The physical evidence that his arguement hinges on, is the fact that the sun sets over the White House, as seen from the Capitol Building, somewhere around the end of the first week, or the beginning of the second week in August, of each year. The date he offers is August 10th. The conclusion that he reaches is that the city planners oriented Pennsylvannia Avenue so as to highlight this event, for astronomical reasons.

The steps in his arguement go something like this:

1) People have been orienting monuments and structures according to celestial events for thousands of years;
2) the city planning of Washington, D.C. has been coordinated by Masons, since the beginning;
3) the city was intended to celebrate the mystery of the constellation Virgo- which he claims is associated with the Egyptian Isis, Greek Ceres and the Catholic Virgin Mary;
4) Pennsylvannia Avenue was aligned so that, as the sun sets in early August, when the sun is in Leo, the Virgo constellation is on the western horizon following the sunset.

Ovason points out more than once that this is The Mystery of the DC layout, and is focused on ONE sunset. I intend to point of the failings in his logic, and to expand on his thesis, somewhat.

Let me say at the outset, that I agree that the design and construction of the Capitol city has been under Masonic control, and that it is a given that structures have been aligned celestially since the beginning of civilization. Where I believe that Ovason gets side-tracked, is where he tries to center the celebration of the "mystery" to one day or sunset.

Here is a copy of page 82 from Ovason's book, where he discusses the solar arc, and the city's having been aligned to the sunset. This is particuarly poorly worded for an author who is supposed to be an esteemed astrologer like Ovason.

He says, "the east west line on which the city is laid is halfway between the two extremes of northerly and southerly (sun) setting". Well yes; the city is laid out orthographically, that is on a north-south, east-west grid; and the east-west line IS the mid point in the suns yearly path. This is a natural function of aligning any thing, from a pyramid to a monument or city to a house, in this way.

Next he says, "the designers of the city oriented it to the Sun, specifically to the sunset... these measurements are made from the Capitol Building". This is what is called a "spurious realtionship" in science and statistics. If the city, like the pyramids, were oriented to the North, it is automatically (also) oriented to the South, East and the West; as well as the sunsets and sunrises, and just the sunsets.

Any building who's front door faces east is aligned to the sunrise; this makes it's back door face the west, and aligned to the sunset. This is an not uncommon practice in city planning, to align streets north-south and east-west; and is hardly a mystery.

As you can see from the illustration, the Capitol features streets radiating both east and west from it, as does Lincoln Square (east of the Capitol); those to the west oriented toward the setting sun, while those to the east are oriented toward the rising sun.

Note that, as Ovason points out, the solar arc is symetrical about the east-west line. The term solar arc refers to the movement of the sunrise from due east in the spring, to a more northerly postion in the summer, back to due east in the fall, to a southerly position in the winter time, then back to the east in the spring again. This pattern is mirrored in the west for the sunset.

Since the days and nights are of equal length in the spring and fall, the times when the sun rises due east and sets due west are called equinoxes; the Vernal Equinox in march and the Autumnal Equinox in September. The June and December extremes of the solar arc are called the Summer and Winter Solstices. Look again at page 83 where Ovason speaks of the Spring and Winter (instead of Fall) Equinoxes. Ouch!

Here is an image showing the westerly view from the Capitol Building, with Maryland Avenue on the left pointing toward the Jefferson Memorial, Pennsylvannia Avenue on the right running toward the White House past the Federal Triangle and the old Post Office Building tower (pictured in Ovason's book: facing page 310), and the Mall and Washington Monument in the middle.

Note that these streets comprise the so-called Masonic Compass in the Washington, D.C. map, first identified by Ed Decker in his pamphlet entitled "The Question of Freemasonry" (Published in 1992).

OK, let's stay with his "sunset" assertion, and take a look at page 82 from his book, where he talks about the westerly arc of the setting sun. Notice that when facing the sunset, we are looking WEST, yet he has the image marked E here. Doh!

