Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
cladking

A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

799 posts in this topic

Hi, I wrote the pyramid rain catchment theory, and I'd be glad to answer any questions regarding it. I would also like to add that the Great Sphinx was used as a rain catchment system as well as the so-called temple in front of it. Also, the obelisk sun temples were used to catch rainwater. I can prove it. It's all in my book.

Petrie does not write about this concept, but he does recognize and state that there was water erosion evident on the pavement of Khufu's mortuary temple, which I call a water management building. Every Egyptologist has missed this concept.

That's odd because I was the one that wrote the water removal theory about the pyramids and the Sphinx. Ditto for all the Obelisks in Egypt (Rome too, as well as the Washington Monument.)

All were (and still are) used to eliminate uneccessary water from the sites. I can prove it. It's all in my upcoming book (or Kmt_sesh's upcoming book about my book, or Swede's upcoming book about Kmt_sesh's book about my book.)

This idea went right over Petrie's head. Every Egyptologist has missed this concept. And so did you.

But hey, I'm not judging you. Obviously, you lack the insight to understand my concept but that's probably not your fault. Maybe.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's odd because I was the one that wrote the water removal theory about the pyramids and the Sphinx. Ditto for all the Obelisks in Egypt (Rome too, as well as the Washington Monument.)

All were (and still are) used to eliminate uneccessary water from the sites. I can prove it. It's all in my upcoming book (or Kmt_sesh's upcoming book about my book, or Swede's upcoming book about Kmt_sesh's book about my book.)

This idea went right over Petrie's head. Every Egyptologist has missed this concept. And so did you.

But hey, I'm not judging you. Obviously, you lack the insight to understand my concept but that's probably not your fault. Maybe.

Harte

LOL You're a clever one, Harte.

Actually there have been some delays with my book so it won't be coming out for a while, which means Swede's book also will be delayed. So you're upcoming book stands alone as the authoritative source against which all others will be measured.

By the way, my book has been delayed because I discovered something an Egyptologist didn't miss, which kind of screwed things up for me. Damn Egyptologists, always getting in the way of our make-believe. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Was is illogical to build a pyramid just to catch rainwater? Keep in mind that there were 27 major pyramid complexes, and most of them had pyramids that were cheap and easy to build in comparison to those at the Giza complex and Sneferu's.Yes, it was logical. I dare anyone to drink the water from any river anywhere that is not fed by a nearby spring. Forget it. They didn't do it in Egypt either (unless they were making beer).

Welcome to UM, patrickgiles.

Don't be surprised if we skeptics poke fun. We're skeptical for a reason--about pretty much every alternative theme.

I don't have time right now to devote an in-depth rebuttal to your own rain-catchment idea, but for the moment suffice it to say I think you're either missing or ignoring huge amounts of architectural, cultural, archaeological, and inscriptional evidence that reveal to us the intended nature of these monuments. Cladking will side with you because he enjoys practically any idea that goes against orthodoxy, but every theme cladking has proposed has been roundly disproved in many different discussions at UM. I'd take care in choosing your allies. It's one thing to dislike orthodox theories but something completely different to disprove them. To date, no alternative or fringe theme has had any effect on orthodox history.

In any case, for the moment I just wanted to comment on the above. While it remains probable based on extant evidence that the Egyptians invented the fermented product we call beer, it's quite an exaggeration to suggest they avoided water. Yes, beer was safe to drink, but it also contained many nutrients and calories, and that was its primary importance--it was an energy food and, along with bread, a staple of the diet.

But of course they drank plenty of water, and no doubt more so than beer. While the Egyptians did use wells, most of the drinking water still came from the Nile. There is no doubting this. There is a reason, after all, that schistosomiasis was one of the leading killers in the pharaonic population. Paleopathologists examining well-preserved human intestines have found within them the "mummified" parasites that led to severe and often fatal dysentery.

