The Great Pyramid Babineau Theory

[Tatetopa]

 

Physics and engineering-wise, a watertight pipe  that can hold any pressure differential over 50 miles is not so easy to make with pitch and reeds and palm logs .   Large early pipelines (19th century) were made sort of like continuous barrels with wooden staves and wire or hoops to constrain them.  I have seen a couple of those around 3' in diameter still in use after a hundred years.    They leak and require maintenance so putting one underground just adds to your problems.  Prior to that time,as far back as the 1300's bored logs were used to transport water.  Those were smaller and had a joint spaced log-length apart, also leaky.  It is a lot of work to bore a log too.  So you might be able to build and maintain a pipeline but there are better uses than a parlor trick.

Are there any records, any pictures, anything showing pharaoh as "Water Creator"  or water flowing out of the great pyramid? Your gullible population would have to spend 20 years building they pyramid before they got to see the show.  Certainly somebody working on the pipeline would have spilled the millet on how it was done.   I don't think pharaohs needed any extra tricks to keep the state functioning smoothly.

Cormac mac airt  seems to put the death blow to your theory, the difference in elevation. would require water to be pumped. The lake is 50 miles upriver in a declivity, the pyramids are on a plateau.   Don't get lost in generalities like upriver and water flowing downhill and forget about site geography. 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

Since apparently someone needs to provide a usable definition for "sea level" here it is: 

Quote

Mean sea level (MSL) (often shortened to sea level) is an average level of the surface of one or more of Earth's oceans from which heights such as elevation may be measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

Which means the level of Lake Moeris is given in relation to the sea level of the nearest Sea or Ocean which would be the Mediterranean. My apologies to those of you who already knew this but apparently the current theorist doesn't. 

cormac

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Hello @Kenemet we address the fact that Herodotus and Diodorus we're alive thousands of years after it was built. We talk about the translational issues because of that, and this theory was able to make sense of their writings for the first time without attributing it to constellations. Regarding the size of the Chambers in the pyramid, that has little relevance to allowing water to flow through it. For example, an Olympic size swimming pool can be drained with a garden hose given enough time. We would encourage you to read the entire theory or you might not fully understand or what we are saying. 

Oh, I understood it.

And the math.

And the physics.  And the size of the tunnels that you're proposing water flowed through (which are NOT water tight.  I've been in there.)

The pyramids that Herodotus knew have been discussed before by people more familiar with the culture, the writings, history, and Egypt (and people who could read Greek, which I can't).  He also wrote about the Giza pyramids and discussed all he learned about them in this section... not scattered about through his works at random intervals.  Lake Moeris is mentioned as the site of the labyrinth; the famous Fayum one that was a tourist hot spot back in his time and he says that the lake is beside that location. 

It's been the topic of a number of papers.

For folks interested in reference, here's what Diodorus and Herodotus say about the lake: 

http://web.archive.org/web/20181025125216if_/http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/moeris.htm

 

Google Scholar shows a number of publications with far more plausible conclusions -- including books that are over 100 years old.

Brown, Robert Hanbury. The Fayum and Lake Moeris. E. Stanford, 1892.

A more recent paper considering the hydrology of the area:  Garbrecht, Günther. "Water storage (Lake Moeris) in the Fayum Depression, legend or reality?." Irrigation and Drainage Systems 1.2 (1987): 143-157.

Requires JSTOR but excellent article that goes over the information available in the time of Herodotus as well: Caton-Thompson, Gertrude, and Elinor W. Gardner. "Recent work on the problem of Lake Moeris." The Geographical Journal 73.1 (1929): 20-58.

Sadly out of print but possibly available through interlibrary loan: Armayor, O. Kimball. Herodotus’ autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt. BRILL, 1985.

[Brianbabs56]

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

A better one for the Babineau's would be "if lakes cannot be below sea level then explain the Dead Sea".

cormac

This link explains why we don't believe those elevations: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lake-Moeris

It says that around the 3000 BC Lake Moeris was ARITIFICIALLY raised to be in "hydrolic equilibrium" with the Nile, putting it above Sea level. This elevation would also coroberate our theory. 

