Barbelo Wrote:

>
>
>

Quote
2. And yes, the ancients, or some of
> them, had a strong interest in precession. So, how
> is it not rational, or reasonable to consider this
> possibility at GT?
>
>

>
> Again, I'm not sure that this possibility has been
> ruled out.
>
> As far as the ancients "strong interest" is
> concerned, it would behoove the AOM, or anyone
> else interested in this subject, to explore all
> the methods of measuring the Rate of Precession.
> That is why I provided the link to NASA to him.
>
> These are valid formulae. Have you read them?
>
>
Hi Barbelo

Thank you for your reply. As I wrote earlier, I've noted that you have strong feelings on this subject and I truly respect that. For now, perhaps only owing to my limited commitment, at this time I'm inclined to align with what I THINK is a strong consensus view, that we've got a good handle on precession. I concede that you are likely much more well informed on this matter.

So, based on my much more limited understanding, I presume the AoM to be on firm enough ground, when it comes to precession in general. That said, I note that you had other issues with Martin's methodology. Regards, PB