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 -
Sign in to follow this  
WVK

GP a theory by Lloyd and Brian Babineau

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

WVK

"By using historical evidence, historian's writings, as well as not attributing the Great Pyramid to Aliens or advanced technology, we have succesfully linked all components in and around the Great Pyramid together in a logical way. We have also been able to solve other anomalies like how they transported the blocks across the desert for building."

https://www.academia.edu/39143820/The_Great_Pyramid_a_theory_by_Lloyd_and_Brian_Babineau?email_work_card=view-paper

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
10 minutes ago, WVK said:

"By using historical evidence, historian's writings, as well as not attributing the Great Pyramid to Aliens or advanced technology, we have succesfully linked all components in and around the Great Pyramid together in a logical way. We have also been able to solve other anomalies like how they transported the blocks across the desert for building."

https://www.academia.edu/39143820/The_Great_Pyramid_a_theory_by_Lloyd_and_Brian_Babineau?email_work_card=view-paper

 

Wasn't this discussed on this forum last year?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
Just now, Windowpane said:

Wasn't this discussed on this forum last year?

I've got a good memory but it's short.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Wasn't this discussed on this forum last year?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/327827-the-great-pyramid-babineau-theory/#comments

 

I've read their 'paper', and all last year's comments.  It's a silly theory, thoroughly destroyed by Kenemet at her most withering.  It excited Cladking - what more needs be said?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

This may be of interest. The title sounds woo, and the author was once woo, but has seen the light. It's 90 minutes, I don't agree with everything he proposes, and a civil engineer/architect would need to say if we have something possible or impossible, but it is interesting, and at times he makes some very pertinent points about the nature of the structure that trash wooism and bury it. Some of the points will be very familar, but this is interesting as it puts the main objections to woo in one place, and very succinctly. I suspect this guy will be not unknown to a number of forumites here, but if you have come across him in the past and dismissed him as woo, and rightly so as he has produced some utter rubbish, be truely amazed at his transformation.

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Watched the first 23 minutes and will finish later - you can skip the first 8 minutes as all he talks about is how much he knows, how open minded he is and what he done to achieve that. Skipable. His voice delivery is a bit annoying like intermittent machine gun fire in the distance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet

Yeah, probably only the last 40 mins or so is worth it for the many who have rehearsed some of these arguments over and over. It's how he has presented the work of Gantenbrink and Houdin that is the meat here, particularly Gantenbrink.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
23 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The title sounds woo, and the author was once woo

 

 

Okaaay, so while the content of the video is good, there's no denying that, some aspects of that channel have been pointed out to me via the admin of another forum. It jogged a memory and I now realize that this plagiarism is deep and widespread. This video may have hit nerve with some here, and it has with me, now that I realize that some of my work elsewhere on Amarna seems to have been "borrowed". I begin to wonder if it's worth setting out anything original on a public forum again, but what can we do, just keep silent when we have something to say that may be of at least some passing interest outside our own home or the pub.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane
12 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

...

I begin to wonder if it's worth setting out anything original on a public forum again, but what can we do, just keep silent when we have something to say that may be of at least some passing interest outside our own home or the pub.

If anyone has an original theory that they might want to consider publishing more formally at some stage, they might want to think very carefully before presenting too many details on a public forum.

Regrettably, not everyone has the common decency to give proper attribution.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
On 12/6/2020 at 3:22 PM, Wepwawet said:

Yeah, probably only the last 40 mins or so is worth it for the many who have rehearsed some of these arguments over and over. It's how he has presented the work of Gantenbrink and Houdin that is the meat here, particularly Gantenbrink.

Watched it and found it of interest but his voice drove me crazy. I had seen the idea long ago of an enlarged GP/great pyramids and that fits with Djosers and a few other expanded pyramids. Not sure if the lengths of the shafts is that strong of proof. They may have simply abandoned the QSS when nutty old Khufu changed his mind again - however an expansion might explain why things are off centered.

