Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
WVK

The Great Pyramid Babineau Theory

110 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

cormac mac airt
16 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

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. 

Oh I read it, it’s just not worth spending much time on. Your entire premise is predicated on the assumption that Lake Moeris is higher than the base of the GP. As already shown in this thread AT NO TIME DURING KHUFU’S REIGN has that ever been shown to have been true. During the New Kingdom a 55 foot above sea level claim STILL wouldn't reach the base of the GP at around 200 feet, nor would it be relevant to the GPs construction. What’s left is a complete failure of your premise. 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
42 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

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. 

If you 'read' stuff why didn't you know where the limestone for the core came from? Why didn't you know the quarries were right next to the pyramids?

Dating: Here is the dating report on the old king ruins:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3874/3299

NtrvhPR.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, cladking said:

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.

 

"Almost sets on the Great African rift"........ah no.... the plates are shown with major rifts.

2195601_orig.jpg

EAfrica.png

The rift doesn't seem very close at all. The plate stuff is based on what Cladking? You do know if you make claims like this you will be asked to provide evidence? So you got any?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

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. 

First off, what you've linked isn't a paper.  It's written like an extended blog post, very disorganized, but mostly grammatically correct.  A paper begins with a statement of the problem under consideration, a review of the sources and previous claims (along with citations) and a brief discussion of these sources and previous claims (mostly to show that you do know what you're talking about.)

Secondly, every statement has to be backed up with fact and citations.  For example, you say "Described as spanning between the sub chamber and the Nile. (considered a watertight component)"... and the evidence for "watertight component" is that ... you say it is, in spite of the fact that it's demonstrably not airtight and that air molecules are smaller than water molecules (water molecules are 2.75 angstroms: https://www.reference.com/science/size-water-molecule-78a78df6fa7af22f which is larger than two oxygen atoms (the oxygen molecule),  but smaller than CO2 at 3 angstroms (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23372/whats-the-size-of-carbon-dioxide

If it leaks air, it's not watertight, either. 

You have not backed up any statement (for example, by proving that the GP is actually watertight because water pumps have to be kept inside the GP in order to keep water that flows down during the rains from forming a lake down there).  You've just said "this is the way it is."

Next, an engineering paper that shows hydraulic control will show the volumes of water involved.  You make a claim about it controlling the flood of the Nile without stating how big the flood is, evidence from the Nileometers that it was controlled, volume of water transported on an hourly basis (and show that it's large enough to impact a flood that's 300 times the size of a Mississippi River flood) and evidence of statements from monuments showing the titles of the officials who were in charge of this, the evidence that they could engineer hydraulics, the explanation of why they didn't do it elsewhere.  You also have to show that it was more efficient and pumped more water than the Bahr Yussef, which was constructed by Amenenhat III  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahr_Yussef (that the pyramid somehow manages to pump out more water than can fill a canal 15 feet deep and 15 fkilometers long.  You will also have to show soil profiles that show it was active during the time you propose.

The data, by the way, is out there.  It doesn't support what you say, but it's out there. 

The pyramids are't 50 miles upriver from the Fayum and the lake.  The pyramids are down river. The water has already passed the Fayum and Lake Moeris, 50 miles before it gets near the pyramids of Giza.

And the Nile at that point is over a mile wide.

The lake was a natural overflow area before the pyramids existed. (reference: 1905 book on the geology and history of the Fayum: https://archive.org/details/cu31924004049338/page/n6)

 

And in my next post, I will go point by point over the document you uploaded, just to prove that I did read it once and for all.

Edited by Kenemet
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

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. 

To repeat what I’ve said elsewhere, you don’t have to go to Detroit to know it smells bad. In the same way — and moan about grammar nazis all you like — we don’t have to read the paper written by someone who repeatedly misspells words like were and corroborate to know it’s lacking in academic rigor. 

And if you can’t take a negative reaction here without becoming petulant, you have no chance in convincing academics in the field. 

(And Kenemet, amongst others here, is one. You ought to be delighted she’s giving you any feedback at all, not whining about it.)

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
52 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

First off, what you've linked isn't a paper.  It's written like an extended blog post, very disorganized, but mostly grammatically correct.  A paper begins with a statement of the problem under consideration, a review of the sources and previous claims (along with citations) and a brief discussion of these sources and previous claims (mostly to show that you do know what you're talking about.)

