cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> \
>
> Don't lose sight of the fact that I postulated
> that they needed
> water under pressure to build the Great Pyramid
> and not leave ev-
> idence of ramps. Even if this is correct there
> might have been
> another source for the pressure.


Indeed, this is not the only reason, either, for the absence of evidence for ramps at Giza. What you've created here is a false dichotomy: "Ramps or Hydraulics". Certainly not the case at all.



>
> There is some doubt that a sufficient amount of
> CO2 could get into
> the aquifer from a volcano so far away and not
> lose it before flow-
> ing for centuries all the way to Giza. It's
> simply a possibility
> at this point which could explain very many of the
> known facts.


The universe is full of possibilities. Good theory, however, is built on probabilities. The hydraulic methods for pyramid construction lack any evidence whatsoever to support them.



>
> Cold water geysers work very similarly to the way
> the can of pop in
> your example works. The water is supersaturated
> with gas. There
> would be more CO2 in the water than it can
> normally hold because
> it's under great pressure. When this water got to
> Giza it brought
> this large amount of dissolved CO2 with it as some
> flowed up near
> the surface with the multitude of natural caverns
> and fissures
> caused by the action of the ground water which was
> influenced by
> the Nile. When this water neared the surface it
> would fizz up and
> tend to form small springs.



Pure speculation. Where is the evidence that any of this ever occurred at Giza?


>
> All known cold water geysers are man-made. They
> are usually acciden-
> tal and result from drilling for other things.
> They can spray large
> amounts of water for many years so long as the CO2
> and water are pre-
> sent. In the case of Giza the ancients may have
> simply been drilling
> to improve water flow and struck a cavern which
> could result in such
> a geyser.


"May have", "could have" and "might have" are not the proper foundations for a good historical theory. "The evidence shows THIS:" is the way to begin a good theory.


>
> If this is what actually happened then the water
> flow at Giza should be
> considered an event.


But with the absence of evidence for said event, the probability of this having occurred at Giza is nearly zero.


> It could have persisted for
> hundreds of years but
> it would need to be recharged periodically by
> vulcanic activity and CO2
> releases.


"Could have", "would have", "should have".... see the note above.



There is no record of these erupting in
> recorded history but
> geologists say that they have erupted sometime
> within the last 10,000
> years and probably more recently.


The pyramids were built during the timeframe you refer to as "recorded history". There is no mention of such an event in the historical record of Egypt.

I fail to see where your hypothesis stands on any grounds.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.