti. But more importantly, it is certain that the Arabs were the first to enter the chamber, but they found nothing at all.

Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy being used as a medicine in Europe?

Edit to delete dust from a sentence as it was redundant.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[cladking]

What is your area of expertise.

I think this is the root of the problem.

Skeptics are simply accepting orthodox beliefs in a knee jerk reaction. They

don't understand that this isn't about orthodoxy and it's not about paradigms

and convention. I reject all the assumptions which means I reject the para-

digms. The facts have to stand on their own and rather than get arguement based

on facts and logic you're going to get argument founded on the idea that the

assumptions must be correct. This is a battle of attrition that assumption

isn't going to win because the assumptions are wrong. Any ten year old can

see these are water catchment devices and until such time as it can be shown

that they aren't orthodoxy is doomed to lose.

Expertise is irrelevant. Only the facts count.

[kmt_sesh]

Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy dust being used as a medicine in Europe?

Such an appetizing subject. Who knows how many mummies ended up as a dust for tonic into medieval times? It can indeed be considered a contributing factor to the many tombs found without human remains, or at least those remains originally intended for the tomb (meaning, intrusive and secondary burials are a whole other subject). Even more disturbing to think about is how many of those "mummies" ground up to become tonics, were actually ancient Egyptian bodies or contemporary medieval bodies dug up in cemeteries and made to resemble mummies.

Overall, however, I should think mummies used for tonics represent a minority in the means by which ancient bodies were lost to us. The leading factors would be tomb robbing, animals, and environmental conditions. Ethnoarchaeologists and others who've studied the demographics of pharaonic society have estimated that throughout the 3,100 years of dynastic Egypt, something on the order of 70 million people were mummified. Sounds impressive but it would represent a noticeable minority of the general population at any one time. Still, that's a helluva lot of mummies. Have archaeologists found that many over the past couple of hundred centuries? No, not even close. Not even close to being close. There are many more mummies left to be found in the ancient necropoli of the Nile Valley, but I personally would wager that the majority of mummies were destroyed by one means or another in ancient times.

Now, Aus, go relax with a nice steaming mug of mummy-dust tea.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Ooh hemlock mummiea tea sounds like a great way to relax...LOL

Thanks for the added info to the subject I can always count on you to add more for me to ponder. I am researching it more as its the flavor of the moment for me... I love thought trail study.....................

[Swede]

One inch on one pyramid creates this much water for drinking. This is only one inch. It surely rained more than that. Also, there were 28 known major pyramids. This is plenty of water considering how long the pyramids lasted, they soon enough caught a lot of water. It was worth it to them apparently. What do you mean that I have been cautioned. Are you a cop? Are you gonna tell Hawass or my publisher. I do not care about your academic background, by the way. I doubt your character. There can be no damage to my credibility. I simply state the facts and let them speak for themselves. You still have not answered my question. I did not ask if if rained. Let's assume the exact pyramid is in Florida, where it rains a whole lot. What happens to the water? Why won't you answer this. Your data is weak and one-sided, and you are the only one who cannot see that.

In regards to precipitation, will yet again provide the following reference:

http://onlinelibrary...2/gea.10065/pdf

The following lay-oriented reference regarding modern precipitation levels may also worth a brief perusal:

"Moving southward, the amount of precipitation decreases suddenly. Cairo receives a little more than one centimeter of precipitation each year".

http://www.touregypt.net/climate.htm

It should be noted that the precipitation belts have shifted N > S over time. Further documentation can be provided. However, it is well established that precipitation in the area of focus has been quite limited for an extended period of time (beginning circa 5200 BP).

Thus, the one inch factor utilized in the calculations is not at all unreasonable for even a heavy rainfall given the time period and locus of concern.

You would also appear to incorrect in your estimation of major pyramids. The number is considered to be something more in the range of 36 (Lehner 1999:17). And how many of these have enclosure walls? Not to mention that they are spread over some 13 distinct site areas and cover a building span of some 10 Dynasties. To attempt to demonstrate that such a personally contrived "system" of water management was the intended motivation behind the construction efforts becomes more than questionable.

In addition to not addressing the basic mathematical issues, you have also assiduously avoided addressing the economic viability of your proposition. Primers on economic theory (be they biological or cultural) can be provided.

As to what happened during the rare incidence of abnormally heavy rainfall on the Giza Plateau? May it be speculated that the population involved merely dealt with such incidences much as can be observed today?

Re: "My theory is already accepted by so many." (PG # 560). As previously demonstrated, the term theory would hardly be applicable. And who are the "so many"? Hard numbers?

Lastly, it may be construed that you are operating under the premise that it is up to legitimate science to demonstrate the numerous flaws in your presentation. This is, of course, not the case. It lies upon your research to definitively demonstrate the mathematical, economic, cultural, and archaeological validity of such claims. This would not appear to be the case.

Edit:Typo.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Swede

[+DieChecker]

I'm not ruling this out and find the idea that the pyramid was a pump to be

very attractive. But I don't believe this. I believe that there was a natural

source of water that delivered it to 80' above the plateau. This was probably

a cold water geyser.

Well that one got to about 6 or 7 feet, due mainly to there being a funneling pipe there that raises it 4 feet. So it probably would naturally be only 3 feet high. Somewhat less then 80 feet. The extent to which a 80 foot geyser would have to be operating would likely need a tremendous amount of CO2. Maybe enough to cover the area in a layer of it and kill all the workers?