Blood Moon

Either way, the Hagee phenomenon is pretty funny. This dude is wrong time after time, but it scarcely matters to his followers.Apparently, the current lack of spectacular comets means that these liars have to latch onto other ordinary, and totally predictable phenomenon in order to predict gloom and doom.Wasn't this stuff covered adequately in episode 3 or 4 of 'Cosmos'. Sheesh.

Yeah, I know this thread is a year and a half old, but there is another one of those supermoon, blood moon eclipse things happening this Sunday evening. About half of the earth will be a good place to view the eclipse, including US, Canada, and Central and South America.

While this is true, I doubt that the difference in size is anything anyone would find remarkable. The entire range of variation in size from perigee to apogee is about 5.5%. Compared to the optical illusion that makes the moon appear to be larger when it is lower relative to the horizon, the actual variability in the moon size is barely perceptible.I try not to miss eclipses, but it looks like it is going to be too cloudy to see the eclipse in my area this time. Hope the rest of you have better luck. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What I've read suggests that there is no way to be really certain about whether there was totality. The edge of the earth's umbra (the dark inner shadow) is slightly fuzzy due to the atmosphere and is not perfectly round because earth is not perfectly spherical. Nobody is completely sure that the eclipse was not total, but the best guess appears to be that about 99.9 percent of the moon was within the earth's umbra, which means not total.Some observers reported that they never saw a complete darkening/reddening of the upper edge of the moon, but supposedly those observations may not be reliable.Nitpicky? Perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with that. Just enjoy the eclipses as they occur. The April 4 eclipse was just as much a sight as any other lunar eclipse. Tiny deviations from totality do matter for solar eclipses, but not so much for lunar ones. Edited by NoNukes, : Change moon's umbra to earth's umbra in one place.

Wow! That does sound spectacular!I've never witnessed a total solar eclipse. I told my wife that yesterday and that I would like to make plans to do whatever traveling is necessary to see one.I have seen an annular solar eclipse.

To be clear, the issue of totality is with proximity of the moon to the nodes of the lunar orbit, where the nodes are the points of intersection of the lunar orbit with the plane of the earth's orbit. The diameter of the earth's shadow (the umbra or inner shadow) is about three times the diameter of the moon regardless of whether the moon is at perigee or at apogee.On April 4, 2015, the moon crossed the earth's shadow in such a way that the moon was nearly tangential to the upper left edge of the earth's shadow at the point where the moon was most fully within the shadow (as viewed in the northern hemisphere). The result was a very short eclipse that may or may not have been total.See image below: Today's eclipse occurs with the moon a bit closer to the nodes, which produces a more nearly ideal crossing, and a substantially longer period of totality. No question about totality at all. See image below: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, that cannot be the case for every harvest moon. The lunar cycle is out of phase with the yearly calendar, but the harvest moon must be a full moon in a given month. Further lunar procession causes the perigee and apogee points to rotate on an 8.85 year cycle. As a result the moon's apogee occurs at different points of the year each year. The line of the nodes rotates on a cycle that completes after 18.60 years so that the positions of the nodes is different as well. The moon's orbit around the earth is very complicated.And those supermoons are less than 3% larger than the average moon size. You would not notice that the supermoon was any larger than the typical size without some measuring aid. Your premise is incorrect. According to wikipedia, there were 228 solar eclipses in the 20th century and 230 lunar eclipses. So the frequencies of occurrence for solar eclipses and lunar eclipses are nearly the same. What is different is the visibility. Each solar eclipse is visible from a relatively small percentage of the earth, while each lunar eclipse is visible over about half of the earth.That said, I believe it is possible for one or more of the eclipses in a pair to be missed. Mostly, that does not happen. I'm guessing that somebody's point was that there are quite a few moon based Jewish holidays and that some eclipse was bound to hit one most years. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

-Not correct. All four of the lunar eclipses was either preceded or followed by a solar eclipse, the separation being 14 or 15 days in each case.Lunar eclipse_______ Solar Eclipse
April 15, 2014_______ April 29, 2014
October 8, 2014_____ October 23, 2014
April 4, 2015________ March 20, 2015
September 28, 2015__ September 13, 2015If you were looking only at those cases when the solar eclipse came first, you somehow missed the September 13, 2015 eclipse. I am not sure what error you are making or from where you are getting your information. The question remains as to whether such a thing is all that rare. Another questions might be whether it matters where the eclipses are visible. Or even whether the prophecy even refers to eclipses.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We could scarcely avoid finding meaning in death or disease given their impact on us personally. I wonder how that supports an argument that assigning meaning to astronomical phenomena like comets and eclipses is at all helpful. How about an example of how this might work for an astronomical event such as an eclipse or the moon appearing in the seventh house?

Because you did not limit your remarks to total eclipses. Totally wrong. There were eight tetrads in the twentieth century alone.

People can do what they want. But apparently your mouth has once again written a check that your butt cannot cash. You cannot show that people being concerned about death or disease, things which affects them severely means that they also ought to believe in astronomical omens that have no effect on them whatsoever.If you have a real argument or even a persuasive reason to attach fake significance to any natural event, perhaps you'll present one or the othr at some point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I talked my wife into going outside to view the eclipse. The sky was quite cloudy and we caught just a few glimpses of the moon through a few areas of thinning cloud cover as totality approached. I have no idea whether I even caught a glimpse of totality. I certainly could not see any hint of anything red.I called my daughter in the Chicago area, and she reported seeing just about the same thing I did. I went back inside to finish my work, and did not look up again until the eclipse was well over. I never went back outside.Overall, a pretty disappointing night. I would suggest that if anyone intends on seeing the total eclipse during the summer of 2017 that you probably should not invite me to join you. Apparently I bring bad viewing eclipse weather.

If we are going that route, the Great Tribulation is supposed to come before the darkening of the sun. Also the stars are supposed to darken, something that never happens during an eclipse anyway.

Grrrr!

You are not making an argument. You claim that it is somehow useful to attach meaning to eclipses and perhaps to other astronomical phenomena. I've invited you to support that claim with an example or argument, and you've yet to provide anything remotely looking like an argument. Instead you've attempted to make the fact that I don't accept your assertion about me somehow.Perhaps you've given me your answer. You don't have diddly squat. Your response is that people who are questioning you or who cite evidence that attaching false meanings is harmful ought to just bug off.Typical Jon style argument. Jon speaks, asserts, and brooks no disagreement.