> Lobo writes:
> "Could it be probable? Heck yeah. Is it proven "Truth"? Heck
> Don't like that pointed out then sorry!"
> No, actually I think Scott and I are quite comfortable with
> that, as that's the truth of the situation at the moment. Time
> will tell if everything we have presented in the book can be
> proven or not. And despite your feelings about it, there's
> really nothing wrong with putting out a comprehensive view or
> theory based on the evidence we have found - people do it all
> the time; that's how progress is made,
Well since you don't really care to know or hear or attempt to understand my "feelings" on the matter you will unlikely get it right, so moving on.....
The only problem with the above statement is the single most important word in there, "Evidence".
Scott, as the book's main mouthpiece, is constantly touting the book and y'alls theory as fact/evidence/proof of the Cultural Truth. Yet here you post the most accurate post about it I have seen yet which clearly states that y'all don't have the complete truth or even if it is any part of the truth.
How you have put it is more honest and forthright. "We are pretty confident that this is a pretty accurate portrayal of how it MIGHT/COULD have happened and we believe it to be the one."
Scott's responses all read as Gospel, take it to the bank, and all who disagree aren't smart enough to understand.
Pyramids of stones=fact
blueprints falling from sky at the proper time programmed into it by the creators=fantasy
Giza 3 layout=Orion's belt stars= interesting possible(but conflict between insane accuracy and large errors of accuracy within the same plan kills it)
Every time Scott posts claiming it is the only truth there will be many speaking up to popint out it isn't true. don't know what to say other then if it is upsetting either take over the responding to posts or speak with Scott and perhaps think about the responses to a less than GODLIKE authoritative POV.