[Kenemet]

A discussion of Herodotus and pyramids by historians on Reddit is here:

 

[Hanslune]

16 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

This link explains why we don't believe those elevations: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lake-Moeris

It says that around the 3000 BC Lake Moeris was ARITIFICIALLY raised to be in "hydrolic equilibrium" with the Nile, putting it above Sea level. This elevation would also coroberate our theory. 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Hanslune
deleted

[Brianbabs56]

5 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

A discussion of Herodotus and pyramids by historians on Reddit is here:

 

We address why he worded it that way in our paper. Please don't try to tear apart our theory before reading it because your comments make it clear that is what you are doing. 

[cormac mac airt]

9 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

This link explains why we don't believe those elevations: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lake-Moeris

It says that around the 3000 BC Lake Moeris was ARITIFICIALLY raised to be in "hydrolic equilibrium" with the Nile, putting it above Sea level. This elevation would also coroberate our theory. 

I think you're not understanding what your link says:

1)  In the EARLY PALEOLITHIC Lake Moeris was ABOVE sea level.

2)  By 10,000 BP it was LOWER

3)  Between 4000 BP and 11,000 BP it rose again, but DOES NOT SAY it was above sea level

4)  By the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1786 BC) it was artificially raised to be in equilibrium but then that was 500 YEARS AFTER the GPs construction. 

cormac

[Kenemet]

To put this into (map) perspective, we're somehow expected to believe that the Egyptians would think it was logical to attempt to control the Nile water with very tiny pyramids (compared to the Nile River) from a spot 50 miles BEYOND the mouth of the lake itself -- and that it was only in the time of Amenenhat III that someone thought "hey, we can do this better by just digging out the old overflow channel that led straight to and from the Nile, not 2 miles away" 

This doesn't even make sense in modern times with modern equipment, you know.

 

[Brianbabs56]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I think you're not understanding what your link says:

1)  In the EARLY PALEOLITHIC Lake Moeris was ABOVE sea level.

2)  By 10,000 BP it was LOWER

3)  Between 4000 BP and 11,000 BP it rose again, but DOES NOT SAY it was above sea level

4)  By the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1786 BC) it was artificially raised to be in equilibrium but then that was 500 YEARS AFTER the GPs construction. 

cormac

It can't be a coincidence that the lake being artificially raised was around 2000 BC, which was around the same time as the Pyramid's construction. There is no way they can date the lake back to a perfect date, it is an educated guess base on geographical evidence. Same with the exact date of the Pyramid. 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Brianbabs56 said:

It can't be a coincidence that the lake being artificially raised was around 2000 BC, which was around the same time as the Pyramid's construction. There is no way they can date the lake back to a perfect date, it is an educated guess base on geographical evidence. Same with the exact date of the Pyramid. 

The Great Pyramid, built during Khufu's reign, would have been built circa 2550 BC. What happened during the time of Amenemhat is irrelevant. 

Actually they can date fossil fish remains, human habitation remains, hearth remains, etc. to give an approximate date. Just as they can do with organic remains found in the mortar used in the GP to determine an approximate date for its construction. The two DON'T match. 

cormac

[Brianbabs56]

3 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

To put this into (map) perspective, we're somehow expected to believe that the Egyptians would think it was logical to attempt to control the Nile water with very tiny pyramids (compared to the Nile River) from a spot 50 miles BEYOND the mouth of the lake itself -- and that it was only in the time of Amenenhat III that someone thought "hey, we can do this better by just digging out the old overflow channel that led straight to and from the Nile, not 2 miles away" 

This doesn't even make sense in modern times with modern equipment, you know.

 

We address the reason for why they took the water 50 miles up river in our paper. You would save yourself and me a lot of time if you actually read it. The Lake was made as overflow control, and the Pyramid was made as a means of routing water back down to the Nile and giving them the ability to stop water flow when they needed to. This would help with food control and act as a sort of "filter" when too many people began living on the Nile and farming in it's Waters. 

[Brianbabs56]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

The Great Pyramid, built during Khufu's reign, would have been built circa 2550 BC. What happened during the time of Amenemhat is irrelevant. 

Actually they can date fossil fish remains, human habitation remains, hearth remains, etc. to give an approximate date. Just as they can do with organic remains found in the mortar used in the GP to determine an approximate date for its construction. The two DON'T match. 

cormac

You said it yourself, they can "approximate" a date. You really don't think when you're trying to date things back 10's of thousands of years you can be off by a couple hundred?

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

You said it yourself, they can "approximate" a date. You really don't think when you're trying to date things back 10's of thousands of years you can be off by a couple hundred?

