Gary Osborn wrote:

> "Again I have no problem with that it is only the constant
> intentional "leading" of others to some belief that your
> fantasy for this book is the "Real Truth"."
>
> And what is the real truth? If you know what the "Real Truth"
> is, then perhaps you can enlighten us. Let's see it.

Ice is cold. That is a fact. The composition of that ices, without a complex set of test, is up for grabs.
You can say it is H2O only and claim it as "fact". It may be H20 but without real proof your claim isn't "true". It could be accurate but it could be wrong as heck also.
Same as your "theory". It could be accurate but that doesn't make it the "truth". All the number crunching and arc drawing and double pyramid folding can give amazing accuracy but that doesn't make it the Truth. Just like the "Ice".
It COULD be H20 but it could be CO2 or H2O plus other chemical makeup.

What-IFs are fun and interesting and can spark a jump in the right direction which is why I enjoy the What-IFs and doodles and number-crunching ideas from here and, GASP!!!, over at HoM. They make people think, twist/pull/poke/prod them and the others.

> Would it by any chance be "only the constant intentional
> "leading" of others to some belief of their fantasy for the
> "Real Truth"."
>
> "The sword cuts both ways Sir!"
That would be more the path of the two of you. I have no horse in the race, just like seeing what is thrown out as "real proof" be at least within the culture that is being discussed.
Pyramids are within that culture as well as other parts. What hasn't been found within that culture, according to the physical evidence, is a program that does what you and Scott's book lays out.

Could it be probable? Heck yeah. Is it proven "Truth"? Heck no.
Don't like that pointed out then sorry!