The point that he is making on that page and illustration, is that in it's yearly path, at the latitude of Washington, DC, the sun makes a 62 degree arc across the western horizon at sundown; moving 31 degrees north of west in June, and 31 degrees south of west in Decmeber.

If I could, I would like to begin with the high pass of the sun, which Ovason identifies as the Solstice, and which sees the sun setting at 31 degrees north of due west at the Latitude of DC.

Next we see the August 10th sunset, which Ovason claims is the key to this puzzle.

September sees the equinox, where night and day are of equal lengths, and the sun crosses the equator, this time heading south for the winter.

By Novemeber, the sun has moved to about 20 degrees south of due west, that being the end of Maryland Avenue, and the location of the Jefferson Memorial, as seen from the Capitol Building.

In December, the sun marks it's south most position at the winter solstice, where it sets 31 degrees south of due west that day from the latitude of DC.

Then as is the habit in nature, the pattern repeats itself, with the sun setting on Maryland Ave and the Jeff Mml again in February.

Due west again at the vernal equinox in March.

In May we see the sun make it's return trip to Pennsylvania Avenue, the very same place that we see it in August, where we see it once again set over the White House.

What then are we to make of Ovason's comments about "one day" on pages 239 and 250, where he says, "Both L'Enfant and Ellicott would have insisted that only one day (which is to say, one sunset) would make the precise orientation between the Capitol and the President's House". He is speaking here, of course, of the August sunset over the White House. I repeat- the sun sets over the Washington Monument in March, over the White House in MAY, moving north, then AGAIN in AUGUST, on it's southward path. The sun set there TWICE a year. His arguement collapses here.

As we have already seen, the sun makes it yearly round in 365 days, moving from equinox to solstice in about 91 days; the cross-quarter days, then, mark the half-way points between the solstices and equinoxes, falling in February, May, August and November.

Note that the sun moves much faster, through the arc at the equinoxes than at the solstices (a word which means "standstill"); so that in 45 days, the sun covers 71% of it's apparent path between it's equinox and solstice positions. At 39 degrees north latitude (DC's position), the sun moves about 22 degrees in 45 days, placing near the postion noted by Ovason (Aug. 10).

Sir Norman Lockyer, an astronomer and physicist, and founder and editor of the journal 'Nature', developed a scientific approach to the investigation of prehistoric astronomy, and launched the modern interest in the subject. His surveys of the orientation of Greek and Egyptian temples, and his studies of Stonehenge and other monuments were widely published and widely read in the late 19th and early years of the 20th century. His belief that ancient sites such as Stonehenge were axially oriented towards a place on the skyline where a celestial body -- the sun, the moon, or a star -- crossed the horizon on a particular day has been taken up and elaborated upon by later writers, notably Gerald Hawkins and Alexander Thom.

Lockyer concluded that early British megalithic sites were mostly orientated to the rising or setting sun at the cross-quarter days, in November, February, May and August, or to stars which rose before the sun at those times of year.

For Lockyer, Stonehenge was neither a megalithic calendar nor an astronomical calculator in the way it was later to be interpreted by Gerald Hawkins. He believed that Stonehenge was a temple and that the ruined stone structure we see today is the remains of a much older temple built to celebrate the ancient Celtic festival of Beltane (May Day).

He believed that customs changed over the centuries, and later megalithic sites were orientated mainly towards the solstices. It appears from the evidence that certain changes took place in course of time in the religion; and this is shown in the festivals. While the ancient festivals remained, all festivals of the succeeding religions were added.

The original celebrations belonged to the May-November year, a division of time which follows neither the solstices nor the agricultural seasons; some feel that there these festivals were connected with the breeding seasons of the flocks and herds. The chief festivals were: in the spring, May Eve (April 30), called Roodmas or Rood Day in Britain and Walpurgis-Nacht in Germany; in the autumn, November Eve (October 31), called in Britain All Hallow's Eve. Between these two came: in the winter, Candlemas (February 2); and in the summer, the Gule of August (August 1), called Lammas in Britain.

