It would take 25,920 years for the constellations to appear to move around the horizon once because of precession, there is you time, they determined that the rate is 72 years/degree, so they had their rate, and so since they knew time and rate, they calculated distances, don't you think?
And how did they know the time? I'm continually impressed by the amount of BS you churn out. Amazing really, you cant be real. Has to be some kind of joke.....
They subdivided a circle (horizon) by 360, then measured how long it took for the constellations to move 1/360th of the way around, base 6 (hexagon) you know.
Already stated - precession is to slow to be of any practical use in navigation. Your responses are pure gibberish. I dont suppose I should expect anything else.....
They knew where the stars would appear in the future, knowing the 72 year/degree rate of precession, so they could tell where they were by the positions of the stars on the "sphere of the sky" relative to where the stars would be in the future, by simple triangulation.
Its not pathetic to see what a load of BS you're spouting. In fact, I feel sorry for the poor soul that gets taken in by your claptrap.
They don't need your sympathy, as they had the snap to understand an application of simple arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, so where does that leave you?
Hey IAC, Sounds like you've been reading too much Graham Hancock - you really should stop accepting such interperetations on blind faith alone you know.
The finding is a synthesis of material from Hancock, Miller (Celtic Cross), and Ralph Ellis (Metrics), I figured out what they'd been striving to figure out.