I use the term mis-information rather than dis-information, because dis-information implies that the author is purposefully trying to mislead people. The examples that I provide here mainly come from people who either habitually can't get their facts straight, who don't research what they write (or copy), who don't write very well, or who are essentially clueless. The sad thing about it, either way, with dis- or mis-information, is that the "factiod" gets cut and pasted all over the internet and included in conversations without ever being examined critically. This is a function of the general dumbing down of society.
I don't mean to imply that this phenomenon is limited to the internet or private conversations, because you also see it on TV, in books and in movies; it's just that it is easier to document the internet spread of mis-information. On the other hand, it seems that people who do think critcally, who do research what they write, and who are interested in getting the facts straight, appear to cluster on the web; which makes it a good place to look for the truth, in many cases.
Another thesis that he presents is that the triangle in the city is a mapping of a triangle of stars in the sky onto the earth. The stars that he names are Spica, Regulus and Arcturus. The triangle in the map has the Capitol Building in one corner and features an angle of about 19.5 degrees. Looking at a star chart we see that the triangle in the sky features a 36 degree angle in this corner; not really what you would call a mapping. On page 347 of "Secret Architecture", Ovason present his version of a star map that features a 30 degree angle there.
As of December 2006, I have moved my critique of Ovason's book to a section of it's own.
We see another form of intellectual dishonesty when people won't admit it when they are wrong. For instance, in the image below Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues radiating from the Capitol are painted in purple. As you can see, the triangle is formed by connecting points of the pentagram.
Looking just south of the CB location, you can see that the triangle intersects with the straight line extension of Pennsylvania Avenue that is formed by connecting two points of the pentagram as well as a line from the Pentagon Building. In spite of what it says on this webpage, It Is Not True that, "the Capitol Building is right on the spot where the other 52-degree line ends at the base", meaning the right side of the triangle and the blue e-w line.
The sides of the triangle have base angles of 52 degrees like the Great Pyramid, and the red-orange diagonals are 23.5 degree angles, but since the CB is located north of the 'corner' of the triangle, the section of Penn Ave between the CB and WH is not 23.5 but 19.5 degrees. As you can see by the circled Washington Monument, it lies east of the N-S blue line and north of the E-W blue line of the rectangular grid.
Take a look at Figure 4 from the page I just linked to and notice that Penn Ave is painted yellow and labeled 23.5 degree all the way from Georgetown to the CB, which is just wrong. Also note how he draws the 52 degree line straight from the top of the triangle to the CB, missing Mt Vernon Square as he does, in an attempt to prove that the CB lies at that corner.
All the rest of the images on that page depict the CB on the triangle and the Wash Mml at the intersection of the N-S and E-W axes, with no footnotes to indicate that these images and his descriptions are not accurate.
"Because of the swamplike nature of the ground at the planned cross-axis of the White House and the U. S. Capitol, the construction engineers located the site for the foundations about 100 yards to the southwest on ground with a rocklike bearing"; while in David Ovason's "Secret Architecture" we read,
"The (new) site which was chosen later proved equally unstable and had to be shored up massively by pouring concrete in evacuated channels." Not rock-like.
If you have ever read about the monument, you may know that L'Enfant had intended for an equestrian statue (a man on a horse) of President George Washington to be located at the point directly south on the axis passing through the center of the White House (also the center of 16th Street which runs north and south) and directly west of the center of the Capitol Building; thereby forming the third corner of a triangle at the center of the city. (Actually there are two triangles, but the second one is not complete without ladscaping and the Jeff Mml.)
As the story goes, because the ground at this location was too "unsuitable" for the newly designed monument, the position was displaced 371.6 feet to the east and 123.17 feet to the south; that is to the southeast, not the southwest. Note that moving it to the southwest of that point, would have put it in the river. Since the hypotenuse of a triangle that is 371x123 feet is 391 feet, the fact is that the writer was off by more than 30 yards (90 feet), besides being wrong about the direction of the displacement; and this is information being sponsored by the US government.
Clearly the writer just wrote west instead of east, so it could have been worse. Take a look at this site operated by Conoco Philips about the monument, where we read, "Engineers found the ground too soft to support the monument, so they moved the site to the north." Yikes.
Remember that in order to be able to say that ground is soft or unsuitable or unstable, there has to be some ground in the first place. The 'planned' location was not on dry land as late as 1820. The cornerstone was laid where it is now in 1848. The 1862 map below shows that the landscaping had just about reached the 'planned location' then.
Looking at an 1846 map (below) we can see that there was essentailly no landscaping done between 46 and 62. The landscaping that was done prior to the positioning of the monument took place between 1820 and 46, and it never really included the place where the axiis cross.
Look again at the 1820 map where the red lines cross in the river and recall the stories that Jefferson had this spot surveyed and sat a pyramid of stones there in 1804!! Today the place is marked by the Jefferson Pier. The fetish about this location and concerns about the asymmetry in the map caused by the displacement of the monument continues later with the McMilan Plan of 1901.