[You may note that while the sun is at it's high point at the solstice the third week in June, the temperature in the northern hemisphere does not peak until about August 6th, about 45 days later, half-way to the equinox; and while the sun makes it low pass in late December, the coldest time is about February 6th. This puts the center of the moderate temperatures in May and November.] To these were added the festivals of the solstitial invaders, St John's Day at midsummer and Yule at midwinter. With the advent of Christianity the names and dates of the festivals were changed, otherwise they were observed as before, but with ceremonies of the new religion.

While examining the "station stones" at Stonehenge, Lockyer discovered that a line drawn through thru 91 and 93 marked the sunset on about May 6th and August 8th, and in the opposite direction marked the sunrise at about February 7th and November 8th, the times of the cross quarter days about 45 days before and after the Solstices. This is the same alignment depicted by Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House in DC.

Interestingly, the Street of the Dead and the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico City are perpendicular to the August 13th sunset.

To conclude, I would like to say that I disagree with Ovason's conclusion that "the Mystery of Wasington, D.C" (page 347 "Secret Architecture") centers around "only one day" (p. 339); because the sun occupies the position to which he refers TWICE every year, in May AND August.

I suggest that the dates of the sunsets that occur on Pennsylvannia and Maryland Avenues point to ancient Druid and Celtic Fire Festivals, and are related to sun worship, considered allegorically by the Masons. One might ask, why, with the Masonic emphasis on the concept of "light", that they would choose to orient themselves toward the sun set and not he sunrise.

The answer is that several cultures including Islam, Hebrews and the Druids began their day at sundown; the reason being that they saw the sun's transit across the sky as a allegory for the soul's journey. The Mystery Religions saw the daily and yearly changes that occured to the sun, as well as the moon's monthly changes as symbolic of human incarnation, and enacted dramas that illustrated this in symbols that were easily understandable to Initiates.

The story began at sunset, or the FALL Equinox, or New (dark of the) Moon, because that symbolized the soul's incarnation into the earthly plane, which was viewed as the figurative death of the soul, the soul's exile from it's Heavenly Home. This is the story of the Prodigal Son from the Bible. The power of the sun is extinguished at sundown, it is re-born at dawn, and reaches full strength high in the Heavens. Alternately, it crosses the equator heading south at the Equinox, or Fall in September, reaches a low point in December, crosses the Equator again in the spring, and peaks high in the sky in the Summer.

On page 347 of "The Secret Architecture", we read, "This, then, is the Mystery of Washington, D.C. - that it was designed with it's main avenue to point to a sunset that would reveal in the skies the constellation Virgo". Actually the whole of the book is an attempt to prove that "the city was intended to celebrate the mystery of Virgo", what ever that might mean.

If by that he means that the entire design of the city centered around pointing to the Virgo constellation in the West in August, I don't buy it. I especially don't buy the one sunset notion, since the sun sets in the same place in May as well. It is hard for me to believe, after looking at the view to the west from the Capitol Building that features Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues marking four stations of the sun (solar arc), that the planners intended to feature just one of those stations.

He suggests that, "The angels ... in medieval diagrams ... are the spiritual powers who control the movements of the planets, and ensure that the creative enterprise of the cosmos is kept alive, and in good working order" (page 357) and that "the begnign power of (these) celestial beings may be invited to participate in the spiritual life of a city by means of astrolgy". (page 374).

Ovason's foregone conclusion is that "who ever arranged things" in DC, was "inviting some archetype, or spiritual being, to direct the destiny of the city" (page 361), just like a priest blessing fishing fleets.

On page 375 we read, "The majority of esotricists who were involved in the construction of Washington, D.C., must have asked themselves frequently how it would be possible to invite the power or virtue of Hamaliel - of the intelligency of Virgo - into the life of the city".

