A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[cladking]

Please don't think I, arguing, I open to all ideas and this is better than dragging them up ridiculously large ramps. However if there was a geyser there, just my question now is why, why build them, seems pointless than just leaving a nice geyser there.

I don't know why it was built. I don't know anything.

Or pehaps it would be more accurate to say I only know what the builders said about

why it was built. There might be secondary and tertiary reasons which aren't apparent

and excluded by what the builders said. Most assuredly things like a pump are not ex-

cluded by their words.

The evidence for why it was built has never been sought by modern science because or-

thodoxy simply assumes it was a tomb. They haven't even done a simple forensic test-

ing because they already know it was a tomb. The inside of the pyramid has been gutted

over the eons by tourists and scientists. Figuring out what something is with all the

pieces missing needs to wait until we figure out how it was built. This isn't necessar-

ily the case but it's the nature of the pyramid and the evidence. First things must

come first. And the how is simpler than the "why".

I do know what the builders said it was for. I'm the world's leading expert on the lit-

eral meaning of the PT. Not that this is something difficult to achieve but I still have

a four year head start on everyone else. The builders were really quite adamant about

wjhat it was for. They said that the pyramid was the ka of the dead king and that the

ka of the dead king communed with his soul in heaven. They said the dead king didn't

really die because he became the geyser that built his ka and he was the pyramid. They

said "He, he is the pyramid, he protects". They said the pyramid maintained balance

and was an extension of the primeval mound.

To put this in 21st century parlance I suppose you might say that they said they built

the pyramid largely because they could. It just wasn't that big a deal to build the boats

and watch the Gods build the pyramid. It didn't rip their society asunder by using up

vast resources and it didn't put their wives and babies in danger. Men, women, and child-

ren worked on these because there was all sorts of work in assisting the Gods to build.

Children ran errands, women helped maintain equipment and the men did the heavy lifting

like moving ropes around. It was a party that started and ended with a feast each year.

People vied to get a slot in building. It was an honor to have even a minor role.

Of course they were important for other reasons too such as projecting an image of strenght

and stability to their friends and enemies. They likely did have other practical functions

as well. There were many idle hands during the inundation and putting them to a task might

be beneficial.

Again though I can't rule out much more important functions such as power plants, pumps,

or even alien trancievers. I don't really believe any of these are probable but there is

some reason to suspect other functions. There's little doubt that the water was hugely

important to the Egyptians and it seems unlikely that if its primary use were building

pyramids they'd have little reason to name their years after the amount of water they got.

This suggests that a pumping function. I am loathe to separate G1 from the other pyramids

and the differences can be accountred for by other aspects of the theory so at this point

I'm sticking to what the builders actually said. It was no tomb but was the king himself.

[hortie]

Not to mention you run the risk of getting all the mummy gauze wet.

Quite uncomfortable for a king seeking the afterlife, to have to tromp around in wet wrappings.

Hahahaha Harte!

No one wants to be the saggy god in the afterlife

[hortie]

I don't know why it was built. I don't know anything.

I think that's why I like discussing things with you, none of us really know, but we do our best to find out. Reason I asked why is to get insight on why build the pyramid over the geyser. I cant think of a great reason.

The evidence for why it was built has never been sought by modern science because or-

thodoxy simply assumes it was a tomb.

To put this in 21st century parlance I suppose you might say that they said they built

the pyramid largely because they could.

Again though I can't rule out much more important functions such as power plants, pumps,

or even alien trancievers. I don't really believe any of these are probable but there is

some reason to suspect other functions. There's little doubt that the water was hugely

important to the Egyptians and it seems unlikely that if its primary use were building

pyramids they'd have little reason to name their years after the amount of water they got.

This suggests that a pumping function. I am loathe to separate G1 from the other pyramids

and the differences can be accountred for by other aspects of the theory so at this point

I'm sticking to what the builders actually said. It was no tomb but was the king himself.

Sure I could see that if it wasn't too hard to build why not show off, or honor the king, which was Orion.

And I do like the water theory because it gives a why, if it could help to give people clean drinking water, your in a desert waters worth more than anything.