Secondly, every statement has to be backed up with fact and citations.  For example, you say "Described as spanning between the sub chamber and the Nile. (considered a watertight component)"... and the evidence for "watertight component" is that ... you say it is, in spite of the fact that it's demonstrably not airtight and that air molecules are smaller than water molecules (water molecules are 2.75 angstroms: https://www.reference.com/science/size-water-molecule-78a78df6fa7af22f which is larger than two oxygen atoms (the oxygen molecule),  but smaller than CO2 at 3 angstroms (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23372/whats-the-size-of-carbon-dioxide

If it leaks air, it's not watertight, either. 

You have not backed up any statement (for example, by proving that the GP is actually watertight because water pumps have to be kept inside the GP in order to keep water that flows down during the rains from forming a lake down there).  You've just said "this is the way it is."

Next, an engineering paper that shows hydraulic control will show the volumes of water involved.  You make a claim about it controlling the flood of the Nile without stating how big the flood is, evidence from the Nileometers that it was controlled, volume of water transported on an hourly basis (and show that it's large enough to impact a flood that's 300 times the size of a Mississippi River flood) and evidence of statements from monuments showing the titles of the officials who were in charge of this, the evidence that they could engineer hydraulics, the explanation of why they didn't do it elsewhere.  You also have to show that it was more efficient and pumped more water than the Bahr Yussef, which was constructed by Amenenhat III  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahr_Yussef (that the pyramid somehow manages to pump out more water than can fill a canal 15 feet deep and 15 fkilometers long.  You will also have to show soil profiles that show it was active during the time you propose.

The data, by the way, is out there.  It doesn't support what you say, but it's out there. 

The pyramids are't 50 miles upriver from the Fayum and the lake.  The pyramids are down river. The water has already passed the Fayum and Lake Moeris, 50 miles before it gets near the pyramids of Giza.

And the Nile at that point is over a mile wide.

The lake was a natural overflow area before the pyramids existed. (reference: 1905 book on the geology and history of the Fayum: https://archive.org/details/cu31924004049338/page/n6)

 

And in my next post, I will go point by point over the document you uploaded, just to prove that I did read it once and for all.

We never said there were pumps, nowhere in it did we say or imply that, it was gravity fed. We also never stated the pyramid is upriver from the Lake, it is down river, which is why we believe the elevations will match. Let me tell you a shortened theory in a comment. 

Water flowed from the Nile to Lake Moeris, filling the lake during the flood season. It was then routed through the pipeline DOWNRIVER to the Pyramid, where it flowed out of the swivel door because of gravity. I can go on but if you read the theory I wouldn't need to. Based on your note to us, it's evident that you didn't read it, you simply uploaded it to Grammarly to know it is grammatically correct. Why have you spent so much time refuting something without first reading it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

To repeat what I’ve said elsewhere, you don’t have to go to Detroit to know it smells bad. In the same way — and moan about grammar nazis all you like — we don’t have to read the paper written by someone who repeatedly misspells words like were and corroborate to know it’s lacking in academic rigor. 

And if you can’t take a negative reaction here without becoming petulant, you have no chance in convincing academics in the field. 

(And Kenemet, amongst others here, is one. You ought to be delighted she’s giving you any feedback at all, not whining about it.)

—Jaylemurph 

So your evidence that our theory is wrong is me making a typo? And as far as the grammar Nazis comment, everyone was trolling and we decided to roll with the punches. Sorry if that was offensive but you have to admit it was funny. Nothing was meant by it but a laugh. My bad

Edited by Brianbabs56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
8 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

We never said there were pumps, nowhere in it did we say or imply that, it was gravity fed. We also never stated the pyramid is upriver from the Lake, it is down river, which is why we believe the elevations will match. Let me tell you a shortened theory in a comment. 

Water flowed from the Nile to Lake Moeris, filling the lake during the flood season. It was then routed through the pipeline DOWNRIVER to the Pyramid, where it flowed out of the swivel door because of gravity. I can go on but if you read the theory I wouldn't need to. Based on your note to us, it's evident that you didn't read it, you simply uploaded it to Grammarly to know it is grammatically correct. Why have you spent so much time refuting something without first reading it?