One way that they did this, he asserts, is to guarantee that "images of Virgo should predominate in the public zodiacs" in DC, and that Virgo was "consistently operative during foundation and cornerstone ceremonies". (P 361) That is by use of electional astrology. foot note

The Big Mystery of the layout of the Capital, however, relates to the alignment of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the triangular hub of the city, which, according to Ovason, reflects "in it's form and symbolism", the nature of the Virgo constellation.

His arguement in relationship to Pennsylvania Ave. is that if we look toward the White House from the Capitol on or about August 10, we will see the sun setting over the end of the avenue and the WH. He asserts that Penn. Ave. was designed with a crook in it, specifically to take advantage of this one sunset alignment; we will call this the alignment arguement.

The reason for the alignment, according to Ovason, is that following this sunset, we can see the Virgo constellation in the evening sky over west DC. The problem with this arguement, as I have already pointed out, is that the sun also sets there in early May every year. If the avenue was aligned to just one sunet, what are we to make of the fact of the May sunset there?

As a matter of fact, if you look to the west from the Capitol, you can see that Penn Ave aligns with the May and August sunsets, while Maryland Ave aligns with the February and November sunsets; yet the May alignment of Penn Ave and the Maryland Ave alignments are never mentioned in the book. [You may note that February, May, August and November are the times of the Celtic Cross-Quarter days, or the witches sabbats.]

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, about which we will say more later.

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". There is no need to prove anything, as he has already assumed this; what remains is to make the facts appear to fit that assumption.

Supposedly, this mapping of the skies onto the ground "was designed to unite the celestial realm of the stars with the Earth". 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.]

It would seem that any attempt to replicate a stellar configuration within a map layout, in order to tie the earth to the heavens, would at least make the earthly equivalent look like the celestial one; but this does not seem to be the case here, inspite of what it says in Ovason's book, where we read:

"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. On the same page we see, "a less obvious triangle, set in the stars around the constellation Virgo". Then later, "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 that image 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. But this is just the beginning of Ovason's deceptions.

First he proclaims that, "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... In the early map of the city, these three points formed a right-angled triangle ... 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.

Then he asserts that, "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 then 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.

After having said that the three had been placed in more or less their original places, he now wants to describe "just how far removed the monument is from the site originally envisaged" (p 262) "These (distance) figures may not seem to be eccessive, but there is one way to see just how massive they are in terms of orientation." He goes on to describe how far out of line the Monument is from the north-south line running through the White House, so that "the original right-angled triangle designed by L'Enfant is no longer a perfect right angle". Hmm.

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".

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)

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.

Here is an image that depict the stars of which he speaks, with the angles between them noted. This is a screen capture from astronomical software. You will please note that what was presented initially as an almost right angle actually measures 75 degrees, that's a difference of 15 degrees.

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.

Looking at the following image of central DC, we can see the L'Enfant triangle in blue. You will please note that the acute angle 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, as you can easily see.

Reviewing the facts, we find that Ovason's depiction of the stellar triangle features angles measuring 85, 65 and 30 degrees, while astronomical software shows us that the angles are closer to 75, 69 and 36 degrees, with the angles in the DC map measuring 97, 20 and 63 degrees.

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.

Leaving aside the fact that the angle at the Capitol, formed by rays to the White House and the Wash. Mmt. is 20 degrees, rather than the 36 degrees angle that we see at Regulus in the sky, and the fact that the angle at the monument is close to 97 degrees rather than the 75 degrees that we see in the sky, let us turn to the general orientation of the two triangles.

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.

This, of course, reminds us of the book "The Orion Mystery" in which Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert identified the three main pyramids at Giza as a symbolic representation of the three stars in the Belt of Orion. The problem with that, as pointed out by Ed Krupp, is that "When you project the stars from the sky directly to the earth, the 'Belt' of pyramids is angled the wrong way".

Pennsylvania Avenue, the most important street in the capital, has become the ceremonial axis of Washington, D.C.. In L'Enfant's words,"The first of these avenues, and the most direct one, begins at the Eastern Branch and ends over Rock Creek at the wharves at Georgetown".

