Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but the more I think about all
> the possibilities I'm not so sure and am just as
> open to the idea it was just coincidence based on
> simple construction principles like so:
>

The angle defined by the 2:1 block ratio depends on the whether the blocks are have a true 1:1 rise-over-run aspect ratio. And so I think there's also something to be said for the possibility that the angle was decided upon first, and then the the block ratios were calculated to make that angle happen.

Meanwhile, I see far too many problems with the star alignment paradigm. Alway have. OCT always seemed to be doing damage control over a flood of misalignments and contradictions. I thought it was curious when Graham told Zahi that the entire alternative perspective depends on OCT (when Zahi stormed out of the building). In my opinion, there are plenty of more credible alternative hypotheses that have nothing to do with any star alignments.

But when someone decrees that this or that evidence is "irrelevant" (like the bends or the door-blocks at the upper terminus of the QC shafts) and tries to direct us instead to "what's important" without stating any basis for accepting such and such supporting evidence while rejecting or ignoring such and such contradictory evidence without presenting any basis for such a perspective, it's a pretty good clue that there's a non-objective ideology trying to navigate the agenda.