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...
