JETHRO "I never said there were two diamonds in a tile. Are you making this up as you go along, to mess with me? Ugh."
The rudeness is not necessary. My actual words, in trying to work with your term "tile", were: "...you're clarifying that when you said "tile," each of those in your calculations is one that contains the space of 2 diamonds..." And yes, by positing a diamond-in-a-square for each "tile," which is what you have since otherwise illustrated, each of your "tiles" does contain "the space of 2 diamonds" whether you recognize it or not. Do the math, do it visually, do it any way you wish and each diamond equals exactly half a "tile," therefore each of your "tiles" equals the space of two diamonds.
Anyhow ...I'm still wondering why we don't see seam lines crisscrossing half the diamonds we see, cutting them into 4ths, as further shown in your later illustration. One explanation, of course, is that the seams are actually contained in and made "invisible" by being in the lines that outline each "diamond" and that the "tiles" are cut in that fashion, which would mean we are actually seeing a single square laid diagonally, rather than diamonds-in-a-square pattern.