Originally posted by JackTheTripper
Ahh. You wanna start a flame war, eh?
That work of yours isn't related to the pyramids at all while the links I provided are.
Check my sig. Even that is.
Why would I start a flame war? to what purpose?
The book is intimately connected with Wayne Herschel's charlatanry, as are several of your links. You are the one who stated that Mr Creighton's
work was a "rediscovery" of Herschel's "work", and provided a link to his website, not I.
I haven't seen Mr. Creighton's work, and so cannot comment on it. I'm waiting patiently on something written that I can read, since I can't watch
Commenting on the link YOU provided, attempting to link the two, is fair game. IF there is any sort of real connection between the works, and I find
that connection, THEN I'll comment on it. It would be a bit premature to comment on it sight unseen, would it not?
So far, all I've been able to gather from the thread is that there is a belief that the Giza Pyramids are laid out on the same general pattern as
Orion's Belt, which is entirely plausible. We can see Orion's belt, and there's no particular reason we couldn't replicate that pattern in the
layout of an Earthly complex.
Herschel takes that to a whole new, and ridiculous, level when he "theorizes" on the WHY of that.
Mr Creighton has put this into an open forum, open for review and debate. For that act alone, he has earned more respect points that Herschel ever has
or ever will. I expect he will be able to defend his premise if it needs defending, just based on his posts thus far. that, too, is something Herschel
was never able to do, and so Creighton is likely to earn even MORE respect points.
Frankly, I think your attempt to link the two, and give Herschel supremacy of discovery, is nothing short of insulting.
So I commented on it.