As for Cygnus - it's wrong. I've read Andy Collins' theory and - it's wrong. I could come up with numerous triads of stars that better match the Giza centres, some even better than Cygnus. Doesn't make them right just because their centre-to-centre concordance is more accurate. The Orion Belt stars creates a Geo-Stellar Fingerptint (GSF) that agrees extraordinarily well with the relative proportions and orientations of the actual Gizamids. Have a look at the GSF for the three Cygnus stars in my paper in the OP. You will see that they in no way agree with the relative proportions of the Gizamids or their relative orientations. Furthermore, the two sets of so-called Queens pyramids agree with the two culminations of Orion's Belt. Show me how these structures agree with the two culminations of the wings of Cygnus. You can't because they simply do not and cannot. Like I said - Cygnus is wrong. It's Orion's Belt - plain and simple.
You have claimed that the Giza plateau was planned out and that the AE's viewed the south as up. In neither case have you provided citations or links to any materials that would back up those claims making them nothing more than unevidenced beliefs. In fact, when Leonardo asked for any kind of evidence of the AE's viewing south as up, your reply was that it wouldn't change his mind so why should you supply anything to back up that claim. Though I have not been on UM as long as others, your reply fits the standard one made by those that have no evidence.
It is fact that if you overlay Orion's belt with the Giza Pyramids as they sit, the alignment you refer to does not exist.
It is fact that the pyramid map's orientation must be changed for the alignment to which you refer to be there.
It matters not how you try to spin it or use unevidenced beliefs to validate it, it remains invalid unless you can show through evidence that the AE's did plan out the Giza plateau and that they did view south as up.