I appreciate your restraint, and accept your decision not to go with the alternative I suggested, but you really should consider how you can possibly know exactly how the originator determined the centre of the orange circle, if he ever got that far. You've come up with one option, I've come up with another, so why couldn't the originator have come up with a third.
It is done just the way I last described it and showed in the diagram. The T construction is used for both the orange circle and the dark green circle. Thus, that is obviously the method actually employed by the original designer.
You can't possibly know this, and everybody knows you can't know it, so what's the point of saying it? Why don't you start prefacing your observations with: 'It's possible that ....' This should then lead to thoughts such as 'how do I decide which of the alternatives may have been correct?' It would be another matter if you then got onto the island and found drilled rocks, or something, at these points to show that somebody had been there before you. That would be testing your hypothesis, but you don't want to do that (and I see no point in your trying because Fred Nolan has a down on other Oak Island theorists.) How else are you likely to convince anybody that you might be right? However, you won't get onto the island to test your hypothesis, so is any of this important?
That's the other thing, why do you have to be right about this. What difference does it make? The surveys have provided the dimensions and, as you said yourself, it's fairly obvious that the design may have developed from the Tree of Life. This could have been done your way, my way, Petter's way, or another way. However, that doesn't alter the diagram that results when you connect the survey points!
Too few people believe in the Cross anyway, it's just a chance assemblage of stones dropped from a glacier, or such. The important thing is that you're prepared to take it seriously and work on the assumption that it could
be significant. This is the way theory works. We don't need to declare that the Cross was definitely the work of the originator, we don't know that, but other people suggesting that it might
be a random assemblage of stones is no proof that we're wrong. Proof works both ways.
You and I have decided that it is far better to assume that the stones are intentionally placed, and that they may be significant in the overall scheme of things, rather than ignore them and be wrong. How can anyone criticise us for that? Sometimes it is better to be criticised for doing something rather than for having sat back and done nothing. You have proved the accuracy of your reconstruction. If this is important, and you think the way you did this leads somewhere, then let's hear it. Personally, I don't see that this has anything specific to do with Grail Star geometry - I may be wrong - so why not let it go?
I feel that you may wish to link the Cross to the arcane through the Tree of Life. Your reconstruction seems more accurate than mine or Petter's, but does that make it superior? I don't know. We're all looking in much the same direction, for different reasons. In a sense, we all have theories. If we put the three theories side by side then people could decide which they consider closest to the established facts, gives the best explanation, and provides a useful tool for further research and thinking. Some people wouldn't bother to look.
It may not be that people are saying your theories are wrong, as such, but that they feel there are other theories that better match what is currently 'known' and provide better insights into where to go and what to do next. This 'knowledge' base changes, but sometimes you have to make that happen yourself.