The Analogy Arguement
The arguement about the triangle and the Virgo is a bit more complicated. It is the analogy arguement used earlier by others to tie the stars in Orion's belt to the placement of the three pyramids at Giza. The short version of this arguement is that the L'Enfant Triangle, formed by the Capitol Building, the White House, and the original proposed position for the Washington Monument (due south of the WH and due west of the CB), as well as the Federal Triangle (contained with in the L'E. Triangle) are analagous to the triangle formed in the sky by Spica (in Virgo), Regulus (in Leo) and Arcturus (in Bootes). On page 262 he plainly states, "My assumption is that the earthly triangle... was intended as a reflection of the stars around the constellation Virgo". Presumably this means a somewhat literal reflection, and not merely a triangular form. Urban Monumentality Supposedly, this mapping of the skies onto the ground "was designed to unite the celestial realm of the stars with the Earth" (whatever that means). This, of course, recalls the old hermetic notion of "As above, so below"; the idea being that the upper, ideal or spiritual realm is reflected in the lower, material realm. [Note that this comparison fails initially because 1) spatial metaphors do not apply to the spiritual realm- the spiritual is not above the material in a spatial sense, and 2) the celestial sphere is not the spiritual realm, but only another physical realm.] In his book "Myths in Stone", subtitled "Religous Dimensions of Washington DC", Jeffery Meyer suggests that an examination of royal capitals and early urban developments reveals three characteristics that these have in common; cardinal orientation, axiality and central symbolism. Cardinal orientation means a N-S, E-W alignment scheme of streets or buildings; axiality points to diagonal streets that connect monumental structures of significance, while central symbolism was an effort "to establish a connection between earth and heaven" (as if one were lacking), "to claim divine approval for their undertakings" and "to participate in the permanence of the order of the universe", all of which sounds like Ovason. The baroque style of urban planning "isolates and elevates significant buildings, memorials and sites, placing them in a hierarchy". The positioning of these monuments superimposes a pattern of connecting diagonals on the gridwork plan. More important sites had more streets radiating from them. L'Enfant describes the process thusly, "Having determined some principle points to which I wished to make the others subordinate, I made the distribution regular with every street at right angles, North and South, east and west, and afterward opened some different directions, as avenues to and from every principle place". p 41 Meyer This means that vistas and lines of site are generated by the positioning of monuments. A Direct Projection of Stars onto the Earth? Imagine that it is March, and the Virgo constellation can be see on the meridian during the night time. If we stand south of the L'Enfant triangle with a map in our hands, we see that the layout on the ground ahead of us corresponds to the map; now if we turn around and look at the sky, we see that the stellar triangle is oriented the same as on the map in our hands; that is a mirror image of that on the ground behind us. In other words, a direct projection of stars to earth does not produce the pattern of buildings encountered on the ground in Washington, D.C.; just as the stars in Orion do not project directly onto the pyramids at Giza. The projections are reversed. Almost the Same As According to Ovason, "The L'Enfant triangle, with it's three primal buildings at it's corners, is almost the same as a right-angled triangle which may be traced in the skies, around the constellation Virgo." (p 255) In that statement we have three assertions: 1) that the earthly triangle is almost the same as the celestial one, 2) that these are right triangles, and 3) that the stellar triangle is traced around the Virgo constellation. "This same triangulation is reflected in the stars gathered within and around the constellation Virgo", "the triad of stars surrounding the constellation Virgo", "Virgo is encased in a stellar triangle", and "a stellar triangle enclosing Virgo". All of this makes it sound as if the Virgo constellation lies completely within a right triangle outlined by the three stars Spica, Regulus and Arcturus; and that idea is encouraged by the illustation on page 256 of the book. As you can see, the triangle being depicted is a 90 degree right triangle, and the Virgo constellation appears to lie within that triangle. Now compare the image above with the one from page 347, which clearly shows the Virgo constellation cut in half by the triangle; meaning that the location of the Virgo can be located by means of the figure, and not that it encases it, as stated in the book. This is just the beginning of Ovason's deceptions. More or Less "The fundamental triangle visualized by L'Enfant ... may still be traced between the three most important architectural structures on his plan - the Capitol, the White House and the Washington Monument... The three structures... have been erected in more or less the same position which he suggested in 1791." (p 253) This implies that lines connecting the three structures still produce a right triangle, more or less; meaning that their positions remain analagous to the positions of the three stars above. "The stars of the Virgoan Triangle correspond with the L'Enfant triad", with Arcturus falling on the White House, Regulus on the Capitol and Spica on the Washington Monument. (p 257) This statement implies a one-to-one correlation, a literal mapping of one to the