Chris Jordan wrote:

> interesting post. I am not against reeds growing on the summit,
> I just had an image of clear water in an industrial machine. I
> guess plants could add another level of filtering, but getting
> the mud up there would be fun. I guess no worse than stone :)
> I always thought the surrounding area was watery and they grew
> lotus flowers in the water reservoirs. Double bonus of course.
> Seems reeds has another meaning, a standard, which would be
> needed if the structure were to be built true.

Before and after the pyramids were built they quite likely, probably, had fish resistant to CO2 suffocation and plants, lotuses, in the water to keep it clean longer during periods of light eruptions or no eruptions. Rainfall in the winter could easily have been sufficient to sometimes be able to keep water in the enclosure all year long. They grew important crops, mostly herbs, up here and the soil was extremely sandy so the organic material added to the water was important. Even where the water was used for industrial purposes it was important for it to remain as pure as possible.

These people wasted nothing though so their rituals included this concept of efficiency. When pyramids were under construction the water would be fresher since they strove to maintain steady flow but they would add organic material for weight. There were the degassing chemicals as well oil for the fire-pan beyond the normal organics that would be generated or blown in on the wind. So long as water flowed everything stayed fresh but when it stopped the water would stink and stagnate very rapidly in the heat. It's not hard to picture a few volunteer reeds getting started near or at the end of the season. It's even possible they maintained an elevated lake somewhere for some other purpose and it grew reeds lending its name to those on the great pyramids.

There are always more possibilities until evidence nails it down to something.

> As for the canals and he corpses, I could not agree more. It
> strikes me that the mainstream is at least payin lip service to
> the idea that the plateau was a watery site at some point in
> the past, long before he stiffs kept piling up.

They do seem to be doing a little better since Hawass was dragged kicking and screaming into a cave he had insisted didn't exist. I'm very disappointed in Petrie's reporting of these phenomena.

Quote

From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement

He seems to be doing everything he can to not say there is a canal leading from the pyramid that had actually carried water.

He also says;

Quote

The trench had not been clear for a long time, as many rudely-buried common mummies were cut through in clearing it; they were lying only just beneath the sand and rubbish in the bottom.

I believe the odd design of these trenches was to fascilitate their use as an "air" pump and this process is referred to in the PT as the "billows of the winding watercourse". The surges of water forced air in front of them. An operator stood near the basalt pad alternately letting in stagnant air from inside the pyramid and water.

Orthodoxy simply believes these people were almost wholly incapable and everything they did was related to magic or religion. I can't understand this line of thinking. It seems even the most cursory examination of the facts shows this can't be the truth. These people were highly capable and highly knowledgeable. They would not have done the things that Egyptology suggests. Their viewpoint is the result of sample error and bad assumptions.