Dear Warwick,
I am assuming when you refer to CREIGS you are refering to myself (CREIGS1707) as I have not seen any other IDs remotely similar to mine. If I am wrong in this assumption then please disregard this post.
You say:
"Eviodence and facts don't seem to have anything to do with Creigs theory. But then he infers thatall the extant evidence and facts are fruit of the tainted tree. ie corrupt, conspiratorial,misgiuded academia."
My paper has *never* once said that I believe academia to be (in your words) "corrupt, conspiratorial, misguided." Point these words out to me in my work and I shall have them removed post haste - sorry, but you won't be able to because they simply aren't there.
I 'infer' *nothing* and I absolutely refute such allegations. For the record let me state absolutely and unequivocaly that I *entirely accept* the position of Orthodox Egyptologists and other professionals (including many individuals posting on this forum) that the Ancient Egyptian Civilisation developed and practiced religious beliefs probably pretty much as the physical evidence suggests. Can I make my position on this any clearer?
I have presented a radical new line of questioning which - by your own admission - you failed to grasp. I am sorry about that but that is no reason to lambast myself and my ideas as some kind of heresy simply because you personally do not understand them. This forum, I believed was about 'weighing the evidence of alternative history' - not dismissing new ideas simply because we do not understand them. How can one judge if one does not understand?
If you have particular questions concerning the alignment dates I show in my paper (the original question) then I am happy to attempt to clarify these for you.
Please do not dismiss simply because you do not understand.
Regards,
S.
"Civilisation can only evolve by asking questions - not dismissing them."