Clive Wrote:
> How do you think they designed these
> structures...with a wet thumb stuck in the air and
> a whim of fancy to boot?

Even as late as the 1920s it wasn't uncommon to "pace and peg" the basic floor plan, then use increasingly accurate measuring and squaring steps to assure final "trueness". I see no reason to assume the AE couldn't have started with a dead on North orientation from star rise and set measurement, then created the floor plan in a like manner. Please note I do not preclude further design steps, merely point out that Occam's suggests solutions be no more complicated than they need to be.

> They had a grandiose concept of putting together
> an assembly of what they had learned and in their
> wisdom they decided that every aspect of the
> structure would be related to something, be it
> math, astronomy or the sciences.

And your submission of proof of this is?
So far the proof appears to be your drawings. But you made them with a modern mind and modern concepts and tools. There is not one shred of evidence the AE HAD TO use your chosen approach.

Jammer

PS, If you take any arrangement of two, three, of four geometric shapes and lay them out randomly but parallel in a 3 dimensional plane, you will find a boundless series of lines, arcs, circles, and tangents that can be laid out on top of them. Note the process started with "randomly".

As long as the layout was dictated by space, view, altitude, slopes, etc., you could submit 100 drawings of such layouts and not come close to proving intent.

Jammer