Looking at the path of Pennsylvannia Avenue, we see three distinct segments, 1) one running from northwest DC (Georgetown) to the White House (WH), 2) another from there to the Capitol Building (CB), and 3) a third from there to the Eastern Branch. As David Ovason points out ("Secret Architecture" page 331) "Pennsylvania Avenue has been built (in accordance with L'Enfant's map) as three sections which run at different angles to one another".

If we overlay a straight line from the northwest to the river, we notice that it agrees with the original until it reaches the WH, but that the two diverge until they meet again at the same point on the river's edge. Had the Capitol Building been located a few hundred feet to the south, Pennsylvannia Avenue would have been a "straight shot" all the way to the river, and all the resulting angles would have been different; or the same, actually.

Unfortunately Ovason fails to realize this, and sees things differently; pointing out (on page 330) that, "the western extension (north and west of the White House, the straight section) is subtended three degrees to the north on L'Enfant's map". That is, it turns up three degrees from the angle formed by the middle segment. In other words, he is making the section between the WH and CB the straight segment.

The question that arises is why is there a bend in Pennsylvannia Avenue? That is, why did the planners not lay it out as a straight line?

Ovason's basic assumption is that the "aligment" of middle segment of PA was intentional. On page 331 he states that, "It appears that L'Enfant, and Ellicott (who adjusted the Frenchman's maps slightly - even in regard to this angle of Pennsylvannia Avenue), wanted this stretch of the avenue ... to orient differently from the rest".

And, "Why did Andrew Ellicott measure the length of Pennsylvania Avenue in such a way that it's central portion, between the Capitol and the White House, ran at an angle diiferent from the rest?... he did this in order to orient this stretch to a particular sunset". (page 332)

The thesis of his book is that this segment of the avenue aligns to the sunset around August 10th, and while he continues to point to this "one day or sunset", he fails to remind us that the sun also sets there in early May.

If you think about it for just a second, it will be clear to you that this three degrees does not make much difference in where the Virgo constellation is seen in the eveneing sky in August in Washington DC. I dare say that if you went out and looked three nights in a row, that you couldn't even notice the diference. Ovason's claim about one day keeps appearing weaker and weaker.

I take a different view of things. I recommend that L'Enfant would have liked to have made the avenue straight, but that he simply "ran out of hill" on which to put the Capitol Building. Just take a look at a topographic image of the Capitol Hill, or Jenkins Heights as it was called in 1791. Note that closely placed lines indicate a rapid change of elevation, while an absence of lines indicates a relatively flat area.

As you can see, the CB was placed on the crest of the hill, overlooking a steep drop off to the west; and there are three points further to the east that are 40 feet higher (red "x"'s ) on which the building could have been placed, had a prominent position on the hill been the first concern of the planners.

The image below is an out-take from the August 1791 "line-map" by LeEnfant, depicting his choice of the position for the Capitol; a point which was, L'E thought, "a pedestal waiting for a monument". (Arnebeck page 51)

Ellicott did not agree. As a matter of fact, his major objection to L'Enfant's map was about the location chosen for the Capitol Building. His complaint was that "This last defect is so obvious, that I do not remember to have met with one person who did not immediately see it, when on the ground." (Arenebeck Through a Fiery Trial, page 115)

He wanted to move the building 600 feet to the east, because 1) it was too close to the edge of the hill, 2) the foundation there would be doubtful , and 3) to the east 20-30 feet of earth blocked the view, as you can see from the above map with the red x's.

Washington made the final desision that the building would not be moved and that "the hill to the east should stay".

Note that the fact that Ellicott expressed his disapproval of the location of the CB, and that he wanted to move it 600 feet to the east, does not fit with what Ovason claims about Ellicott being the person who laid out the section of Pennsylvania Avenue between the WH and CB.

Here is a topographic image which features the modern landscape, as well as elevation numbers (circled in red).