Edited November 5, 2011 by hortie

[kmt_sesh]

At last someone has come up with a good idea about great pyramids.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patrickgiles22

This is superbly evidenced and can even explain what the units of measurements

on the Palermo Stone mean. The Palermo Stone is hugely important because it con-

tains most of the very very little we know about the great pyramid builders. Up

till now we didn't know what these numbers were but maybe it was the total amount

of water that was caught in the Lake of the Year. The Pyramid Texts said this

number was calculated so perhaps they had to add up all the events and subtract

out what was used for other purposes. The equations could get pretty complicated

with a pyramid sitting in the middle of the lake.

Is this really supposed to be serious? Aren't there enough nutball Great Pyramid ideas as it is? So now we can add "rain catchment" to the mix.

There are two obvious things that immediately discount the entire idea:

• Climatological studies of the Giza Plateau establish that even by the time of Khufu the area was desert. Although it does rain in Egypt, then as now torrential rainstorms generally occur only once or twice in a decade. So the Great Pyramid as a "rain catchment" would represent a colossal cost of resources and manpower on behalf of the state to achieve something that would function only rarely at best.
  
• This point is even more salient. The model in the video, as well made as it is, shows all of this water flowing down through the causeway to collect in what the videographer refers to as the "cistern." In normal circles this "cistern" is known as the valley temple, something integral to almost all pyramid complexes. Only remnants of Khufu's valley temple have been excavated due to modern urban sprawl. But the truly funny thing is, the videographer seems to think all of this colossal effort was required to collect water into a "cistern"--when several feet to the east was a huge water-filled quay the workmen had created to channel the Nile to the Plateau.
  

In other words, an entirely wasted effort. As it is, although Khufu's causeway is in ruins, those at other pyramid complexes are well preserved. Such is the case with the Unis pyramid complex. His causeway was made with carefully dressed and beautifully inscribed limestone masonry, but there's certainly nothing to suggest it's watertight. That's just silly. In all honesty, had such vast amounts of rain spilled down into Khufu's causeway, almost all of the water would've drained out through the joins between the blocks of masonry probably long before reaching the valley temple.

Plenty of people like to play with all sorts of bizarre ideas about the Great Pyramid, when in fact very few of these people seem to know anything meaningful about the wider context of the Plateau around it. Had this videographer even bothered to read something as simple and basic as Lehner's The Complete Pyramids, he would've realized there was no reason to develop his idea beyond his earliest thought processes. There's even a pretty overlay on Pages 110 and 115 which shows how the quay may have looked in front of Khafre's pyramid. All of the quays are archaeologically attested, including Khufu's.

And please, cladking, do not misrepresent Mr. Petrie. He did not believe the Great Pyramid had been built as a "rain catchment."

[kmt_sesh]

...

And brewing and fermentation will kill the e coli from the vast herds of.... what was the animal the Egyptians raised so many of all along the Nile to the south of Giza?

Oh yeah, crocodiles.

Harte

Damn, and here I thought they used croc dung like we use butter or cheese, as a spread.

[cladking]

He did not believe the Great Pyramid had been built as a "rain catchment."

No, he didn't.

But he did go to a great deal of effort to not say that there is a watercatchment

device surrounding G1 that was actually used to channel water to the cliff face in

two different locations. It seems to me that if someone is willing to go to the

effort of concocting 92 word sentences to obfuscate a meaning then we should at

least give him credit for understanding and believing in that very hidden meaning.

The funny thing about a watercatchment device is that it can't tell the difference

between one drop of water or one water molecule and another. No matter how water

got in these huge catchment devices the water would go to whatever points it is di-

rected.

Egyptologists have a disconcerting habit of projecting their own beliefs and the

beliefs of later Egyptians back onto the great pyramid builders. They also project

conditions, processes, and ideas back onto the builders. Rather than view these

people and the conditions that persisted at the time they paint a picture that is

muddied with modern prejudices.

Conditions were very much different when the Giza Project was started. Not only was

the Nile River much higher up (the entire river) and closer to the top of the plateau

but this area hadn't yet been engulfed by the Sahara. It received in excess of four

inches of rain per year. This wasn't enough for trees or even large grazing animals

but it was plenty enough to support gazelles, oryx, antelopes, and the various cats

and other animals that preyed on them. It was mere scrubland with some grass in low-

er areas and at wetter times in the season.

It's impossible to say exactly what condition prevailed on the Giza Plateau itself be-

cause the great pyramid builders stripped it down to bedrock leaving no evidence to

make such a determination. All we really know is what we can actually see yet Egypt-

tologists project a dry barren desert up on the plateau because these are the condi-

tions of the rest of the Libyan desert. Everywhere you look you'll see this projection

of information onto the the old kingdom and the people. There's virtually no evidence

of anything at all so Egyptology fills this vacuum with themselves and anachronistic

and out of place information and ideas.