other. But on page 261 he reveals that the three earthly elements "are not united by a perfect triangle at all", because the monument was displaced 371.6 feet east and 123.17 feet south of it's original planned position; a lot more than less it seems. "The original right-angled triangle designed by L'Enfant is no longer a perfect right angle". Hmm. Looking at the following image of central DC, we can see the 'original' L'Enfant triangle in blue. It is a right triangle because the southwest corner is due south of the WH and due west of the CB, at the location of an equestrian statue of Washington that L'Enfant supposedly had planned for that location. This spot is marked by the Jefferson Pier today. The red lines reflect the change to the triangle that results from moving the monument location east and south. The angle there widens from 90 to about 97 degrees. Almost Exact? Having first stated that the L'Enfant triangle was a right triangle, and that it was almost the same as the Virgo Triangle which he also characterized as right-angled, then telling us that the earthly triangle no longer features a right angle, he next reveals that, "the truth is that the stars that I have used to symbolize this triangle - Arcturus, Spica and Regulus - are not themselves arranged in a perfect right-angled triangle". Then why does he depict it that way above? According to Ovason, "the deviation from the right angle made by the siting of the monument is consistent with that found in the stellar triangle round Virgo", and "When the triangle is measured against the Earth triangle, the correspondence between the two is almost exact". (p 262-3) The earth triangle he speaks of here is the triangle formed by the new position of the Washington Monument. OK, let's review. The team of L'Enfant, the designer, Ellicott, the surveyor, and Banneker, the astronomer, in their combined genius, came up with a plan of the city, who's grand mystery was that it reflected the layout of stars around the Virgo constellation, in order to higlight that in the sky on one evening in August, by the alignment of Pennsylvania Avenue. The original plan featured a right triangle, in spite of the fact that the stars that they were supposedly mapping do not form one in the sky. But at a later date, when the actual place for the Washington Monument was selected, it was correctly placed so that "the correspondence between the two is almost exact"; as if L'Enfant, Ellicott and Banneker had been mistaken originally. The Facts The next image compares the actual star distribution with the illustration taken from Ovason's book; and as you can see the numbers of the angles do not match. He has mis-represented the distance between Regulus and Arcturus in order to increase the size of the angle located at Spica to nearly 90 degrees. This, of course, reduces the apparent size of the other two angles. As you can see, none of Ovasons angles in his illustration (I have added the numberical values) agree with what goes on in the sky; that is he has fudged his drawing. But he has done a lot more than that. You will please note that the acute angle formed by Pennsylvania Avenue and the original monument location at the Capitol is 19.5 degrees, and nowhere near the 30 degrees of Ovason's illustration; and about half of the magnitude of the real triangle in the sky. The displacement of the Wash. Mmt. makes that angle 20 degrees. As to the asssertion that "the siting of the monument is consistent with that found in the stellar triangle round Virgo", I would like to point out that the change in position resulted in a larger angle at the monument (about 97 degrees), not a smaller one. Ovason's comment makes no sense, and the correspondence is anything but exact. We find that he illustrates a 75 degree angle in the sky with an 85 degree angle on paper, then compares both of these to the 97 degree angle in the map. The Virgo triangle arguement fails because the triangle in the sky does not even come close to the dimensions of the triangle in the map, either before or after the monument was positioned where it is today. The really simple way to check is to lay the sky map over the dc map and look. 2008 The Sun sets 20 degrees north of due west Aug 10 in D.C. You can imagine my dismay when I received my copy of the new book The United Symbolism of America by Robert Hieronimus, who has seen my critique of his friend Ovason, yet who writes that one of Ovason's main points in his book is that the right triangle that L'Enfant devised was deliberately situated to mirror the stellar triangle that encompasses the Virgo. First of all (as was shown above some time ago), the triangle does not encompass the Virgo constellation. Secondly, by Ovason's own admission, the stars in the sky do not form a right triangle, so why would people on the ground depict it as square? Also the angle at the Capitol building in the map is no where near the same as the angle seen in the sky. Bob also repeats Ovason's contention that "either Washington or Ellicott had, by setting the exact angle of Pennsylvannia Avenue, worked into the map of Washington, D.C., a triangle that reflected a stellar triangle". If the traingle in the map looks nothing like the star triangle what was exact about the angle? (Note: sine 19.5 degrees = .3333.) Bob repeats the claim later by saying that the 'triangular pattern of this group of stars is reflected exactly in the shape of the Federal Triangle"; which it doesn't. If you have ever tried to see Mercury or Venus, you know that they are hard to see because they never get far from the sun. Look at the sun set view above again and note that Leo will be obscured in the sunlight and therefore Regulus will not be seen hovering above the White House after sunset. Continue

The Analogy Arguement

The arguement about the triangle and the Virgo is a bit more complicated. It is the analogy arguement used earlier by others to tie the stars in Orion's belt to the placement of the three pyramids at Giza.
The short version of this arguement is that the L'Enfant Triangle, formed by the Capitol Building, the White House, and the original proposed position for the Washington Monument (due south of the WH and due west of the CB), as well as the Federal Triangle (contained with in the L'E. Triangle) are analagous to the triangle formed in the sky by Spica (in Virgo), Regulus (in Leo) and Arcturus (in Bootes). On page 262 he plainly states, "My assumption is that the earthly triangle... was intended as a reflection of the stars around the constellation Virgo".
Presumably this means a somewhat literal reflection, and not merely a triangular form.

Urban Monumentality
Supposedly, this mapping of the skies onto the ground "was designed to unite the celestial realm of the stars with the Earth" (whatever that means). This, of course, recalls the old hermetic notion of "As above, so below"; the idea being that the upper, ideal or spiritual realm is reflected in the lower, material realm. [Note that this comparison fails initially because 1) spatial metaphors do not apply to the spiritual realm- the spiritual is not above the material in a spatial sense, and 2) the celestial sphere is not the spiritual realm, but only another physical realm.]
In his book "Myths in Stone", subtitled "Religous Dimensions of Washington DC", Jeffery Meyer suggests that an examination of royal capitals and early urban developments reveals three characteristics that these have in common; cardinal orientation, axiality and central symbolism.
Cardinal orientation means a N-S, E-W alignment scheme of streets or buildings; axiality points to diagonal streets that connect monumental structures of significance, while central symbolism was an effort "to establish a connection between earth and heaven" (as if one were lacking), "to claim divine approval for their undertakings" and "to participate in the permanence of the order of the universe", all of which sounds like Ovason.
The baroque style of urban planning "isolates and elevates significant buildings, memorials and sites, placing them in a hierarchy". The positioning of these monuments superimposes a pattern of connecting diagonals on the gridwork plan. More important sites had more streets radiating from them.
L'Enfant describes the process thusly, "Having determined some principle points to which I wished to make the others subordinate, I made the distribution regular with every street at right angles, North and South, east and west, and afterward opened some different directions, as avenues to and from every principle place". p 41 Meyer This means that vistas and lines of site are generated by the positioning of monuments.

A Direct Projection of Stars onto the Earth?
Imagine that it is March, and the Virgo constellation can be see on the meridian during the night time. If we stand south of the L'Enfant triangle with a map in our hands, we see that the layout on the ground ahead of us corresponds to the map; now if we turn around and look at the sky, we see that the stellar triangle is oriented the same as on the map in our hands; that is a mirror image of that on the ground behind us.
In other words, a direct projection of stars to earth does not produce the pattern of buildings encountered on the ground in Washington, D.C.; just as the stars in Orion do not project directly onto the pyramids at Giza. The projections are reversed.

Almost the Same As

According to Ovason, "The L'Enfant triangle, with it's three primal buildings at it's corners, is almost the same as a right-angled triangle which may be traced in the skies, around the constellation Virgo." (p 255)
In that statement we have three assertions: 1) that the earthly triangle is almost the same as the celestial one, 2) that these are right triangles, and 3) that the stellar triangle is traced around the Virgo constellation. "This same triangulation is reflected in the stars gathered within and around the constellation Virgo", "the triad of stars surrounding the constellation Virgo", "Virgo is encased in a stellar triangle", and "a stellar triangle enclosing Virgo".
All of this makes it sound as if the Virgo constellation lies completely within a right triangle outlined by the three stars Spica, Regulus and Arcturus; and that idea is encouraged by the illustation on page 256 of the book. As you can see, the triangle being depicted is a 90 degree right triangle, and the Virgo constellation appears to lie within that triangle.

Now compare the image above with the one from page 347, which clearly shows the Virgo constellation cut in half by the triangle; meaning that the location of the Virgo can be located by means of the figure, and not that it encases it, as stated in the book. This is just the beginning of Ovason's deceptions.

More or Less

"The fundamental triangle visualized by L'Enfant ... may still be traced between the three most important architectural structures on his plan - the Capitol, the White House and the Washington Monument... The three structures... have been erected in more or less the same position which he suggested in 1791." (p 253) This implies that lines connecting the three structures still produce a right triangle, more or less; meaning that their positions remain analagous to the positions of the three stars above.
"The stars of the Virgoan Triangle correspond with the L'Enfant triad", with Arcturus falling on the White House, Regulus on the Capitol and Spica on the Washington Monument. (p 257) This statement implies a one-to-one correlation, a literal mapping of one to the other. But on page 261 he reveals that the three earthly elements "are not united by a perfect triangle at all", because the monument was displaced 371.6 feet east and 123.17 feet south of it's original planned position; a lot more than less it seems. "The original right-angled triangle designed by L'Enfant is no longer a perfect right angle". Hmm.
Looking at the following image of central DC, we can see the 'original' L'Enfant triangle in blue. It is a right triangle because the southwest corner is due south of the WH and due west of the CB, at the location of an equestrian statue of Washington that L'Enfant supposedly had planned for that location. This spot is marked by the Jefferson Pier today.

