I have been reading through the pages written by Moe and I must say I'm very impressed with the amount of mental energy he has applied to this encoded information in the map. I can see he has been working on this for many years.
Its a frutiful area of research and could be the real 'National Treasure'.
I can see that I will have to update my webpage to bring more attention to Moe's work"
Non TV watchers will note that Moe Sizlac is the bartender on the Simpson's. I don't post under my real name or publish pictures of myself so that what I write may be taken as it is written, on it's own merit. Footnoting 'Moe Sizlac' may make for some humorous moments for readers 'in the know'.
Please don't compare my work to that wretched movie. And tell me why, at a time when the political forces in Europe were intent on taking everything of value that they could from this continent, that someone would bring gold and 'treasure' here?
"I'm not out to deceive - and I certainly don't think David Ovason is/was either as you state on your website."
Perhaps now you can see how what you have on your Pyramid page can be seen as deceptive, since the CB does not fall 'right on the spot' where the triangle points on the right side, and the angles in the bottom half of the figure 6 do not fit the real map.
Note that my comments that I made on that page have been scrubbed.
This is further complicated by the fact that the Washington Monument is displaced from the center of the 'bottom' of that triangle. This means that figures 3, 4, 7 , 8, 10 and 12 deserve a big footnote and some need to be 'corrected'.
As to Ovason's deception, I believe that you will see things differently after you read this page about his Virgo triangle arguement:
In his book, Ovason claims that the Federal Triangle mirrors a triangle in the sky formed between Spica, Arcturus and Regulus. The problem is that in the map the angle at the CB is about 20 degrees, while in the sky the angle is 36 degrees, but in his illustration he makes the triangle 30 degrees.
here is the front page of that article:
"The fact that the Capitol Building is right on the spot where the other 52-degree line ends at the base"
And the CB is still not on the spot to which you allude. If no records exist about L'Enfant being a Mason, why do you write that it is likely that he was?
You may find this informal critique of Ovason helpful in regards to writing style, ie adding 'fluff' statements that may turn out to be wrong and a source of embarrasment to you: