In their first paragraph see preceding article 1 , the authors speak of ''the core of the argument . . . conservation of angular momentum is destroyed''. However, in my paper, I cited six experiments in support of my conclusion that the speed of gravity is Ž . much faster than the speed of light none oppose it . Only one of those, the Laplace experiment, depends directly on angular momentum conservation. Three Ž others the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration induced by the Sun is unequal to the direction of arriving solar photons; absence of geometric aberration for gravity in solar eclipses; absence of gravitational propagation delay even for rapidly accelerat-. ing binary pulsars depend on aberration, which might be argued as equivalent to the angular momentum argument. But two experiments cited, the neutron interferometer results showing a failure of the weak Ž . equivalence principle that gravity is just geometry and the Walker-Dual experiment for the speed of gravity in the laboratory, are completely unrelated to angular momentum conservation, yet tell the same story: gravity propagates strongly faster than light.