The House of the Temple
"The Washington Monument obelisk was placed directly on a straight line, precisely 900' West of the Capitol. Thus, the inhabitants of the Capitol could face the obelisk daily. However, note that the Washington, D.C. obelisk does not lie in a straight line 900' South the White House. Why? Because it was lined so that it lies in a straight line 900' from the House of Understanding, the headquarters of FreeMasonry!! In the mind of the occultist, the true political administrative power resides in this Freemasonry headquarters, not in the White House. Clearly, the power of leadership to drive this country toward the New World Order, leading the rest of the world, lies in FreeMasonry, not in the White House or the Congress."
Clearly? An alignment of a monument with a Masonic Temple proves that "the power of leadership" for the country lies in Freemasonry? What kind of logic does that demonstrate? What sort of proof is that?
As pointed out above, the monument does not lie due west of the Capitol Building, but is located 123 feet south of that axis. Neither does it align with the House of the Temple. The axis of the midline runs behind the HOT. And it is not called "the House of Understanding". Also, that building is not the headquarters of all of Freemasonry, only one branch of that, the Southern Jourisdiction of the Scottish Rites Masons. While I agree that the city planning has been the result of Masonic influences, I disagree that any one group is in control of the whole country, or the world for that matter, and I definitely discount their arguement based on this supposed alignment alone.
A Mile and a Half
So, no matter what you might think, the monument is about 7100 feet west of the Capitol, 123 feet south of the east-west axis through that, and it is about 2760 feet south of the WH, 371 feet east of the north-south axis of 16th Street; making it one heck of a lot further than 900 feet from the HOT, since as we all know, that lies 13 blocks north of the WH. Try re-reading the paragraph above with all the 900' notations in it, and see if you can make sense out of what it says, now that you know something about the geometry of the area. I for sure would not want those folks who posted that to do research for me, be on a debate team with me, or represent me or my religion in any way.
Since the Washington Monument is displaced 371 feet east of the north-south axis that centers on 16th Street and the White House, we can calculate that the East Wing extends about 350 feet east of that line; that is about 120 three foot paces. As you can see below, the East Wing was built very close to the N-S axis of the monument.
In the next image we see that the House of the Temple sits right on 16th Street; you can see the yellow line marking the center of that. Moving across two lanes of pavement and a sidewalk puts you at the front steps. A reasonable person would require that a "true" alignment would center on the building, but as you can imagine, 120 three foot paces would take you way beyond the middle point of the HOT. It appears to be about 120 feet from the center of the street to the center of the building.
Here is an aerial view of the building in case you would like to scale it and check where 371 feet falls. On the left is 16th Street which runs through the middle of the White House. We can say that the HOT aligns as closely as it could with the WH, since it couldn't be located in the middle of the Street. I suspect that then the anti-Masonic writers would be claiming that that alignment was "proof" that "the power of leadership" for the country lies in Freemasonry.
In the image above we see that the back of the HOT appears to lie half way between 15th and 16th Streets, while in the image below, the East Wing can be seen extending closer to 15th Street (on the right) than that. It is therefore not true that the Wash Mmt aligns with the HOT rather than with the WH.
In Genesis 1:28 we hear Jacob speak of the pillar that he has erected, saying, "And this stone which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto you". The notion is a ratio of 1:10, just like the Egyptian obelisks and the Tree of Life composed of ten sepheroth. That the reference is to a solar-phallic monument is reflected in the numbers 1 and 28. Every 28 years, the solar calendar repeats itself. The 28th degree of the Scottish Rites is called the Knight of the Sun. Anyone complaining that the awful Masons have set up an phallic idol to a god should read the Bible more, since it appears that Jacob has done exactly the same thing.
The Scottish Rites
Secondly, the SJSR masons did not move to DC until after the War Between the States, and the HOT was not located in it's present location until 1915.
"C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off."
The problem is that Fred Kleinknecht (Cooper mis-spelled the name, so adjust your sites when you google for that) never worked at NASA, it was his brother, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, also a 33 degree SR Mason. But just take a look at how many times the phrase "C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree" occurs in a Google search for "kleinknect nasa".
The fact is that many people don't have a creative bone in their body, and as a result, much of what you see in conspiracy related web pages, newsgroups and forums, has been copied from others sources without ever being examined critically. After that, the information is accepted as proven fact by others, exaggerated and passed on to others; taking on a life of it's own. In many cases it just takes a couple clicks of the mouse to prove these assertions wrong, but by then the damage has been done, and is not easily undone.
To me, the worst thing about this situation is that some uncritical people use facts and figures that are just plain wrong to promote arguements and attacks against other people and groups that they see as infidels. Since people like that are notoriously bad at getting the facts right, you can imagine that they are woefully deficient in their understanding of dogmas that they puruport to support. These are the same people who are the most suceptible to propoganda methods of both priests and princes.