Also bear in mind that throughout the length of the pyramid age, the landscape of Egypt was already desert. In fact, it rains there more today than it would have in c. 2500 BCE. The average rain back then wouldn't have done more than dampen the masonry and paving stones of the pyramids. Torrential rainstorms occurred maybe once or twice in a decade, so the sort of project for which you're arguing would've represented a colossal amount of labor for very, very little result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised if we skeptics poke fun. We're skeptical for a reason--about pretty much every alternative theme.

And keep in mind, we tend to poke fun of each other about as often as anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I wrote the pyramid rain catchment theory, and I'd be glad to answer any questions regarding it. I would also like to add that the Great Sphinx was used as a rain catchment system as well as the so-called temple in front of it. Also, the obelisk sun temples were used to catch rainwater. I can prove it. It's all in my book.

Petrie does not write about this concept, but he does recognize and state that there was water erosion evident on the pavement of Khufu's mortuary temple, which I call a water management building. Every Egyptologist has missed this concept.

Cladking, where is the research you found about Khentkawes town? I've never seen it. By the way, this town was self sufficient in terms of rain catchment. It had a small "step-pyramid like structure" which is called the tomb of queen Kentkawes. It was actually a rain collector, and it delivered water to an aqueduct which once ran right through the middle of the town. Therefore, they did not need the water from G2 collector. Great comment, though.

Was it illogical to build a pyramid just to catch rainwater? Keep in mind that there were 27 major pyramid complexes, and most of them had pyramids that were cheap and easy to build in comparison to those at the Giza complex and Sneferu's.Yes, it was logical. I dare anyone to drink the water from any river anywhere that is not fed by a nearby spring. Forget it. They didn't do it in Egypt either (unless they were making beer).

The subject of rainfall in Ancient Egypt and North Africa has already been discussed and the evidence DOES NOT support the contention of any such 'rain catchment' device.

Late Holocene marginalization (3500 to 1500 B.C.E.). After 3500 B.C.E., rains ceased even in ecological niches such as the Gilf Kebir, and permanent occupation was restricted to southern areas such as Laqiya (34) and Wadi Howar in Northern Sudan (fig. S2E). For the pharaonic empire, well established after 3000 B.C.E., the Western Desert obviously played a

marginal role. Generally considered a ‘‘country of evil and death,’’ it was thought to bar the Egyptian Nile valley from the Sudanese Sahara,where cattle herders still practiced their Neolithic lifestyle.

DesertificationofAncientEgypt.jpg

Source: Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin (www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 11 AUGUST 2006)

Also, welcome to UM.

Edit because the link to my previous post wasn't working.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And keep in mind, we tend to poke fun of each other about as often as anyone else.

That's not true at all, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings.

(My apologies to Monty Python.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course they drank plenty of water, and no doubt more so than beer. While the Egyptians did use wells, most of the drinking water still came from the Nile. There is no doubting this. There is a reason, after all, that schistosomiasis was one of the leading killers in the pharaonic population. Paleopathologists examining well-preserved human intestines have found within them the "mummified" parasites that led to severe and often fatal dysentery.

Right? No one would drink contaminated river water today, because everyone knows about micro-organisms. But the Ancient Egyptians would have had no idea of this, and perhaps would have collected river water, let it settle the silt and then drank it. There is no reason to doubt they did. Indeed even today, millions drink water from the Ganges right from the river. They bath in it, wash their clothes in it, bath their animals in it, toss the remains of their dead into it, use it for making their food, drink it directly, ect... even today.

Also bear in mind that throughout the length of the pyramid age, the landscape of Egypt was already desert. In fact, it rains there more today than it would have in c. 2500 BCE. The average rain back then wouldn't have done more than dampen the masonry and paving stones of the pyramids. Torrential rainstorms occurred maybe once or twice in a decade, so the sort of project for which you're arguing would've represented a colossal amount of labor for very, very little result.

That is what I had thought.

Maybe patrickgiles has some evidence of more intensive rain in that region during that time period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right? No one would drink contaminated river water today, because everyone knows about micro-organisms. But the Ancient Egyptians would have had no idea of this, and perhaps would have collected river water, let it settle the silt and then drank it. There is no reason to doubt they did. Indeed even today, millions drink water from the Ganges right from the river. They bath in it, wash their clothes in it, bath their animals in it, toss the remains of their dead into it, use it for making their food, drink it directly, ect... even today.

