Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jiri Mruzek Wrote:

..
> > Schwaller's factual geometrical observations
> ... belong to the same side of the scale with my
> evidence.
>
> Whilst on this point, if on no other, we are
> thoroughly agreed, it should be pointed out that
> the ability to construct geometric figures using
> existing man-made sites in a landscape or a
> smaller area is no proof that such geometric
> figures were ever intended by the original
> builders of such sites.

Ehm, no, Hermione, this issue is deeper, and more complex than you make it sound. It has a philosophical aspect, as well. The "null theory" seems to have one big flaw - it never recognizes the first incidence of a given order as artificial despite appearances, which support the artificiality notion. The flaw is obvious, because if the given instance truly were artificial then its value is lost to science.
Is there a better way? In general scientists are no fanatics. For instance, in a recent discussion you were in, someone said : "..measurements in so exact an agreement with an geometrical idea, we must suppose it was intentional" (paraphrasing).
That is the catch! Everything has its limits, and so does coincidence. You can see it in this case. There are a lot of geometric coincidences at Giza, because the design was selected for the extraordinary number of intrinsic coincidences. That transforms Giza into a veritable geometric jungle, where it is easy to get lost. We have seen it time and again. A theory of a Grand Plan of Giza is proposed, but on closer inspection it lacks accuracy to distinguish it from rival and incompatible theories also suffering from the same inaccuracy.
Robin Cook has a very good overview of the existing variety of theories, and them all lacking.
But this changes the moment a theory appears, which achieves exact results, i.e., reconstructs the layout of the capital Giza pyramids exactly. My theory does exactly that. Considering the scale of Giza, and the consistent reappearances of microscopically accurate agreements, a scientist, who is not fanatically holding on, will be compelled to recognize this exactness as a proof of artificiality.
General theory should allow for such exceptions, when a single subject, here, the geometry of Giza's layout, can be recognized as such on its own merits. In this case it is Giza's mighty anti-chaos quality.