I support the idea that Khufu was an eccentric nut and his wild flights of fancy can be seen in the oddities within the G1 his son Khafre wasn't and his pyramids is plain old vanilla....as far as we know.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Watched it and found it of interest but his voice drove me crazy. I had seen the idea long ago of an enlarged GP/great pyramids and that fits with Djosers and a few other expanded pyramids. Not sure if the lengths of the shafts is that strong of proof. They may have simply abandoned the QSS when nutty old Khufu changed his mind again - however an expansion might explain why things are off centered.

I support the idea that Khufu was an eccentric nut and his wild flights of fancy can be seen in the oddities within the G1 his son Khafre wasn't and his pyramids is plain old vanilla....as far as we know.

I'm skeptical of the idea that the shafts were to allow the waters to pour into the burial chamber from one side and them "flush" him out the other side. However, the height of the bottom of the shafts being the same and coming just short of the lid of the sarcophagus, thus forming a "primeval mound" if symbolically flooded, seems to be in favour of this idea. Eccentric might be the thing here, and Khufu might have been an early type of Akhenaten, or, G1 may have been serving a religious purpose for the entire site, but not connected with modern woo nonsense concocted by those who do not know their mwtw from their akhw

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'm skeptical of the idea that the shafts were to allow the waters to pour into the burial chamber from one side and them "flush" him out the other side. However, the height of the bottom of the shafts being the same and coming just short of the lid of the sarcophagus, thus forming a "primeval mound" if symbolically flooded, seems to be in favour of this idea. Eccentric might be the thing here, and Khufu might have been an early type of Akhenaten, or, G1 may have been serving a religious purpose for the entire site, but not connected with modern woo nonsense concocted by those who do not know their mwtw from their akhw

Okay I'll bite: what does the Portland, Maine News and Weather - WMTW Channel 8 have to do with Egypt and akhw is a sound a camel makes when it throws up. `\_(")_/`

Share this post


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

Okay I'll bite: what does the Portland, Maine News and Weather - WMTW Channel 8 have to do with Egypt and akhw is a sound a camel makes when it throws up. `\_(")_/`

 

mwtw = the dead in general terms, the w at the end makes it plural. akhw is the plural of akh. The context in plural as opposed to singular being that, particularly with mwtw, a taboo word for the most part, we are looking at "demons", and an akh can be malevolent. A pyramidiot will know what an akh is, but throw a plural on the end and they are lost, particularly using a w instead of a u, as is normaly the case in names such as Nebkheperure. mwtw will be right out of left field. As I'm sure you can guess, this is part of the general complaint about the fringe that they may well know as much as anybody about G1, but outside of their comfort zone Ancient Egypt is a closed book to them.

Later edit. I had in mind the PT "lapis lazuli" issue elswhere. Here the dead king joined with Ra, and with his powers, is formidable and dangerous, as are all the dead, potentially.

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'm skeptical of the idea that the shafts were to allow the waters to pour into the burial chamber from one side and them "flush" him out the other side. However, the height of the bottom of the shafts being the same and coming just short of the lid of the sarcophagus, thus forming a "primeval mound" if symbolically flooded, seems to be in favour of this idea. Eccentric might be the thing here, and Khufu might have been an early type of Akhenaten, or, G1 may have been serving a religious purpose for the entire site, but not connected with modern woo nonsense concocted by those who do not know their mwtw from their akhw

Sakovich's theory is nonsense. Explaining the Shafts in Khufu's Pyramid at Giza

The lynch pin of Sakovich's theory is that the sarcophagus came to symbolize the "primordial mound" which required the "flooding waters" in his scheme represented by the cosmos hence the need for the shafts to "flood" the chamber and the "primordial mound" symbolized by the sarcophagus. This is gobbledygook. 

