<HTML>>I think all historical speculation is valid until irrefutable (OJ-type) evidence
>suggest otherwise.
The burden of proof lies upon the proposer to come forward with concrete evidence to support his/her position. This should be conducted through the proper channels, through academic works.
>Additionally, academia's tendency to want to hear about a persons
>credentials before their assertions/evidence is completely baseless in
>every walk of life/experience I've had in life.
Wanting to know what experience a person has about archaeology or cosmology is background information. You'd want to know if your doctor or vet doesn't have the right qualifications, and therefore the right skills, to diagnose your and your dog, if you have one, sicknesses.
>My point is speculation can become evidence one day if it's true.
Speculation must be backed by the evidence before it can become "true".
>Why has this been done mostly with the Giza pyramid?
Most alternatives never look at anything other than the Giza plateau. It's not surprising - the Hall of Records is supposed to be there.
>See my post to Katherine about how a small group (aliens in my
>example) can have a dramatic affect on another planet's culture but
>leave not a stitch of evidence.
The burden of proof is upon you.
Mike.</HTML>
