You're being overly dismissive. There's quite clearly a substantial amount of research here, and in a cursory reading I detected no explicitly bombastic claims, which are usually indicative of crankwork.
Sure, it's not peer-reviewed, and his other articles might look quite loony, but he does highlight some anthropological discrepancies in this piece. Not everyone can have their articles peer-reviewed.
If the substantive bulk of someones work is loonery, I don't have to accord them any serious consideration because they got some minor detail right. That's exactly the approach all woo-peddlers use...find some triviality to establish credibility for a pack of bunk.
Absolutely. It's fair to describe his writings as interesting, and for all his cynicism about conventional theories he never actually comes out and says obviously it was the Giant Atlanteans that built it shortly after they'd finished with Ancient Egypt.
But there's also some rather sympathetic treatment given to theories that the world was built by giants during 365 days of darkness, and short shrift given to pretty conventional views that it's pretty normal for a single engineering project to use big rocks for foundations and fortification walls, smaller blocks for fiddly little details like eaves for roofs, and rubble for unimportant or needs-to-be-finished in a hurry structures.
If you actually visit some of the sites in question and consider them as a whole there's a pretty smooth quality gradient between the tightly packed massive stone blocks, the impressively-precisely cut small ashlar blocks and the relatively loose blockwork. Which reminds me that I need to go back to Peru some time...
When I was 7 or 8 I read one of Erich von Däniken's books and got terribly excited - a couple of years later I realised that it was, of course, complete nonsense. I remember being quite indignant that someone could write a book like that. Quite a useful learning experience actually...
This reads remarkably like something from von Däniken but with any mention of ancient aliens removed... Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco, incredible stonework, tunnel networks, lost civilizations....
The author doesn't claim ancient greeks did it (though one of his sources does.) Stone softening is an interesting idea and a heck of a lot less crazy than "aliens did it."
And I am from Scotland and I've heard all manner of "theories" about the Scots being a lost tribe of Israel and that the Lia Fàil (the Stone of Destiny) is the stone used by the biblical Jacob as a pillow.
Just because something is a nice story doesn't mean it is true!
Isn't there a famous church in Scotland that has carved stone reliefs of Corn/Maize, except they were carved many years before the New World, and corn, were officially known about in the Old World.
I think ancient people did travel, after all, we have learnt they had number systems, watched the constellations, had crude but reasonable ancient maps, and genetics are discovering things all the time about the hereditary lines.
That would be Rosslyn Chapel - which has such a stunningly high level of detail in the stone carvings (NB well worth seeing) that it's not surprising that parts of it look a bit like something else. It wouldn't surprise me if parts of Rosslyn Chapel look a bit like Lady Gaga or an Xbox controller....
You can rent and stay in Rosslyn Castle, very close to the chapel. I stayed there once, and it was one of the neatest places I've been. The only shower is on the way to the dungeon.
So, I did a quick image search for Rosslyn Chapel maize and corn (see sibling comment), and I found nothing that looked convincingly like corn to me. There were a few things that looked a little like corn, but I would interpret them as other plants and/or bread.
Look at his sources. This is where he is drawing evidence for his claims. This is why it is important for people with credentials to vouch for each other. It is a web of trust. One can sound reasonable while spouting lunacy if the broader population doesn't have the specific knowledge to assess their claims.
Sure, it's not peer-reviewed, and his other articles might look quite loony, but he does highlight some anthropological discrepancies in this piece. Not everyone can have their articles peer-reviewed.