What we actually know about the plateau at the time they built G1 is that there was a

water catchment device sitting around where today is G1. We don't know how long this

device preceded the pyramid. We know that the cliff face where one of the outlets em-

erged at the NE corner was extended outward for some considerable distance.

We might speculate that this device was intended solely to catch rain but the problem

here is it still only rained 4" annually. There were better places and easier means

to catch rain. The pavement is not level so small rain events would not be easily

collected which strongly suggests that rain was not the intended liquid to be caught.

Condensate can also be ruled out for the same reason. But the bottom line is still that

there was water and in very large amounts. The amounts were so large that the thousand

gallons or more trapped on the uneven floor was not a consideration or they would have

made the floor even. Of course we can't know if this catchment device extends far un-

der the pyramid or not. We do know that the pyramid is built on the actual paving stones

so it might have been far larger (there is a tiny rise inside the pyramid)(it's too small

to call a hill) before the pyramid was built. The rise inside the pyramid might even

have been sculpted to be part of the catchment device.

Rather than talk about what water this huge undertaking might have been used to gather

let's just look at the effect of rainfall. This is kind of the subject of this thread

anyway. I consider it primarily about THE catchment device but the author of the theory

says it's to catch RAIN. Over the course of a 20 year project this device DID* actually

catch about 160 acre feet of water. This is a very significant amount of water and it

was very very heavy. The equations are a little tricky here so I'll just estimate that

the weight of this water at an altitude of about 200' would be sufficient to lift about

50,000 tons to the top of the pyramid. Or to put it another way just the rain that fell

over the course of the project had sufficient energy which they could convert to lift the

top 100' of pyramid!!!

Putting this top 100' on with ramps might be simply impossible but the rain alone could

have put it on if they simply had used counterweights with water as ballast. The top 100'

would have required more effort than the entire pyramid in building ramps if a single

straight on ramp was used as Petrie believed but the rain could have done this amount of

work by itself if counterweights were used.

You can believe in rain catchment devices which are visible and under the pyramid or you

can believe in magic ramps that were never recorded and never left any evidence. You can

believe in a picture of barefoot bumpkins painted by Egyptologists who tiptoe through

corpse drippings or the evidence of your own eyes. You can believe the words of the men

and women who built the pyramid or the words of the Egyptologists who interpret them.

343a. The mn‘-canal is open; the Winding Watercourse is inundated;

*Yes, this presupposes that the device wasn't buried in ramps but there's no evidence for ramps and I am speaking about evidence and not speculation. Water erosion proves water was caught but doesn't prove when or what the water was used for. I'm also compelled to point out that there is little sense in building the collection system first and then covering it in ramps. There's no sense in excavating stone to build these as was done on G2 and then filling it with ramps. There's no evidence that there were any ramps and evidence that does exist all points away from ramps.

Edited November 6, 2011 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

Cladking has Egyptologists have a disconcerting habit of projecting their his own beliefs and the

beliefs of later Egyptians back onto the great pyramid builders.

No matter how many times you try to ignore the facts, at the earliest the Pyramid Texts were found IN THE TOMB of Unis, WRITTEN FOR Unis and were some 150+ years AFTER the Great Pyramids construction and therefore irrelevant to it.

cormac

[cladking]

Let me put it this way;

1555b. (is) in the mouth of those who run to them on the good day of running (while running is good).

1556a. "Set is guilty; Osiris is justified,"

1556b. (is) in the mouth of the gods, on the good day of the going upon the mountain.

1557a. (When) inundations are upon the land,

They did not sit around waiting for rain to work on building the mountain.

There must have been some other source of water to build these.

Since Osiris was a cool effervescent column of water we may need to look no further.

[cladking]

...WRITTEN FOR Unis...

Egyptologists say that the Pyramid Texts are far far older than Unis.

Are you really going to pick and choose the pronouncements of Egyptology. Might

this not give you a very warped picture of the facts.

It's very obvious from a literal interpretation of the PT they are far far older

than Unis.

It seems to me that you might be going out on a limb all by yourself. Do you have

any evidence to support your belief that the Egyptologists are wrong?

[cormac mac airt]

Egyptologists say that the Pyramid Texts are far far older than Unis.

