Ogy: Scott has agreed that he arbitrary used a 42 degrees angle.
SC: Actually I reverse-engineered the Gizamids using the Belt stars. You fail to mention that L1 rotated differently would produce G3 base with different dimensions. What is quite remarkable here is that, using this technique, the proportions of the base at the end of L1 are what this method predicts. The odds agaisnt such an outcome must be extraordinarily high - G3 could have had any other proportions but what we find is that it has the proportions predicted by the L1-L2 lines. Extraordinary and compelling proof of the GSF.
EDIT: PS - Glad to hear I was of some help in your own research. Best.
EDIT: Actually, I "agreed" to no such thing. The 48/42 degree angle of line L1 is inextricably linked to the proportions of G3 base. What I actually said is that there may be reasons we have yet to uncover as to why the ancient designers (not I) chose this particular angle from which to set line L1 and to subsequently create G3 base and on to G2 and G1 bases. I said that you cannot expect me (or anyone else) to have all the answers and that includes the rationale for choosing the 42/48 degree angle for line L1. It could have been as something as practical and mundane as the strike angle of the plateau. It seems very clear to me that this angle for line L1 was chosen for a specific reason (yet unknown) thus it was not "arbitrary". We have just to figure out the reason why it was chosen - but chosen by the ancients it most certainly was. There's nothing "arbitrary" about their choice since they clearly chose this angle from which to go on and create G3 base, etc, etc.
Post Edited (16-Feb-12 00:50)