Avery,

You're missing my point.

Let's make up a new system, away from AE concepts, so we don't carry forth any emotional baggage.

We use a measuring system of degrees. We see an angle of a mountain as being exactly 14 degrees. The culture in question uses Boogleys and Half-Boogleys as their measures. There are 6 Boogleys in a right angle.

They see a mountain top as being 1/2 Boogley, but in actuality, it is MUCH closer to a full Boogley. They, however, would have written it as a half-boogley and would have declared it to be what we consider 7.5 degrees (that's a half-boogley). If they were going to build something to commemorate the angle, they would use a standard half-boogley (7.5 degrees). There is no measure for 14 degrees, and although a FULL-boogley is much closer, they would never have used it because it was not a full boogley. Case closed.

Now, the AE seqed system had much more fine-tuning available than boogleys and half-boogleys, but the point remains the same. We must measure things in their units, not ours. If the shafts actually rise at one seqed, but the star is seen at another, then we can reasonably state that the star was not the target... even if they are immensely close in our "degree" method for measuring angles.


Oh... and this part:

Quote

> Naturally, there's no evidence to suggest the
> shafts pointed at stars anyway,


The shafts pointing at particular stars is evidence.

I meant "there's no evidence to suggest THEY INTENDED to point the shafts at stars, anyway". Thanks for catching that.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.