We're not talking 10s of thousands of years ago, we're talking 4500/4600 years at most to be relevant to the discussion. It's obvious that YOU don't remotely understand dating methods or what current analysis has shown to have any reasonable expectation of being taken seriously as to 'what' the dates have shown. And their ranges ARE NOT in the "10s of thousands" of years but vary by as little as 100 to 200 years, depending on subject.

cormac

Edited May 23, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

3 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Hey @cladking regarding the checking of elevations, we are actually going to Giza later this year to do that and will update everyone when we do. Also I'm curious if you've read the entire theory. The Lake is 50 miles up river, so it's not inconceivable that the elevation of it would be somewhere around that of the Grand Gallery. Regarding the blocks being moved, we show how the blocks could easily be moved to the foundation for building. We also have a video showing how they would have been raised after this point, there are errors in the videos but in our third one we raise a 2000 pound block 6 inches in less than a minute. 

It's great to see you here and invested in your theory.  I hope it pans out for you.

The Fayuum Depression was the second place I researched as a water source.   It didn't work for my theory but you might have a little better luck with it.

I believe this region marked the original route of the Nile with the sea but not in the last two glacial epochs.   During these periods the sea level dropped causing the rivers including the Nile to drop a mile and a half and carve a canyon all the way to Aswan.  This caused caves to form down to a mile and a half.  As the fiorde filled with sediment a dead end arm of the Nile entered the Fayuum.  This is very unnatural and suggests some king of egress for that water.  The salinity suggests it is now impounded in this region.   Finding data was very difficult when I started in '06 but to the best of my reckoning and memory water from this region wouldn't rise more than about 50' on the pyramid.  Do check this.   There's quite a bit of volcanic activity along the Nile which almost sits on the Great African Rift.  In the south are a brand new mountain range and carbonated Lake Kivu and in northern Sudan are two volcanoes.  This area is a transform plate boundary and is rapidly becoming an expanding plate boundary so there are warm springs both both east and west of Giza with the nearest only about 20 miles away.  There is apparently carbonated water in the bottom of the Osiris Shaft.  There is also one of the largest karst sinkholes a little north of the Fayuum called "The ******* of the World" that is very interesting and could be about the same age as the pyramids.  This is based on appearances only though and I've seen no expert opinion on the subject.   

This entire area has some truly fascinating geology but data is very difficult to acquire.  There even appears to have been a river just north of Giza flowing eastward in the 4th dynasty.  Flow was likely seasonal.  The same water source no powers the "Great Manmade River Project" in Libya.   It is sometimes called the 'Ur Nile" I believe.  Despite intensive searching I can could find no evidence for canals or aqueducts leading to Giza.   There are, amazingly, canals leading down from the pyramids which show they had some sort of water source.   

Good luck.  I'll be very interested in everything you find as well as your conclusions.  

[Brianbabs56]

13 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

We're not talking 10s of thousands of years ago, we're talking 4500/4600 years at most to be relevant to the discussion. It's obvious that YOU don't remotely understand dating methods or what current analysis has shown to have any reasonable expectation of being taken seriously as to 'what' the dates have shown. And their ranges ARE NOT in the "10s of thousands" of years but vary by as little as 100 to 200 years, depending on subject.

cormac

Are you saying that the Pyramid and Lake Moeris' dates are off by 200 years each? That would line then up perfectly. Thank you for coroberating us. 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

 

 

Cormac mac airt  seems to put the death blow to your theory, the difference in elevation. would require water to be pumped. The lake is 50 miles upriver in a declivity, the pyramids are on a plateau.   Don't get lost in generalities like upriver and water flowing downhill and forget about site geography. 

 

 

The bottom of the lake is below sea level.  

The top of the lake was much higher at high Nile and this is 30 miles upriver so higher elevation than Giza.  

The real problem is the pyramids are high up in the desert.  

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Are you saying that the Pyramid and Lake Moeris' dates are off by 200 years each? That would line then up perfectly. Thank you for coroberating us. 

NO, what I'm saying is that the pyramid dates actually vary from circa 2500 to 2700 BC, which is likely due to the "old wood" debate whereas the dates for the Faiyum/Lake Moeris area are significantly YOUNGER. 

cormac

[Brianbabs56]

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

It's great to see you here and invested in your theory.  I hope it pans out for you.