This image (below) consists of the topo map overlaid with the straight line of the "ideal" path of PA (from the second image on the page), with the alternate location of the CB marked with a blue rectangle. Note how close the topo lines are at this location, indicating a rapid rise in elevation, and an impossible place on which to build the Capitol.

The fact of the matter is that at this distance from the White House, the location for the Capitol Building that would have made Pennsylcania Avenue a straight line, was on the side of a steep hill. L'Enfant made a decision; instead of moving it to the southeast to preserve a straight line, he moved it to the north.

As has been pointed out, the alignment of PA between the CB and WH is 19.5 degrees south of due east. The sine of 19.5 degrees is .33333, meaning that the ratio of the distance between the WH and Wash Mmt and that between the WH and CB would have been 1:3, something that Masons could readilty understand.

The following is an illustration of the topography of the entire DC area, with the relative high places high-lighted in red. Note that by "realtive" high areas, we mean the highest point in a given location, that is realtive to it's immediate surroundings.

Next we zoom in on the White House area.

You can see that in spite of the fact that "historians" tell us that both the WH and CB were located on "hills", which evokes a mental image of a building showcased above the surrounding landscape, neither of the two is actually placed on a relative high place. The White House, like the Capitol, was placed adjacent to a prominence that was at least 40 feet higher than the location chosen for it.

According to Bob Arnebeck (in "Through a Fiery Trial page 53), "On June 28 (1791)... Washington went with L'Enfant and Ellicott to see if he liked where L'Enfant had put the president's house. He did not". At Suter's Tavern, on the 29th, Washington declared that the diagonals "would not be so numerous", and that the president's house would be more to the west "for the advantage of the higher ground".

While some of the diagonals were removed, the White House reamined in the same spot, raising more questions about who was responsible for what in the map.

 

---

 

The Pyramid Image

The question that confronts us now is, if L'Enfant was not concerned with the WH and CB being on one of the highest and most prominent spots on the hill, why did he place them where they did? That is, why did he place the CB on the crest of the hill, rather than in a more prominent position? And why was the WH not positioned on the obvious high place to the west?

If you have read my pages concerning the Pyramid Image concealed in the DC map layout, you will know that my answer to that question is that the concern for depicting the pyramid cross-section image was as important as showcasing the buildings.

My thesis is that the City Planners utilized the cross-section image of the Great Pyramid at Giza as one of the templates for the layout of the city streets, and that the White House, Washington Monument and the Capitol Building were positioned so as to represent elements in the Pyramid Image.

 

Looking at the image of the pyramid cross-section merged with the DC map, we can see that the "fit" is less than perfect between Pennsylvania Avenue and the Ascending Passage, due to the fact that the avenue has a crook or "dog leg" in it.

 

Had the planners been able to place the CB just a little bit to the south, Pennsylvannia Avenue would have been a straight line and served as a better representation of the Ascending Passage and the Grand Gallery, and the CB would have been positioned closer to the junction of the Gallery and the passage to the Queen's Chamber.

Let's take a look at the DC map with a straightened Pennsylvannia Avenue and compare it to the pyramid cross-section.

 

First with a few streets, the canal, and a couple of orientation points emphasized.

 

 

Then with the pyramid image overlaid on it.

 

With the position of the Capitol moved, and Penn. Ave. straightened we see three of the main passages in the Pyramid Image accounted for almost perfectly; but what of the so-called "well" shaft?

 

---

 

The Shaft and Canal

See the image below and note the path of the canal marked in blue, a feature that was removed following the War Between the States. Comparing with the preceeding image shows the canal to be a less than perfect representation of the shaft.

 

Refering again to the topographic image we can ascertain the reason for the discrepency; the canal was planned to conform with the lay of the land, which, once again, was the simplest method and required the least amount of landscaping. Recall that the canal was dug to control the Tiber.

 

When you consider the broad open area located where the canal splits and compare to the "grotto", located at ground level in the Pyramid Image, you will see that the one branch of the canal forms a pretty good representation of the shaft.