Are you really going to pick and choose the pronouncements of Egyptology. Might

this not give you a very warped picture of the facts.

It's very obvious from a literal interpretation of the PT they are far far older

than Unis.

It seems to me that you might be going out on a limb all by yourself. Do you have

any evidence to support your belief that the Egyptologists are wrong?

No, Egyptologists say PARTS of the Pyramid Texts likly are far older than the time of Unis. No one knows exactly which parts or HOW MUCH older, and as you have no meaningful knowledge of the culture, language or history of AE then you're NOT in a position to determine such. Which is something that has obviously escaped you.

It's very obvious THAT YOU don't know enough about the culture, language or history to know what a literal interpretation would entail, IF there was one, which is not in evidence. But you've been lying for 5+ years here and nobody's done anything about it. Go figure. After all, someone has to maintain the illusion that BS is fact.

cormac

[cladking]

No, Egyptologists say PARTS of the Pyramid Texts likly are far older than the time of Unis. No one knows exactly which parts or HOW MUCH older, and as you have no meaningful knowledge of the culture, language or history of AE then you're NOT in a position to determine such. Which is something that has obviously escaped you.

It's very obvious THAT YOU don't know enough about the culture, language or history to know what a literal interpretation would entail, IF there was one, which is not in evidence. But you've been lying for 5+ years here and nobody's done anything about it. Go figure. After all, someone has to maintain the illusion that BS is fact.

It's probably not worth pointing out that there is no culture at all except

what has been interpreted primarily from the Pyramid Texts. This is because

there is a near vacuum of evidence except for the PT which is interpreted as

the rantings of sun addled bumpkins. The very little evidence which does in

fact exist is mostly what is found in graves and tombs because these were put

in the desert and are the only parts of the "culture" which still lives. How's

that for supreme irony? It's not worth pointing it out because these consider-

ations always elude ramp believers.

But it's simply ridiculous to suggest that one has to know how the people lived,

and spoke in order to read translations of their words. The simple fact is all

the translators say that the builders said "He, he is the pyramid, he protects".

This says in plain English that the king as the pyramid is protecting something.

From the context of the literal meaning it can be seen he is protecting the peo-

ple as the pyramid. This doesn't require an advanced degree in gooblety gook.

All you need to do is read it. They said that when a column of water sat in a

specific type of boat (henu boat) his name became Seker and he dragged the earth

by means of balance. It's all simple English and simple substitution.

I can't imagine why people today have trouble with such simple concepts.

Sure, there's some finite possibility that the writers were lying or confused but

we owe it to them and mostly to ourselves to prove they were nuts rather than just

assuming it. Why assume they were barefoot bumpkins when they might have been

crafty liars or so clever they could build giant pyramids while hardly lifting a

finger to assist the Gods.

I'm aghast that people dismiss the facts, dismiss the builders, and dismiss com-

mon sense. I have to suspect that if a geyser erupted on the plateau today they'd

just seal it up and never talk about it.

Mebbe they'd build showers and pretend the whole thing was built for visitors.

[cladking]

Mebbe they'd build showers and pretend the whole thing was built for visitors.

Of course they'd have to build a watercatchment device around it or the

water would be running all over the place.

[cormac mac airt]

It's probably not worth pointing out that there is no culture at all except

what has been interpreted primarily from the Pyramid Texts. This is because

there is a near vacuum of evidence except for the PT which is interpreted as

the rantings of sun addled bumpkins. The very little evidence which does in

fact exist is mostly what is found in graves and tombs because these were put

in the desert and are the only parts of the "culture" which still lives. How's

that for supreme irony? It's not worth pointing it out because these consider-

ations always elude ramp believers.

But it's simply ridiculous to suggest that one has to know how the people lived,

and spoke in order to read translations of their words. The simple fact is all

the translators say that the builders said "He, he is the pyramid, he protects".

This says in plain English that the king as the pyramid is protecting something.

From the context of the literal meaning it can be seen he is protecting the peo-

ple as the pyramid. This doesn't require an advanced degree in gooblety gook.

All you need to do is read it. They said that when a column of water sat in a

specific type of boat (henu boat) his name became Seker and he dragged the earth

by means of balance. It's all simple English and simple substitution.

I can't imagine why people today have trouble with such simple concepts.