That is what I had thought.

Maybe patrickgiles has some evidence of more intensive rain in that region during that time period?

Highly doubtful. In fact the later period had more rain according to our climate models. Then again, as long as record keeping goes, the average differences are a few decimals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubtful. In fact the later period had more rain according to our climate models. Then again, as long as record keeping goes, the average differences are a few decimals.

Rain is the main hole in his theory, so let's see if he responds. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true at all, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings.

(My apologies to Monty Python.)

Have you in fact got any cheese here at all?

Camenberte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rain is the main hole in his theory, so let's see if he responds. :yes:

It ought to be interesting to see how it invalidates what's known from Post #180. I hope he provides citations. :yes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of rainfall in Ancient Egypt and North Africa has already been discussed and the evidence DOES NOT support the contention of any such 'rain catchment' device.

Incredible!!!!

It's sitting there in front of your face and you deny its existence but

invisible hills and ramps that leave no evidence aren't doubted for a moment.

Boy, have we got our work cut out for us.

I might point out that the less rain they got the more catchment was needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubtful. In fact the later period had more rain according to our climate models. Then again, as long as record keeping goes, the average differences are a few decimals.

This isn't true according to the experts I've read. They estimate about 4" annually.

Rain might not be wholly relevant to the reason that they actually made and used water

catchment devices anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible!!!!

It's sitting there in front of your face and you deny its existence but

invisible hills and ramps that leave no evidence aren't doubted for a moment.

Boy, have we got our work cut out for us.

I might point out that the less rain they got the more catchment was needed.

What's incredible is that you obviously DON'T understand that after c.3500 BC, when any significant rainfall amounts had vanished that anything in the 50 millimeter, <2 inches, per year category wouldn't have been significant enough to have made any real difference to either the population or their construction methods.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To date, no alternative or fringe theme has had any effect on orthodox history.

They really are wholly immune to evidence. Facts just confuse them at this point. ;)

But of course they drank plenty of water, and no doubt more so than beer. While the Egyptians did use wells, most of the drinking water still came from the Nile.

I'd be interested in what evidence you have for this. Indeed, just tell me the nature

of the evidence if you don'yt have the source material at hand.

There is no doubting this. There is a reason, after all, that schistosomiasis was one of the leading killers in the pharaonic population. Paleopathologists examining well-preserved human intestines have found within them the "mummified" parasites that led to severe and often fatal dysentery.

Water that is bad enough will simply prove fatal. It wouldn't matter if the ancients

knew about micro-organisms or not if they all died. Most of the year the water wouldn't

be too bad but in mid-summer before and early in high Nile it would be exceedingly poor

quality.

Also bear in mind that throughout the length of the pyramid age, the landscape of Egypt was already desert. In fact, it rains there more today than it would have in c. 2500 BCE.

The deserts were full of gazelles and oryx which seems to deny this contention. it would

take two or three inches to have even tiny populations of grazing animals.

It's funny but the pyramid texts mentions rain more frequently than the Nile. Surely there's

a concrete real world reason for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily true. An exception may be included without rewriting the law but would require extensive research and verification before that happened and that is something we don't see in your presentations. To my knowledge (which can be faulty and I'm sure someone will correct my errors), there has been no independent verification of your interpretation of the PT either inside or outside the scientific community. Further, I don't believe there has been extensive research done into whether geysers were used in the manner you suggest and by research I mean checking the sites themselves not just what is written. If it is as you say then there should be trace evidence of it.

It seems to me as though you are using your interpretations as a forgone conclusion. Your hypothesis concerning geysers used in the construction of the pyramids would need a lot of supporting evidence before it could become a theory and even more evidence before it could be considered a fact, but that just may be how it is coming across to me.

It would be easy to get into a semantic argument here but bottom line

is that when mother nature breaks the law the law gets tossed out. So

far as we know there is no law to which She is beholden.

