Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I present the
> underlying design imperative and the inherent
> knowledge within that design -

You present what you want it to be not what it is actually. Your believing it doesn't make it so.

>I am not, nor ever have,
> denied the AEs any of this.

You deny the AE a part of their culture by denying them the ability to do this all by themselves and needing an imaginary LC to design it for them. Your omission of the key part you credit to your imaginary LC is no different then crediting aliens to the design of the Giza Three. You robbed the AE to make a "print on demand" attempt at money, IMO.


> That I observe
> advanced mathematical / astronomical knowledge in
> the underlying arrangement of the structures is
> the question that has to be addressed.

It has been addressed, numerous times by many different people. Your observations are self imposed over an ancient culture without real, supportable evidence and without any context at all.
No matter what shape you see in the ink blots they are simply ink blots on paper. They may look like boots to you but the real truth is it is only ink. You need it to be more while those who use logic and sound methodology see it as only ink on paper.
What you are doing is demanding people prove the ink could never be a pair of boots. It is beyond belief.


> LH: You "designed" the whole idea.
>
> SC: I did not design Giza.

No one said you did. We were talking about your wild, imagined "ideas" that you are trying to pass off as some kind of possibility. They are only a possibility at the level that people walk thru solid walls and apples float in the air. IOW none.


> I interpret Giza in a
> different way. Who is to say my interpretation is
> any less valid?

Anyone who is honest with regards to evidence and sound methodology.


> Especially so when the prevailing
> view has so many question marks regarding its own
> interpretation of particular strcutures and their
> function

This a key difference between those that know what they are doing and your work. Those who do it correctly have no need to fill the holes until real evidence is found to fill them.

> and also when my interpretation provides
> possible - and I would even go as far as to say
> plausible - answers to some of the enigmas at Giza
> which the prevailing view has singularly failed to
> do.

Possibility is not fact. Floating apples are a possibility too.


> LH: This is an honest assessment of the evidence
> at hand at present. The evidence trail leads to
> yourself.
>
> SC: Original ideas/discoveries have to be made by
> someone.

Not a problem for me until those that think they found something refuse to admit anything is true except for their idea/discovery when real evidence is brought forth to show the idea/discovery is utterly flawed/false/wrong. When this happens the person is simply being foolish and unrealistic in respect to real knowledge.

Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb