Alignment using only two datums

Looking at this I would suggest creating a plane on the A datum (looks like it's the counter bore of the hole) and levelling to that and setting it as your Z origin.
Then measure the 2 Ø8.8 to create a midpoint as others have mentioned and set that as x, y origin.
I would rotate between the two Ø8.8 bores and then rotate out the error so that the part is aligned with drawing.
To do this take the x and y between the two bores x=65 y=5.69 use trig to find the angle: Tan^-1(5.69/65) = 5.00283153° and rotate the alignment by this figure.

That worked flawlessly... now that have my MAN/DCC align is it good practice to then remeasure those datums with more hits to find any deviations during my dimensioning process....

One more thing as of right now anyway , I've for the most part taught myself how to read the FCF W, or W/O modifiers (MMC, LMC) unfortunately this is where I'm stuck, I know datum B is in some cases to be considered at mmc aka the most material smallest hole but how or what is best practice to measure, and dimension the call out let's say 

ø6.5 ± 0.13
(2)plus.
|Position| 0.25(m)|A|B(m)|

I had to use the word "Position" in place of the symbol.

Again, thanks for everyone input!!!

for the B callout (0.13(M)), it is MMC but for the FCF that uses B (Datum Reference Frame or DRF), it is MMB.  Yeah, 'Oh, this is confusing people, so let's change the definitions but let's use the same symbol because we don't want to create a new symbol', that's how they work.

Just out of curiosity, are you using a CAD model to program this part?  Also, are you using Legacy or Geometric Tolerancing for your characteristics?

I agree with everything everyone said about your alignment.  I just wanted to add that if you're using the Geometric Tolerancing command, when you define your datums, you can select both holes for Datum B because it's considered at datum pattern.

Regarding the MMC/MMB question, the MMC modifier for datum B will influence it's own positional tolerance as well as the datum shift allowance when being referenced in the FCF for the 6.5 holes.  The way it's called out, the positional tolerance for datum B is .13 if the holes are at their smallest size.  For whatever amount the holes are measured larger than MMC, that same amount is tacked onto your tolerance as a "bonus."  So, if the holes measure 8.85, you would add that .05 to your positional tolerance, making the tolerance .18.  When applying the MMB to datum B as a datum reference in the FCF for the 6.5 holes, this refers to the amount of datum shift allowed based on the measured size of the datum B holes.  Think of it like the functional gage example that Matthew D. Hoedeman used.  If the holes are larger than their MMC, and the pins being used as datum simulators are fixed at their MMC size, the physical part would be able to shift about on that gage.

As for calling out the MMB on the program, I'm not sure if you can do it with Legacy, or how to do it if you can-- Matthew would be able to weigh in on that because if I'm not mistaken, that's the method he uses (based on past posts).  If you're using GeoTol, you MUST report the sizes of the datum B holes BEFORE you callout any features that reference that datum at any material boundary.  Otherwise, the software wouldn't know how much datum shift to allow.

Smashworth87 I am using a cad model just FYI I'm also on a hexagon 5,7,5, and my software is 2023.1 as for the geo tol. I haven't used anything other than legacy although the geo tol. command seems much more time sensitive and simplistic. Would you suggest method over the other? 

I appreciate the feedback thank you and I'm trying to dissect all of that now, it does make a little more sense to me after your explanation. 

FOR LEGACY, you simply ignore MMB, there is no way to use it and IMO, if you NEED it, you NEED to change your process as you are riding on the ragged edge of disaster.  And, for sheet metal (what I do), most of the customers we have put it on the prints, but the fixtures they supply don't let you use it anyway, no matter if you need it or not, so what's the point?  One automotive OEM has even eliminated MMC on all features of size.

I've personally used GeoTol for most things, although I've used legacy at times as well.  Neil Challinor has given people examples in the past as to why GeoTol might be the better choice, depending on what you're after.  I personally would use GeoTol in your current scenario because of the MMB modifier in your FCFs and having to use the simultaneous tolerance evaluation in reporting your characteristics (FCFs that reference the same datums in the same order at the same material boundaries should be simultaneously evaluated).

B.Vorhis_89  You should definitely use the Geometric Tolerance command for this part as opposed to Legacy dimensioning.  In addition to what has already been said regarding MMB, there is also the simultaneous requirement to consider.  According to ASME Y14.5, all position and profile feature control frames which reference the same datums, in the same order and at the same material condition, must be evaluated simultaneously. In your earlier screenshot, I see three feature control frames where this would apply.

See: Simultaneous requirement - PC-DMIS for CMMs - PC-DMIS - Nexus Community (hexagon.com).

Neil Challinor and Smashworth87 thank the both of you for the explanations this really cleared up some of my confusion ill of course post whether everything is working out with program going forward. As well as any more questions that may come up along the way.

I think I caught what you were throwing...SO what's the difference between the last EXAMPLE I asked about, And the call out FCF for datum B?

I know this probably day one material but idk if you noticed where I mentioned I'm basically learning as I go with the help of others such as yourself. my apologies for all this Q/A there is so much information to take into account along with rules and best practices etc. so I really appreciate your patience with this

Guess Who??? lol so I finished measuring the port and I'm now working on the starboard side of this part my question once I measure everything, 1. Do I need to make an alignment the part per the Gd&T call outs. And 2. will you break down how I'd go about doing this so I get the correct numbers. I've attempted this with other parts and I've not had much luck when it comes to  MMC and all that because I don't quite understand how to go about using the software to give me the right numbers. A good example of this is that I don't know when it would be better to use a constructed feature vs and auto or measured feature in order to get the right dimension??? I really appreciate any help I can get thank you in advance and if I need to, I can screenshot some of my code if that would help clear up any confusion in the multiple questions I just asked.

If you are using GeoTol for your GD&T callouts, you should not need to align to the datum structure from the FCF. If you use GeoTol you'll see the "alignment" XYZ origin it is using with a Yellow line and blue arrow point if your cursor is at that dimension command in the edit window.

Although, from what I can see of your print, you probably are already mostly aligned to the part if you followed the datum structure.

If you are using Legacy Dimensioning for them, yes you will have to be correctly aligned. I'd suggest like others have said to use GeoTol if you aren't already

If you are using GeoTol for your GD&T callouts, you should not need to align to the datum structure from the FCF. If you use GeoTol you'll see the "alignment" XYZ origin it is using with a Yellow line and blue arrow point if your cursor is at that dimension command in the edit window.

Although, from what I can see of your print, you probably are already mostly aligned to the part if you followed the datum structure.

If you are using Legacy Dimensioning for them, yes you will have to be correctly aligned. I'd suggest like others have said to use GeoTol if you aren't already