1st Dynasty sarcophagi are fragmentary, but in the 2nd Dynasty there are numerous examples which in one form or another are made to emulate the serekh palace facade building:
1st Dynasty Djet (example of serekh building not a sarcophagus):

djet11349803056765.jpg

2nd Dynasty sarcophagus:

article-1280801-09B7987B000005DC-119_634

4th Dynasty:

Menkaure:

59dd08d0880ff-73.jpg

 

V07PnUM.jpg

Such examples are ubiquitous from the mid 4th Dynasty onward in the OK.

In Unas's case, though missing from the sarcophagus itself, the serekh building is instead painted on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber:

pyra-factslunas3.jpg

MK (coffin fragment):

d5078774l.jpg

NK:

main-qimg-ab6e4dde6a955e1d299cf6cea3fec9

So, no, sarcophagi in the OK, or ever, had anything to do with the "primordial mound" or the "flooding waters", but rather the palace façade building of the serekh that goes back to Dynasty 0, arguably the single most important piece of iconography in the history of Dynastic Egypt. Yet Sakovich doesn't even mention it. It is imposing later beliefs on an earlier era, assuming they are one and the same, all the while ignoring the actual facts of the period suffering the imposition that clearly say something to the contrary. It also ignores the greater context of pyramids at large that do not share this "cosmic water system" in any which way, before or after G1. 

This is basic stuff which anyone familiar with early Dynastic sarcophagi would know this. Not to mention it is well understood the "primordial mound" is actually symbolized by the Ben Ben stone, a pyramidion, which is what arose from these very primordial waters. The Ben Ben has been found in Heliopolis dating back to 3,800BC whose meaning is consistent throughout AE history including the OK. So not only does he impose meaning on sarcophagi they don't actually have, he completely ignores the Ben Ben which actually is the symbol of the primordial mound from the most ancient of times.

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
11 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Sakovich's theory is nonsense.

And I agree as there is absolutely nothing within any burial chamber, excepting any designs painted on it's walls, that have the primal mound as part of it's structure either physical or metaphysical, and the Osireion is of course not the tomb of a king. However, taking his idea at face value and it is possible to see a fit, even if wrong. By that I mean that he is looking at the shafts and where they are placed and coming up with a reason that is not totally off the wall. Also, we still do not know their purpose, and G1 is unique and, IMO, needs some lateral and out of the box thinking, as long as it does not involve aliens and the like. I put forward the idea, not strongly and only as chucking something out to see it had any legs, that the shafts look like the lines that are used much later in "Books of the Netherworld" emenating from the point at which Ra, Osiris and the dead king resurrect. It needs ideas putting forward, even if only to show they are wrong and need not be returned to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
Quote

 The Ben Ben has been found in Heliopolis dating back to 3,800BC whose meaning is consistent throughout AE history including the OK. 

Can you provide any details whatsoever about this? 

Are you referring to a drawing of a ben ben?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
atalante
21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

And I agree as there is absolutely nothing within any burial chamber, excepting any designs painted on it's walls, that have the primal mound as part of it's structure either physical or metaphysical, and the Osireion is of course not the tomb of a king. However, taking [Sakovitch's] idea at face value and it is possible to see a fit, even if wrong. By that I mean that he is looking at the shafts and where they are placed and coming up with a reason that is not totally off the wall. Also, we still do not know their purpose, and G1 is unique and, IMO, needs some lateral and out of the box thinking, as long as it does not involve aliens and the like. I put forward the idea, not strongly and only as chucking something out to see it had any legs, that the shafts look like the lines that are used much later in "Books of the Netherworld" emenating from the point at which Ra, Osiris and the dead king resurrect. It needs ideas putting forward, even if only to show they are wrong and need not be returned to.

The shafts likely to have implemented "sympathetic magic", as Sakovitch says in the concluding paragraph of his article.  My impression is that the shafts are imitating a surprisingly upside-down siphon pump, through use of a "sympathetic magic".  Ordinary siphon systems can move water continuously, after they are initially primed and begin to conduct the siphoned water.   And since any mummy is created by making it de-hydrated, some magic [like these shafts] could be postulated to re-hydrate a mummy.  

