From your website where you address your readers:
>Perhaps you are one to make allowances with theorems like this, and say, well it's only 371 feet off, what can that hurt? And I would ask you how much you want to allow, and how much you can trust 'researchers' who either stretch the truth or don't explain discrepancies in their thoughts.<
As I said, one has to keep to a balance.
I'm not out to deceive - and I certainly don't think David Ovason is/was either as you state on your website.
You clearly have an axe to grind; that you feel that I am trespassing into your territory and though I now remember your correspondences with Don Barone about 'who discovered what and first', I have not taken anything from your own work and really came to these things myself and through each logical step.
Don Barone came to some of these conclusions too before we even knew of you and your work, and if I remember Don contacted you to find out how you came to your own conclusions as they were very similar to his, mine, ours. Don sent me copies of this correspondence - although I was too busy to read through them all at the time.
Anyway, despite the way you go about pointing out what you consider to be "errors" in my own work along with some derogatory remarks thrown in, on a positive note, its obvious that we have both come to more-or-less the same conclusions in our own way, and surely this lends some veracity to our claims about these hidden references in Washington and in cases like this not everything we have found is going to match up exactly, and I can accept that.
I'm not in competition with you.
You have your theory that the internal chambers of the Great Pyramid are also indicated on the Washington map, and I can accept that too; however, you point out what appear to be "errors" in my own own thesis within the context of this theory of yours. I interpret that my own findings, many of which you see as 'erroneous', are merely spoiling your own picture and what you have found.
I don't know about that. What I present is very simple; those of us who understand a little esoteric knowledge can see and grasp it immediately and understand what is being conveyed here without the complexities associated with 'measurement precision' that one can get lost and embroiled in.
I'm not concerned with many of your 'accuracy' issues. For example, your argument that the Temple of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is not exactly on the meridian line. So what? Its close enough to warrant the importance I give to it in regard to this image of the GP and the All-Seeing Eye in the capstone.
The Temple is on the corner of 16th Street - its address being 1733 16th Street and that's good enough for me and should be for others who are not too critical about accuracy here.
If you are asking for accuracy, then I should perhaps inform you that the King's Chamber and the Queen's Chamber are offset from each other on an angle of just over 26 degrees. The angle between the White House (King's Chamber) and the Queen's Chamber in your first picture, is 11 degrees.
I could take issue with this and say that your thesis about the internal chambers is wrong based on this, but you see I am willing to allow some tolerance here in regard to the "bigger picture".
Anyway, my opinion is that you are doing some good research here and I'm not out to spoil it, but that I should support it.
Good luck and best wishes,