Sounds very much like a repeat of Hancock’s series for Channel 4 in the UK. Hancock isn’t a scientist - he’s a journalist, with a background in reporting in Africa. (To be fair, as you can read on his site, he only claims to be “reporting” various claims in this journalistic role; frankly, I regard this as weaseling about his responsibilty to the truth.)
Basically nothing beyond what he’s claiming. The Giza alignment is effectively arbitrary. It derives from Robert Bauval’s claims about the three pyramids there reproducing the Belt of Orion (see his The Orion Mystery). Bauval then extrapolates to argue that the Nile is the Milky Way and that the alignment of this relative to north fixes the date. But, even if you buy the pyramids as the Belt aspect, the orientation of the Nile is pretty much an unalterable geographical fact. The Nile just is. The ancient Egyptians had to accept it; they couldn’t make some active choice that its orientation encoded any particular date.
The Angkor Wat match with Draco was taken to bits by a BBC Horizon documentary on the subject. All the leading authorities on the site deny that dragons were any part of the culture. And Hancock was selecting a small subset of the temples involved in order to create his pattern.
For an entertaining muck-raking expose of Hancock etc., see Giza: The Truth by Ian Lawton and Chris Ogilvie-Herald (Virgin, 1999). Both are active on the Web, so a search will throw up related material.
And to follow-up on tomndebb’s point, the real issue is that Hancock’s dubious on these areas.