Sakovitch's "primeval mound" discussion becomes irrelevant if the Great Pyramid's shafts were intended to be a magical siphon system, to pull water down from the sky, and then exit back into the sky. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
3 hours ago, cladking said:

Can you provide any details whatsoever about this? 

So you can do what with it? I wrote this a while ago and can't find the source off hand. IIRC, according to the source urbanization of Heliopolis dates to c 3800BC which there was an early cult center dated to this time that a Benben found was thought to be associated with. 

Quote

Are you referring to a drawing of a ben ben?

No. 

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking
36 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

So you can do what with it? I wrote this a while ago and can't find the source off hand. IIRC, according to the source urbanization of Heliopolis dates to c 3800BC which there was an early cult center dated to this time that a Benben found was thought to be associated with. 

No. 

Perhaps you got this idea from me since one of the utterances in the Pyramid Texts specifically states a ben ben was hauled off to Heliopolis.  It's #599 or 600 IMS.

If it was me I'm sure you'll want to forget it.

Thank you for the response.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
19 minutes ago, cladking said:

Perhaps you got this idea from me since one of the utterances in the Pyramid Texts specifically states a ben ben was hauled off to Heliopolis.  It's #599 or 600 IMS.

If it was me I'm sure you'll want to forget it.

Thank you for the response.  

Good grief. You are so profoundly stupid, just the mere sight of the words you write sometimes makes me involuntarily punch myself in the face. 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 12/13/2020 at 11:40 AM, Wepwawet said:

And I agree as there is absolutely nothing within any burial chamber, excepting any designs painted on it's walls, that have the primal mound as part of it's structure either physical or metaphysical, and the Osireion is of course not the tomb of a king. However, taking his idea at face value and it is possible to see a fit, even if wrong. By that I mean that he is looking at the shafts and where they are placed and coming up with a reason that is not totally off the wall. Also, we still do not know their purpose, and G1 is unique and, IMO, needs some lateral and out of the box thinking, as long as it does not involve aliens and the like. I put forward the idea, not strongly and only as chucking something out to see it had any legs, that the shafts look like the lines that are used much later in "Books of the Netherworld" emenating from the point at which Ra, Osiris and the dead king resurrect. It needs ideas putting forward, even if only to show they are wrong and need not be returned to.

The pyramids were considered primordial mounds (per one of my fellow graduates in Egyptology, who attended a lot more lectures than I have (she lived in Egypt then but is originally from England https://www.flatsinluxor.co.uk/ancient-egyptian-pyramids-and-tombs/)  A primordial mound within a primordial mound isn't a theme that has ever been found in Egyptian art or iconography.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djedi
On 12/13/2020 at 6:00 PM, Thanos5150 said:

It is imposing later beliefs on an earlier era, assuming they are one and the same, all the while ignoring the actual facts of the period suffering the imposition that clearly say something to the contrary.

Glad to see you accept now that imposing later beliefs on an earlier era is bad methodology; you used to do this regarding the lack of decoration in (pre-Unas) pyramids. see your OP in this thread. Does this mean you are / have been reconsidering your views about the pyramids not being tombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
7 hours ago, Djedi said:

Glad to see you accept now that imposing later beliefs on an earlier era is bad methodology; you used to do this regarding the lack of decoration in (pre-Unas) pyramids. see your OP in this thread. Does this mean you are / have been reconsidering your views about the pyramids not being tombs?

Once again you lie and and purposefully misrepresent what others say. The OP has literally nothing to do with later beliefs, Unas/post Unas-doesn't even mention them, with the comparison being to contemporary mastabas. It literally says:

"Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare, a-typical of all the tombs surrounding the pyramids and abhorrent to their religion regardless..." 

