I rather suspect you are not confused at all but merely feigning it for your own purposes.
Presumably, it's not unreasonable to suppose that you believe that your purposes are much more important than mine. Let's begin, therefore, with your purpose in writing and presenting your Giza-related material, which, as I understand it, purports to describe and explain what you see as a factual set of events, albeit one not recognized by academia.
But now, however, you've confirmed that some of this material is fiction - a statement that many people, not unreasonably, could be supposed to find confusing.
My purpose in this particular sub-thread, therefore, is to nip the burgeoning confusion in the bud by requesting you to establish a distinction between the allegedly factual, and actually fictional, parts of your work.
So can you tell us what's fiction, and what's not? Or, as you suggest here:
... the mateial you refer to by me is obviously fiction, so I shall let you work it out for yourself.
... should your readers simply follow this suggestion, only this time applying it to all your work?