By B.L. Freeborn © 2013

Because the Great Circle and Octagon are equally placed from Geller Hill an isosceles triangle is formed. (See image from Geller Hill at bottom.) The angle between them is 50 degrees. The line bisecting it is on the azimuth of 52.2  and this is said to be the same azimuth as the line running through the octagon-circle centerline making them parallel.

The line from Geller Hill to the center of the Observatory Circle creates an angle of 56 degrees as shown in the image. The triangle formed from the intersection of these two triangles is another isosceles triangle of degrees 50 80 50. These three numbers remind us of the numbers that compose 58.5 or very nearly the 584 we saw in the East Fork Works. In the same manner the 50 65 65 triangle reminds us of 5.6565.

It can be determined that the azimuth angle from the center of the Great Circle through the center of Wright Square is 43 degrees. Recall that we had 86 on our number list and 2 x 43 equals 86. Using this angle and 1540 foot distance between the centers of the Octagon-Circle and Hively/Horn’s lengths for the translation of the figures across the plane, we can calculate the distance between the center of the Great Circle and Wright Square as 2920 feet. The image below was created by drawing over a satellite image using what appears to be correct centers and the Square’s position shown by Romain in his diagrams. This distance does not appear to be all that important but in fact 2 x 2920 = 5840. The angle that closes the polygon is 93 degrees or virtually the angle 92.8  at which Wright Square is set. The final angle, 79.5, repeats the idea of 79.2.

All of which confirms the numbers on our list. But there is another set of numbers we should see before we move on to looking at the Octagon and its development.

Hively and Horn base their report on the idea that these structures were built on complex ideas of archaeoastronomy which include rise and set points of the sun, moon and other celestial occurrences. But at certain times they are confused by obvious angles that do not meet with their expectations. The angle through the Wright Square at 92.8 degrees is one and the angle which passes through the center of the Great Circle and out through the center of its neck is another. One might say that if these structures were built to verifiable celestial alignments that this is one very important angle that is off. They calculate its measured azimuth at 66.6  an error of .9 degrees or nearly one full degree from what they expect to find. This does not sound like very much but this sort of error adds up quickly in layouts of this magnitude.

But we have seen this number, 66, before. We saw it at East Forks. It is repeated no less than eleven times there. It is in the length and width of the square corner of East Fork, the radius of the top circle and it is used 8 times to space the candles. But this is the only time we have seen 66 in this earthwork … or maybe not!

Note that 7 OCD = 7/5ths mile = 1.4 miles = 7392 feet which equals 66 x 56 x 2 feet. This gives us not only 66 but 56.

Additionally, the distance 6 OCD = 6/5ths mile = 1.2 miles = 6336 feet = 56 x 56.5 x 2 feet. This gives both forms of 56. All of which is remarkably equal once again. And if we were in the habit of writing fractions as 5 of 7 or 5 of 6, then 56 appears again. The 57 is another number of importance. It is seen in the conversion from degrees to radians. There are 57.29 degrees to a radian. People who study objects that move in circles, like planets, prefer to calculate with radians.

Forward to NEXT SECTION

Back to PREVIOUS POST

Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS

___________________________

References/Footnotes:

1. Hively, Ray, and Horn, Robert, Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio, “Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy,” Supplement, Vol. 13, p.S1; also Science History Publications, 1982.      See:   http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu
2. Romain, William F., Ph.D., Newark Earthwork Cosmology: This Island Earth, “Hopewell Archeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley,” Vol.6 (2), March 2005.   See:  http://www.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/one.htm
3. Romain, William F., Ph.D., Design and Layout of the Newark Earthwork Complex, “Hopewell Archeology: The Newsletter of Hopewell Archeology in the Ohio River Valley,” Vol.6 (2), March 2005.  See:   http://www.nps.gov/mwac/hopewell/v6n2/two.htm