Of course there's no independent verification of the validity of a lit-

eral interpretation of the PT. If there were we wouldn't need to have

this discussion since geysers would be established fact.

I don't consider geysers to be established fact. I believe the evidence

at this point in time is far too shallow and too sparse to make any con-

clusions beyond the simple fact that the grweat pyramids caught and chan-

neled water. While the evidence is weak and shallow the fact is that the

evidence is extremely widespread and all of the evidence supports my con-

tention. This is simply a fact. There is no evidence that ramps were used

to lift stones on any great pyramid and all of the evidence supports ramps.

If I were as sure of everything as the skeptics around here I'd have announ-

ced long ago that my contention is proved. Everytime I dig up a new fact

that supports geysers and denies ramps I expect the skeptics to finally say

I might have something. But it never happens. When I post pictures of a

new water catchment later they won't be impressed by it either. They will

only see invisible ramps and invisible hills. They see stones that look

smaller at the top and they see dead kings in all the great pyramids. They

see a culture that never changed. They see mountains of evidence where none

exists. They see rebuttals to logical arguments based on non-existent evi-

dence.

But they can't see a water catchment device that even shows up in satellite

photos. They can't see grooves and vertical lines on the pyramids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I wrote the pyramid rain catchment theory, and I'd be glad to answer any questions regarding it. I would also like to add that the Great Sphinx was used as a rain catchment system as well as the so-called temple in front of it. Also, the obelisk sun temples were used to catch rainwater. I can prove it. It's all in my book.

Petrie does not write about this concept, but he does recognize and state that there was water erosion evident on the pavement of Khufu's mortuary temple, which I call a water management building. Every Egyptologist has missed this concept.

Cladking, where is the research you found about Khentkawes town? I've never seen it. By the way, this town was self sufficient in terms of rain catchment. It had a small "step-pyramid like structure" which is called the tomb of queen Kentkawes. It was actually a rain collector, and it delivered water to an aqueduct which once ran right through the middle of the town. Therefore, they did not need the water from G2 collector. Great comment, though.

Was is illogical to build a pyramid just to catch rainwater? Keep in mind that there were 27 major pyramid complexes, and most of them had pyramids that were cheap and easy to build in comparison to those at the Giza complex and Sneferu's.Yes, it was logical. I dare anyone to drink the water from any river anywhere that is not fed by a nearby spring. Forget it. They didn't do it in Egypt either (unless they were making beer).

I have to apologize for the delay getting back to you. I've been working on

a new feature of the rain catchment device on G2. It's not extremely important

but does tie in the failure of these devices to catch adequate amounts of water

as the great pyramid building age was drawing to a close and, perhaps, life in

Egypt was being stood on its head. It shows a period after the age of abundant

and before our earliest version of the PT.

I've sometimes wondered if the Sphinx Temple was the inspiration for the Bible

story that had a temple with water flowing from it. There seems a probability

that there was a moat filled with water around it and maybe some tri lobed cere-

monial bowl shaped floating lanterns on it. People now days can't seem to rem-

ember that Giza is in utter ruins and it was alive at one time. They can't seem

to imagine that this place left a mark on history because the "fools" who wrote

history didn't use English.

I've posted the link for Khentkawes Town a few times and will look around for it

later on. The interesting thing about it is just last summer they discovered a

cistern that could only be filled by steadily running water. This is simply ab-

surd given orthodox beliefs. According to orthodoxy rain should be channeled in-

to the cistern to save the effort of having to fill it manually. But this is not

the case!!! This alone is sufficient to show orthodoxy is wrong about almost every-

thing. Instead the cistern is directly down a "creekbed" from the G2 water catch-

ment device. There might have been a canal or other manmade structure along this

route but it lines up perfectly with the 770 cubit retaining pond around G2.

It even gets mentioned in the PT;

1209a. whilst thou was a soul appearing in the bow of thy boat of 770 cubits (long),

1209b. which the gods of Buto constructed for thee, which the eastern gods shaped for thee.

