Who this is for. The visitor who suspects the whole thing is pattern matching dressed up in physics. That suspicion is the right starting posture, and the site is built to be read against it. The seven stops below put the strongest objection first at every turn and end at the only thing that can actually settle the question, a measurement nobody has run yet.
What this page adds. Nothing. No claim appears here that is not already on the linked pages. This is a reading order, with your progress kept in your browser and sent nowhere.
-
"What is this thing supposed to be?"
Start with the object itself: one recurring rooftop silhouette, photographed across five continents, and the three competing readings of it. The homepage lays out Christian symbol, functional lightning rod, and antenna silhouette side by side, and scores every specimen in the corpus on all three rather than picking one by assertion.
-
"Is the antenna reading even allowed by physics?"
Before any history, the physics. Quarter wave resonance, corona discharge, and the Faraday cage are textbook electromagnetics, and the theory chapter applies them to the artefact without proposing any new physics anywhere. If the geometry did not permit the reading, the site would end here.
-
"Is the dataset real, or curated to flatter the thesis?"
The corpus is 124 photographs scored on the same nine axes, with the full table downloadable as CSV and every scoring rule written down. Then test the scoring yourself: the blind page hides a specimen's scores, hands you the same rubric, and only afterwards shows how the project scored the same photograph.
-
"If this were real, would it not be documented?"
The strongest objection, taken head on. The destruction chapter lists dated, cited events, two patent office fires, two wars' iron requisition, the post war demolition wave, the archive weeding programmes, and argues only what they support: the surviving record is a biased sample, so absence in it is weak evidence.
-
"Does the project apply its standards both ways?"
A fair test of any argument is what it does with claims that flatter it. The revival chapter grades five modern survivals of the reading's component mechanisms by one written standard, and marks two popular, thesis friendly claims down by that same standard.
-
"What would actually settle it?"
Not another analogy. The measurement chapter designs a three channel radio frequency audit on a surviving spire with intact grounding, states its four possible outcomes before anyone runs it, and names the result that would refute the antenna reading outright.
-
"And if I am still curious?"
Then the site has done its job, because the next step is not reading. Ten costed experiments are waiting for an owner, most of them sized for a departmental fieldwork visit or a single thesis project, each publishable as primary data whichever way it comes out.
The path adds no claims of its own; every assertion above is made, cited, and bounded on the page it links to. Progress lives in your browser's local storage and is sent nowhere. The order is the project's recommendation for a hostile reader; the chapters stand alone in any order.