And:

"These are certainly the more spectacular finds, yet tomb after tomb after tomb at Giza, thousands of artifacts, which says nothing of all of the artwork and writing covering their walls missing from pyramids as well, yet robbers were able to completely clean out the pyramids leaving no trace of a royal burial, supposedly fortresses built to prevent this very thing, yet so many of the tombs surrounding these pyramids, easy picking by comparison, contained at least some kind of funerary artifacts to be found nearly 5,000yrs later? And not one out the 37 pharaohs, regardless of how many pyramids they built, ever figured out how to protect their very reason for living, not to mention their subjects, which was to protect their dead body ensuring their passage in the afterlife?" 

This has been your MO from the beginning, but the question we ask ourselves with you once again is why did you just lie and purposefully misrepresent what I said? I expect an answer this time. 

 

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djedi
2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Once again you lie and and purposefully misrepresent what others say. The OP has literally nothing to do with later beliefs, Unas/post Unas-doesn't even mention them, with the comparison being to contemporary mastabas. It literally says:

"Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare, a-typical of all the tombs surrounding the pyramids and abhorrent to their religion regardless..." 

And:

"These are certainly the more spectacular finds, yet tomb after tomb after tomb at Giza, thousands of artifacts, which says nothing of all of the artwork and writing covering their walls missing from pyramids as well, yet robbers were able to completely clean out the pyramids leaving no trace of a royal burial, supposedly fortresses built to prevent this very thing, yet so many of the tombs surrounding these pyramids, easy picking by comparison, contained at least some kind of funerary artifacts to be found nearly 5,000yrs later? And not one out the 37 pharaohs, regardless of how many pyramids they built, ever figured out how to protect their very reason for living, not to mention their subjects, which was to protect their dead body ensuring their passage in the afterlife?" 

This has been your MO from the beginning, but the question we ask ourselves with you once again is why did you just lie and purposefully misrepresent what I said? I expect an answer this time. 

 

You're right, I mixed 2 things up*,  I forgot you compared the undecorated interior of the pyramids with the contemporary chapels of the mastabas which is a different methodological error altogether, what you were doing is comparing apples and pears (and thus a non starter).

To put it simple:

pyramid interior = mastaba slopping corridor / shaft and burial chamber

pyramid mortuary temple = mastaba chapel

Besides royal funerary architecture and private funerary architecture do not impose rules on each other, they influence each other. 

* Later in that thread I cautioned that projecting the custom of building cenotaphs (memorial chapels) at Abydos in the Middle Kingdom back in time to earlier dynasties was a bad idea.

 

 

Edited by Djedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
20 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The pyramids were considered primordial mounds (per one of my fellow graduates in Egyptology, who attended a lot more lectures than I have (she lived in Egypt then but is originally from England https://www.flatsinluxor.co.uk/ancient-egyptian-pyramids-and-tombs/)  A primordial mound within a primordial mound isn't a theme that has ever been found in Egyptian art or iconography.

Just so I am understanding you correctly- what you are saying is that this information, otherwise unknown to you, is according to one of your "fellow graduates in Egyptology" flat rental website who is only privy to such information compared to yourself because she "attended a lot more lectures"? And she lived in Egypt but is originally from England. Is this a haiku of some sort? Let me close my eyes and throw a few darts at sources about pyramids and see what they say: 

Verner, The Pyramids:

"The arrangement of the [pyramid] complex mirrored the ancient Egyptian's worldview: the beginning of the world was associated with the primeval mound the pyramid symbolized". 

Lehner, The Complete Pyramids:

"As an image of the primeval mound, the pyramid is, therefore, a place of creation and rebirth in the Abyss."

Or how about Wikipedia (with no source, but hey-who cares its Wikipedia so it must be true):

"The shape of Egyptian pyramids is thought to represent the primordial mound from which the Egyptians believed the earth was created." 

Or better yet, how about Ducksters Education Site for children:

"These pyramids represent a mound that emerged at the beginning of time."

....?  

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.