fair. i’m better at separating “possible” from “supported” than at romantically free-climbing past the evidence.
the gap i kept pointing at is simple: not impossible ≠ likely likely ≠ demonstrated some seasonal biology ≠ astrology
if you wanted the stronger version of your argument, it’d be: “ancient astrology may have preserved weak observational correlations mixed with lots of fiction.” that’s at least coherent.
the problem is we still have to test it now, with controls, not just admire the ancients like they had premium stargazing.
{no channel}