Sure, there's some finite possibility that the writers were lying or confused but

we owe it to them and mostly to ourselves to prove they were nuts rather than just

assuming it. Why assume they were barefoot bumpkins when they might have been

crafty liars or so clever they could build giant pyramids while hardly lifting a

finger to assist the Gods.

I'm aghast that people dismiss the facts, dismiss the builders, and dismiss com-

mon sense. I have to suspect that if a geyser erupted on the plateau today they'd

just seal it up and never talk about it.

Mebbe they'd build showers and pretend the whole thing was built for visitors.

In other words, you have no meaningful knowledge of anything relating to Ancient Egypt. Thanks for once again verifying what we already knew.

cormac

[cladking]

In other words, you have no meaningful knowledge of anything relating to Ancient Egypt. Thanks for once again verifying what we already knew.

Excellent. We're on the same track.

No. I don't know much of anything about the pyramid builders and Egyptologists know far far less if I'm right.

[cormac mac airt]

Excellent. We're on the same track.

No. I don't know much of anything about the pyramid builders and Egyptologists know far far less if I'm right.

Well, you certainly haven't shown it in the last five years.

cormac

[ShadowSot]

And please, cladking, do not misrepresent Mr. Petrie. He did not believe the Great Pyramid had been built as a "rain catchment."

Even if hehad, he has the ability to be mistaken, especially in the light of new discoveries in the last 70 years.

[cladking]

Even if hehad, he has the ability to be mistaken, especially in the light of new discoveries in the last 70 years.

No!!!!

There are no new discoveries about watercatchmwent devices because this

is one of the many subjects that Egyptologists just sweep under the rug.

Anything not related to tombs, ramps, and changeless bumpkins just doesn't

get much attention. Of course these things get little attention as well

since they are givens that require no proof. Why look for the way pyramids

were built if you already know it was ramps. Why look for ramps if you al-

ready know how it was built. Almost all the evidence gathered in the last

150 years has been supportive of water and has denied ramps. This has had

no effect on the field because they already know it was ramps and evidence

can just confuse things.

[cladking]

Even if hehad, he has the ability to be mistaken, especially in the light of new discoveries in the last 70 years.

I'm not going to apologize for Petrie. It is quite apparent that he hid

the most important fact in the study of the pyramids in a 92 word sentence

that no one wanted to see anyway.

I will say this for Petrie though. If he were alive today he'd be on geysers

faster than yuppie on a bottle of Perrier. He never claimed to know much of

anything despite his vast knowledge of the artefacts. While it's fashionable

among Egyptologists today to dismiss his conclusions those conclusions are much

more in keeping with the actual evidence than modern ones.

[kmt_sesh]

I am not going to allow myself to get bogged down in yet another meaningless, pointless debate about the Pyramid Texts. This is not of interest to me.

Cladking, I more or less expected it but it seems you started this discussion as just another way to squeeze in your personal theme about geysers and such. There is nothing more to say about it. It has already been done to death. You keep tossing out lines of the Pyramid Texts as though they stand alone as proof for your theme, but you don't even attempt to frame a linguistically supported argument to show us how they're relevant to your cause. You just toss them out there.

Your OP was at least something a little different from the usual, but already this discussion is heading down a trite and tedious path. There is nothing new to be said about your own theme, so if you can't start a discussion or join in a discussion that has nothing to do with your theme, why post at all?

I'll keep an eye on this discussion to see if something is worth comment, but otherwise I have no desire to post at the moment.

[cormac mac airt]

I am not going to allow myself to get bogged down in yet another meaningless, pointless debate about the Pyramid Texts. This is not of interest to me.

Cladking, I more or less expected it but it seems you started this discussion as just another way to squeeze in your personal theme about geysers and such. There is nothing more to say about it. It has already been done to death. You keep tossing out lines of the Pyramid Texts as though they stand alone as proof for your theme, but you don't even attempt to frame a linguistically supported argument to show us how they're relevant to your cause. You just toss them out there.

Your OP was at least something a little different from the usual, but already this discussion is heading down a trite and tedious path. There is nothing new to be said about your own theme, so if you can't start a discussion or join in a discussion that has nothing to do with your theme, why post at all?

I'll keep an eye on this discussion to see if something is worth comment, but otherwise I have no desire to post at the moment.

Of course he did, he's not getting the attention he thinks his theme deserves. And who cares that there is nothing new to be said about his theme since that hasn't stopped him so far, sad to say.