The Fayuum Depression was the second place I researched as a water source.   It didn't work for my theory but you might have a little better luck with it.

I believe this region marked the original route of the Nile with the sea but not in the last two glacial epochs.   During these periods the sea level dropped causing the rivers including the Nile to drop a mile and a half and carve a canyon all the way to Aswan.  This caused caves to form down to a mile and a half.  As the fiorde filled with sediment a dead end arm of the Nile entered the Fayuum.  This is very unnatural and suggests some king of egress for that water.  The salinity suggests it is now impounded in this region.   Finding data was very difficult when I started in '06 but to the best of my reckoning and memory water from this region wouldn't rise more than about 50' on the pyramid.  Do check this.   There's quite a bit of volcanic activity along the Nile which almost sits on the Great African Rift.  In the south are a brand new mountain range and carbonated Lake Kivu and in northern Sudan are two volcanoes.  This area is a transform plate boundary and is rapidly becoming an expanding plate boundary so there are warm springs both both east and west of Giza with the nearest only about 20 miles away.  There is apparently carbonated water in the bottom of the Osiris Shaft.  There is also one of the largest karst sinkholes a little north of the Fayuum called "The ******* of the World" that is very interesting and could be about the same age as the pyramids.  This is based on appearances only though and I've seen no expert opinion on the subject.   

This entire area has some truly fascinating geology but data is very difficult to acquire.  There even appears to have been a river just north of Giza flowing eastward in the 4th dynasty.  Flow was likely seasonal.  The same water source no powers the "Great Manmade River Project" in Libya.   It is sometimes called the 'Ur Nile" I believe.  Despite intensive searching I can could find no evidence for canals or aqueducts leading to Giza.   There are, amazingly, canals leading down from the pyramids which show they had some sort of water source.   

Good luck.  I'll be very interested in everything you find as well as your conclusions.  

Awesome! Thank you so much for the help and the kind words. We appreciate people that comment or criticize with basis behind what they say, it is clear that you understand Egypt and we will gladly let you know what we find. 

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

 Thank you for coroberating us. 

So educamated! 

I watched your video. Your certainly not going to get your point across using terrible slapstick. At the very least hire a writer. 

[Brianbabs56]

16 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

NO, what I'm saying is that the pyramid dates actually vary from circa 2500 to 2700 BC, which is likely due to the "old wood" debate whereas the dates for the Faiyum/Lake Moeris area are significantly YOUNGER. 

cormac

Ok, in that link it says between 11,000-4,000 years ago the Nile rose and gradually subsided, then someone came and artificially raised it. The 11,000-4,000 year point doesn't give any elevations, so whether it was in that range which perfectly fits with the pyramid dates, or it was the artificial raising and the dates are off, either one can work with our theory. 

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Ok, in that link it says between 11,000-4,000 years ago the Nile rose and gradually subsided, then someone came and artificially raised it. The 11,000-4,000 year point doesn't give any elevations, so whether it was in that range which perfectly fits with the pyramid dates, or it was the artificial raising and the dates are off, either one can work with our theory. 

So, making it up as you go along, gotcha. 

cormac

[Brianbabs56]

12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

So, making it up as you go along, gotcha. 

cormac

You seem to have found a lot of holes in our theory. Can you tell me what we say the open 8 inch shaft was for, or the block in the Grotto? If you can't answer that you obviously didn't read it. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Brianbabs56

[cormac mac airt]

6 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

You seem to have found a lot of holes in our theory. Can you tell me what we say the open 8 inch shaft was for, or the block in the Grotto?

I think you need to go back and research, really research, the history and topography/geology and dates/dating methods used (amongst other things) and try again because just what you’ve posted here so far has more holes than Swiss Cheese. It’s one thing to be wrong but the premise for this thread wasn’t adequately researched to begin with. As the saying goes “garbage in, garbage out”. Nice bit of fiction though. 

cormac

[Brianbabs56]

11 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I think you need to go back and research, really research, the history and topography/geology and dates/dating methods used (amongst other things) and try again because just what you’ve posted here so far has more holes than Swiss Cheese. It’s one thing to be wrong but the premise for this thread wasn’t adequately researched to begin with. As the saying goes “garbage in, garbage out”. Nice bit of fiction though. 

cormac

I will refer to my question and put it simpler because you obviously don't understand. It is idiotic to criticize something you haven't read.