Ronald: Of course not, that's why it's only alternative history. Nothing to do with archaeology/egyptology.

SC: Yeah, and they said as much to J Harlen Brentz too. Ultimately, however, his radical, 'alternative' theory was proved right and the world of geology was turned upside-down overnight. I don't remotely expect my theory to be accepted by orthodoxy, at least not in my lifetime. There is an awful lot that needs to be done in terms of additional hard, tangible evidence - I accept all of this and I hope in time such will be forthcoming. I cannot, however, dismiss the latent advanced mathematical/astronomical knowledge that has been built into these structures as nothing more than coincidence. You would happily have it this way - the correlation is simply too compelling for that to be the case. This will be made even more so when I present my latest findings concerning the GOCT in the next day or so.

Ronald: ... Your theory is a no-starter.

SC: I beg to differ. If it was such a non-starter I doubt it would have achieved as much attention as it has on this board and others.

Ronald: Man was still too primitive.

SC: Just because we haven't found his iPod or his 4x4, does not mean he could not have observed and understood the motions of the stars or learned of such cycles of cataclysm.

Regards,

S.