If you look at the SE corner of the G2 catchment you'll see a steady drop into the

pyramid town and the site of the cistern.

Giza-pyramids.JPG

http://www.dlr.de/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/portal_news/newsarchiv2007/terra_pyram.jpg

(this one takes a while to open but shows the route to the cistern)

Khentkawes Pyramid appears to have been built as the last of the water was drying up.

They used the water to build probably but they lacked sufficient water and resourses

to build a pyramid big enough for most visitors to even notice. Curiously enough the

town to build this appears that it might have been a little bigger than the town to

build G1 and G2. This suggests they built it as large as they could!

Sure, it's not much evidence but notice it's about water and not about ramps. The news

and all the discoveries are about water. Real theories make accurate predictions when

they are right but just endlessly repeating they mustta used ramps does not seem to be

very effective at predictions.

So why not start all over and discard ramps and tombs and go with something real. Some-

thing concrete. Something that can be nailed to a wall like a rain catchment device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little tid bit from this years Aeragram which I found looking for the

report on Khentkawes Town;

"Much paleoenvironmental evidence points to a significant

drying trend around the end of the 4th Dynasty, which would

have had important implications for life in ancient Egypt.

Dr. Roger Flower, of University College London, joined us to

assess our area for potential evidence of environmental conditions

and climate during the Old Kingdom."

As I said I've seen estimates of rainfall in the great pyramid building age in

excess of 4" annually. I'm seeking further proof at this time.

http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AR_2011.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Much paleoenvironmental evidence points to a significant

drying trend around the end of the 4th Dynasty, which would

have had important implications for life in ancient Egypt.

Dr. Roger Flower, of University College London, joined us to

assess our area for potential evidence of environmental conditions

and climate during the Old Kingdom."

I don't knmow why I never considered this before but it's entirely possible

it was solely the decrease in rainfall that caused the end to the geysers and

the great pyramid building age. Perhaps the CO2 is still there being produced

but the water table in that region is too low to become carbonated.

Maybe we're just a few good rain storms from Osiris coming back to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a little tid bit from this years Aeragram which I found looking for the

report on Khentkawes Town;

"Much paleoenvironmental evidence points to a significant

drying trend around the end of the 4th Dynasty, which would

have had important implications for life in ancient Egypt.

Dr. Roger Flower, of University College London, joined us to

assess our area for potential evidence of environmental conditions

and climate during the Old Kingdom."

As I said I've seen estimates of rainfall in the great pyramid building age in

excess of 4" annually. I'm seeking further proof at this time.

http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AR_2011.pdf

This is part and parcel of the idea that the Nile waters may have extended as close to the Plateau as the Khentkawes town. Although as it later shows the evidence is, so far, lacking in support of that view. This has nothing to do with water around the pyramids. Would be interested in a citation of your 4" claim to rain during the time of the pyramids.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea a little more rain and effervescent puke will erupt from the ground.

You haven't even proven the minerals can be found. No outlet foe the geyser and zero evidence of any devices used in building.

I may be wrong and i might be IM 70% sure IM right but IM 100% sure cladkodoxy is wrong. In 20 years you'll give this up if we are lucky and know IM correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't knmow why I never considered this before but it's entirely possible

it was solely the decrease in rainfall that caused the end to the geysers and

the great pyramid building age. Perhaps the CO2 is still there being produced

but the water table in that region is too low to become carbonated.

Maybe we're just a few good rain storms from Osiris coming back to life.

Not likely IMO as the decrease in rainfall had been ongoing for nearly 1000 years, by the time of the pyramids.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not likely IMO as the decrease in rainfall had been ongoing for nearly 1000 years, by the time of the pyramids.

It was just an idle thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it wasn't terrible to surmise what you did. And after learning more it appeared you understood. I don't think I have ever seen this from you. It doesn't mean you should not try to connect dots. In fact a lot of good learning comes from that very action. Keep it up and we may all enjoy learning together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just an idle thought.

Would still be interested in a citation to support your 4" annual rainfall claim, as everything I've come across suggests there hasn't been any approaching that quantity since at least 3500 BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.