So in this theory what was G2 for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

So in this theory what was G2 for?

I'm sorry but I don't know what G2 means, it's nowhere in our theory. Is that a component we are missing or abbreviation for something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
17 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

I'm sorry but I don't know what G2 means, it's nowhere in our theory. Is that a component we are missing or abbreviation for something?

G2 is Khafre's pyramid, G3 is Menkaure's, and G1 is Khufu's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
2 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

G2 is Khafre's pyramid, G3 is Menkaure's, and G1 is Khufu's.

We never mention that pyramid, it has no relevance to our theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56

@Kenemet We do appreciate your watertight comment! We have edited our paper to remove that point because you are right, there is no way the system that was made 5000 years ago could have been watertight. We changed it to say this: "When we say “watertight” we are not implying they had the blocks watertight by today's standard, this would be impossible without technology. It was simply the best they could do back then. The blocks were placed with the intention of being watertight, but many would probably sweat water." It is a PDF document that we can't change but we will work on uploading the revised paper soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
39 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

...

you simply uploaded it to Grammarly to know it is grammatically correct.

...

 

Why do you assume that a text would have to be checked by Grammarly in order to identify grammatical errors?  Does it not occur to you that it might be possible to recognise such errors without the use of software?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
1 minute ago, Windowpane said:

 

Why do you assume that a text would have to be checked by Grammarly in order to identify grammatical errors?  Does it not occur to you that it might be possible to recognise such errors without the use of software?  

Because that would require someone to actually read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

@Kenemet We do appreciate your watertight comment! We have edited our paper to remove that point because you are right, there is no way the system that was made 5000 years ago could have been watertight. We changed it to say this: "When we say “watertight” we are not implying they had the blocks watertight by today's standard, this would be impossible without technology. It was simply the best they could do back then. The blocks were placed with the intention of being watertight, but many would probably sweat water." It is a PDF document that we can't change but we will work on uploading the revised paper soon. 

There's nothing wrong with "water tight" but you need to remember that when applying it to natural materials there will always be some wastage.  There are various means to reduce the leakage but in most applications it will just means that more water is required to go into the system than to come out.  One such method of reducing the leakage could be to apply fine mud to the systems at night when they are not being used;

Utterance 279.

420a. To say: N., I have trampled the mud of the water-courses. Thot is the protector of N.,

420b. when it is dark, when it is dark.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt14.htm

There are numerous ways to stop leaking but the desert sand composed of various sized grains of sand and marl would be very effective at slowing leakage.  A great deal could be learned about this with a lot of experience and would represent human progress when enough is learned.  So long as the total area that is losing water is small compared to the volume available any wastage is inconsequential.  

Certainly the water loss should be insignificant compared to the amount they mustta used to keep their sand ramps wet.  :rolleyes:

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
7 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

We never mention that pyramid, it has no relevance to our theory.

I understand and agree.

A bit of friendly advice though.  Try to pay attention to all the  great pyramids because there is probably a process and technique used to build them all so there may be clues to how G1 was built in the Red Pyramid or any of them and vice versa.   The great pyramids got larger and larger for many centuries suggesting a learning curve.  The first great pyramid was Djoser's (the so-called "Step Pyramid) and it certainly appears that they learned in steps how to build larger and larger. 

step_pyramid.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
8 hours ago, Brianbabs56 said:

We never mention that pyramid, it has no relevance to our theory.

Then why'd the ancient Egyptian build it? Its right next to G1. If they built G1 to support your idea what is G2 for?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Again, contrary to this new "theory" the premise is completely invalid as exampled below:

5ce6b3ee43b6c_ActualrelationshipofLakeMoerisduringNEWKINGDOMtotheGreatPyramidinsealevelelevation.thumb.jpg.0e8e654545356ece73489eba3c1b5c73.jpg 

While obviously a rough representation the above shows the relationship in elevation of the GP (in black at @ 200 ft ASL) to the surface of Lake Moeris (blue at @ 55 ft ASL), as suggested previously in this thread during the NEW KINGDOM, some 500+ years AFTER the GP was constructed. The bottom line is SEA LEVEL. Water cannot be fed from the lake to the base of the GP, nor even to the height of the Entrance for egress. Simply relying on gravity it is NOT possible. 

