I fail to see what the objection is here.

That they could lay out pyramids perfectly and align internal shafts and even bifurcated sides perfectly is evidenced right on site. The precision with which this work was done while leaving virtually no signs of methods or techniques is well established. So why couldn't they have laid out the whole plateau as a single project and why must it be exact as everything on G1?

There math had a great deal of slop in it whichmight have been the result of being modeled on nature which also has irregularities. They just pretty much wrote off the 1/ 64th error on the Eye of Horus. Yet they still achieved perfection as needed. Without knowing the intent of the builders nor the means to accomplish most of their work why should we expect precision in one place and ignore slop in another. Most people still are in denial of the precision but then expect explanations to work out to six decimal places to prove an alt theory.

Why does "they look like tombs built with ramps" become the mantra while those trying to use evidence, facts, and logic suddenly have the burden of absolute proof. It seems the question was answered. Yes, it might leave some wanting more but the evidence of anything at all is exceedingly shallow. It doesn't matter how many books are written about the assumptions because they are still assumptions. They are still unevidenced. If we had the sort of evidence that orthodoxy suggests there would be no such discussion because we would have the answers. In the mean time many of us (including some who adhere to orthodoxy) are merely seeking the truth.