The red lines reflect the change to the triangle that results from moving the monument location east and south. The angle there widens from 90 to about 97 degrees.

Almost Exact?

Having first stated that the L'Enfant triangle was a right triangle, and that it was almost the same as the Virgo Triangle which he also characterized as right-angled, then telling us that the earthly triangle no longer features a right angle, he next reveals that, "the truth is that the stars that I have used to symbolize this triangle - Arcturus, Spica and Regulus - are not themselves arranged in a perfect right-angled triangle". Then why does he depict it that way above?
According to Ovason, "the deviation from the right angle made by the siting of the monument is consistent with that found in the stellar triangle round Virgo", and "When the triangle is measured against the Earth triangle, the correspondence between the two is almost exact". (p 262-3) The earth triangle he speaks of here is the triangle formed by the new position of the Washington Monument.
OK, let's review. The team of L'Enfant, the designer, Ellicott, the surveyor, and Banneker, the astronomer, in their combined genius, came up with a plan of the city, who's grand mystery was that it reflected the layout of stars around the Virgo constellation, in order to higlight that in the sky on one evening in August, by the alignment of Pennsylvania Avenue. The original plan featured a right triangle, in spite of the fact that the stars that they were supposedly mapping do not form one in the sky.
But at a later date, when the actual place for the Washington Monument was selected, it was correctly placed so that "the correspondence between the two is almost exact"; as if L'Enfant, Ellicott and Banneker had been mistaken originally.

The Facts

The next image compares the actual star distribution with the illustration taken from Ovason's book; and as you can see the numbers of the angles do not match. He has mis-represented the distance between Regulus and Arcturus in order to increase the size of the angle located at Spica to nearly 90 degrees. This, of course, reduces the apparent size of the other two angles.

As you can see, none of Ovasons angles in his illustration (I have added the numberical values) agree with what goes on in the sky; that is he has fudged his drawing. But he has done a lot more than that.
You will please note that the acute angle formed by Pennsylvania Avenue and the original monument location at the Capitol is 19.5 degrees, and nowhere near the 30 degrees of Ovason's illustration; and about half of the magnitude of the real triangle in the sky. The displacement of the Wash. Mmt. makes that angle 20 degrees. As to the asssertion that "the siting of the monument is consistent with that found in the stellar triangle round Virgo", I would like to point out that the change in position resulted in a larger angle at the monument (about 97 degrees), not a smaller one. Ovason's comment makes no sense, and the correspondence is anything but exact.
We find that he illustrates a 75 degree angle in the sky with an 85 degree angle on paper, then compares both of these to the 97 degree angle in the map. The Virgo triangle arguement fails because the triangle in the sky does not even come close to the dimensions of the triangle in the map, either before or after the monument was positioned where it is today. The really simple way to check is to lay the sky map over the dc map and look.

2008

The Sun sets 20 degrees north of due west Aug 10 in D.C.

You can imagine my dismay when I received my copy of the new book The United Symbolism of America by Robert Hieronimus, who has seen my critique of his friend Ovason, yet who writes that one of Ovason's main points in his book is that the right triangle that L'Enfant devised was deliberately situated to mirror the stellar triangle that encompasses the Virgo. First of all (as was shown above some time ago), the triangle does not encompass the Virgo constellation. Secondly, by Ovason's own admission, the stars in the sky do not form a right triangle, so why would people on the ground depict it as square? Also the angle at the Capitol building in the map is no where near the same as the angle seen in the sky.
Bob also repeats Ovason's contention that "either Washington or Ellicott had, by setting the exact angle of Pennsylvannia Avenue, worked into the map of Washington, D.C., a triangle that reflected a stellar triangle". If the traingle in the map looks nothing like the star triangle what was exact about the angle? (Note: sine 19.5 degrees = .3333.) Bob repeats the claim later by saying that the 'triangular pattern of this group of stars is reflected exactly in the shape of the Federal Triangle"; which it doesn't.
If you have ever tried to see Mercury or Venus, you know that they are hard to see because they never get far from the sun. Look at the sun set view above again and note that Leo will be obscured in the sunlight and therefore Regulus will not be seen hovering above the White House after sunset.

Continue