> As I said, the final nail in the coffin of your
> bid for credibility. If you can’t see through
> Creighton’s con-job, then you simply aren’t up
> to the job.
I always try to take people, including writers, at face value.
I believe people always make sense in terms of their premises but obviously we each know which side our bread is buttered on. This means that it can be difficult top determine premises at some times. Hence I take them at face value.
A great deal of what we believe is nonsense, improbable, unevidenced, or illogical. This is the nature of the beast. It's not my place to point out every instance that shows what appears to be illogical and I don't do it except where it runs counter to my theory and involves the Great Pyramid or its builders. Of course I don't believe Scott Creighton is right in every detail, nobody can be correct in every detail. But my statement stands, I believe the reality is that there is better chance of these being seed vaults than tombs. This hardly means I support every argument and every conclusion reached by the author. Generally speaking I don't think his methodology is any worse than Egyptology. I don't hang on his every word but I certainly enjoy reading his thinking. As a rule I'm seeking ideas. I'm looking for new thoughts and new ways to see evidence. I'm looking at the various evidence people bring to the table.
People have a lot of different ideas. In subjects in which I've put little thought I want state of the art. In subjects I've studied I want facts, logic, and new ides. This makes his posts quite interesting and I believe it's unfair to simply assume anyone would invent ideas just to fool people. People disagree with one another for sound reasons and because we often don't understand each other.