As to the why of it, kmt_sesh, it's easy. BECAUSE HE CAN.

cormac

[cladking]

I am not going to allow myself to get bogged down in yet another meaningless, pointless debate about the Pyramid Texts. This is not of interest to me.

Cladking, I more or less expected it but it seems you started this discussion as just another way to squeeze in your personal theme about geysers and such. There is nothing more to say about it. It has already been done to death. You keep tossing out lines of the Pyramid Texts as though they stand alone as proof for your theme, but you don't even attempt to frame a linguistically supported argument to show us how they're relevant to your cause. You just toss them out there.

Your OP was at least something a little different from the usual, but already this discussion is heading down a trite and tedious path. There is nothing new to be said about your own theme, so if you can't start a discussion or join in a discussion that has nothing to do with your theme, why post at all?

I'll keep an eye on this discussion to see if something is worth comment, but otherwise I have no desire to post at the moment.

I've barely mentioned the PT in this thread.

The subject is the water catchment device and what it caught. Thesubject is

the fact that it pre-dated the pyramid. The subject is that there's evidence

for this theory but not for ramps and the givens of Egyptology.

[cladking]

Of course he did, he's not getting the attention he thinks his theme deserves. And who cares that there is nothing new to be said about his theme since that hasn't stopped him so far, sad to say.

As to the why of it, kmt_sesh, it's easy. BECAUSE HE CAN.

That's funny. In 150 years Egyptology has gotten nowhere at all. They don't

know the meaning of even the simplest sceptres nor their origins. They don't

know the purpose of the icons or their origins. They don't know one thing more

about how the pyramids were built than they did when the first genius intoned

"they mustta used ramps". They have no picture of the builders beyond the meta-

phoric interpretation of the PT and the anachronistics concepts imposed upon

them.

In just five years I've discovered even the most complicated device known to

the ancients, the rennenutet. I can tell you what most of the lines in the PT

are in reference to. I can paint a picture of the construction of G1 from the

first stone that was placed on the water catchment device to the last stone in-

stalled by the "necklace stringers" and how the rigging was removed from the

finished pyramid. I can tie together everything that's known from the Palermo

Stone to the tomb of the "Weigher/ Reckoner".

Egyptologists still invoke ramps.

This isn't because I'm smarter than you or the Egyptologists, it's just because

I was willing to believe the words of the builders where others prefer to take

the builders as stinky footed bumpkins.

[cladking]

I chose the title very carefully. If you'll go back and look I find

this theory so good because it can form the basis of a real concrete

understanding of the pyramids. Yes, I understand that if this is the

basis for study then ramps are eliminated from the very beginning. The

beauty of this is if anyone wants to insert ramps into the equation he

will need evidence. The fact that no such evidence is known to exist

simply destroys the concept of almost all ramping ideas from the very

beginning. This will allow a sound foundation to build theories of py-

ramid construction.

Of course this is entirely intentional. Of course this new theory dove-

tails perfectly with my theory and with the evidence.

I've got quite a bit more on the catchment device but no one has asked

or engaged me on the topic so I've not mentioned it.

I would like to invite the originator of the theory to the discussion

but am leery for obvious reasons.

I'll keep an eye on this discussion to see if something is worth comment, but otherwise I have no desire to post at the moment.

I always very much appreciate intelligent and/ or knowledgeable input and

you rarely let me down.

[cormac mac airt]

This isn't because I'm smarter than you or the Egyptologists, it's just because

I was willing to believe the words of the builders where others prefer to take

the builders as stinky footed bumpkins.

Nope, it was because you were willing to fabricate a meaning where none actually existed. In most parts, that's known as lying.

cormac

[Djedi]

The subject is the water catchment device and what it caught. Thesubject is

the fact that it pre-dated the pyramid. The subject is that there's evidence

for this theory but not for ramps and the givens of Egyptology.

There is no such thing as a water catchment device at Giza or at the other "great pyramids" sites.

Mortuary temple, causeway and valey temple as part of such a device is just silly, water doesn't mix very well with limestone reliefs you know...

Mortuary temple, causeway, valey temple and enclosure wall didn't predate the pyramid, the pyramid was constructed first.

Red pyramid: no causeway, no valey temple, small mortuary temple finished in mudbrick. Menkaure's mortuary temple was also finished in mudbick. Mudbrick and water are an even worse mix than limestone and water.

The whole subject is a non starter, there's not a shred of evidence to support it; to the contrary, the evidence doesn't leave any room for such a silly notion.