"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:hgFFb.176916$_M.807142@attbi_s54...
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Well I think the OP is wrong...
The Anomalous acceleration is rather large about
1 part in 1700. This rules out any new g-field effect
or known GR effect or SR effect. These effects
would certainly appear as anomalies in the orbits
of bodies with high eccentricities.

IMO...
The error appears in the measurement procedure,
specifically in Galilean Relativity, let me explain,
why Gal. Rel. is a useful concept here.

snip

I went through a prolonged discussion of this some time
back in these newsgroups.

If you look at how the folks who came to the conclusion
arrived at it the first thing to note is the fudge factors
they enter into "correcting" the incoming data stream
to acommodate atmospheric conditions. There are other
problems as well, including the possibility of multiple
signal paths.

Clean and unadulterated data would make me a lot happier
about the whole situation. Till then the whole thing
remains suspect IMO. But doubtless it has brought
lots of funding over the years, and who can fault
the group for that?

Strange though it may seem, I agree with Bill about his interpretation of
the anomaly.

Franz