cormac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
30 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Again, contrary to this new "theory" the premise is completely invalid as exampled below:

5ce6b3ee43b6c_ActualrelationshipofLakeMoerisduringNEWKINGDOMtotheGreatPyramidinsealevelelevation.thumb.jpg.0e8e654545356ece73489eba3c1b5c73.jpg 

While obviously a rough representation the above shows the relationship in elevation of the GP (in black at @ 200 ft ASL) to the surface of Lake Moeris (blue at @ 55 ft ASL), as suggested previously in this thread during the NEW KINGDOM, some 500+ years AFTER the GP was constructed. The bottom line is SEA LEVEL. Water cannot be fed from the lake to the base of the GP, nor even to the height of the Entrance for egress. Simply relying on gravity it is NOT possible. 

cormac

Well then Cormac are you suggesting a cool idea be abandoned merely because the situation as outlined above is impossible? Can't we just wish it weren't?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
2 hours ago, cladking said:

I understand and agree.

A bit of friendly advice though.  Try to pay attention to all the  great pyramids because there is probably a process and technique used to build them all so there may be clues to how G1 was built in the Red Pyramid or any of them and vice versa.   The great pyramids got larger and larger for many centuries suggesting a learning curve.  The first great pyramid was Djoser's (the so-called "Step Pyramid) and it certainly appears that they learned in steps how to build larger and larger. 

step_pyramid.jpg

 

Thank you for your comments! You obviously do have knowledge on this subject and we appreciate you spending time helping us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
10 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Well then Cormac are you suggesting a cool idea be abandoned merely because the situation as outlined above is impossible? Can't we just wish it weren't?

Apparently it was either magic water or an anti-gravity generator was used. :lol:

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Then why'd the ancient Egyptian build it? Its right next to G1. If they built G1 to support your idea what is G2 for?

Khufu's pyramid is obviously different than the rest, that is why it is the 7th wonder if the ancient world. Its the one with unexplainable Chambers in it and pipelines coming off of it, and is why we wrote about it. The other pyramids in the area are similar to every other Pyramid in Egypt, still amazing but not the 7th wonder of the ancient world amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
9 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Thank you for your comments! You obviously do have knowledge on this subject and we appreciate you spending time helping us. 

Yes he is helping you (in my opinion) in the hope you'll ask him about HIS theory and he'll then hijack this thread for his 200th plus rendition and rant about the 'geyser' built pyramid....He is probably envious of you having produced a written proposal/position paper while in nearly 13 years he's never produced anything but his endlessly repeated opinions.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, Brianbabs56 said:

Khufu's pyramid is obviously different than the rest, that is why it is the 7th wonder if the ancient world. Its the one with unexplainable Chambers in it and pipelines coming off of it, and is why we wrote about it. The other pyramids in the area are similar to every other Pyramid in Egypt, still amazing but not the 7th wonder of the ancient world amazing. 

Evidence of pipelines?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brianbabs56
56 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Again, contrary to this new "theory" the premise is completely invalid as exampled below:

5ce6b3ee43b6c_ActualrelationshipofLakeMoerisduringNEWKINGDOMtotheGreatPyramidinsealevelelevation.thumb.jpg.0e8e654545356ece73489eba3c1b5c73.jpg 

While obviously a rough representation the above shows the relationship in elevation of the GP (in black at @ 200 ft ASL) to the surface of Lake Moeris (blue at @ 55 ft ASL), as suggested previously in this thread during the NEW KINGDOM, some 500+ years AFTER the GP was constructed. The bottom line is SEA LEVEL. Water cannot be fed from the lake to the base of the GP, nor even to the height of the Entrance for egress. Simply relying on gravity it is NOT possible. 

cormac

That is why we are heading to Giza later this year to test elevations. Water in the Nile flows past Lake Moeris then continues to flow 50 miles to Cairo, then out into the sea. If the slope of the Nile is 1 inch per 100 feet (almost perfectly flat) between the 2, the Nile would still work for our theory. Then assuming the lake was put in equilibrium with the Nile, the lake would have to work too. We aren't ruling out the possibility that we are wrong, which is why we are going to test it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.