I dunno. I’m high AF RN

All good, friend. I'm down to hear whatever thoughts you got spinning up there.

Bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Doctor Who has been explaining it for years.

https://youtu.be/JJ01T3_E6YQ#t=37s

I did work with an astrophysics PhD (not in this field, more like a data analyst) who had worked there (Antarctica).

I jokingly (well, not really!) asked him if he knew where the UFOs were and he said they would put ufo stuff in log entries "as a joke".

The response was not "UFOs? What?' he was well aware of the various beliefs and so on. He changed the subject after that.

I want to stress we were in a workplace just chatting before getting down to business. I am not implying in any way he was hiding anything but he was definitely aware of this stuff and dismissed it with a joke. Found that interesting.

That's an interesting theory. I like that.

I like that theory.

See, this is why he won't say the country or the building.

We know what was there before the opera house, because the whole thing is well documented:

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/sydney-opera-house-construction-photos-03.webp

From here:

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/sydney-opera-house-construction-photos/

It's a fascinating read BTW. Construction was in three phases from 1958 to 1973.

https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/our-story/construction-begins

"Two major problems confronted the engineers in their approach to Stage One. First, the geology of Bennelong Point had not been surveyed accurately at the time of the competition guidelines. It had been assumed that the promontory comprised Hawkesbury sandstone mass, like the surrounding land; whereas in fact, it was made of loose alluvial deposits permeated with seawater and completely unsuitable for bearing the weight of the intended structure.

Some 700 steel-cased concrete shafts, nearly 1 metre each in diameter, were bored down into the perimeter and northern half of the site. Mass concrete foundations filled in the unstable rock in the central area of the site. This preparatory work had not been budgeted for, setting the building on a course of extended overruns beyond its estimated cost of 3.5 million pounds.

The second major problem related to the as yet unknown weight of the roof, which would change dramatically in the coming years. The anchor points of the roof were at this stage only vaguely discernible; the load they would have to bear was unknown."

😳

I definitely understand this perspective. It's definitely a logical thought process.

To play devil's advocate, what if construction occurred prior to satellite imagery? Operating under the assumption this is real, I'd imagine an object that large would've crashed a long time ago, prior to mass global communication.

Or, as you've previously stated, it's all BS.

I briefly considered maybe The Tomb of the Prophet. I was thinking the haj might be a way to focus an incredibly large number of consciousnesses, also daily prayer where you face Mecca.

However, a review of the history of the building seems to counter indicate this.