posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 09:24 AM
I see I made a mistake while trying to alternate various locations. This was due to the fact of switching between a number of things to figure out
where the data is wrong in this software. Compounding the issue was unfamiliarity of the software and how it displays eclipse indicator in an
This was not exactly a scientific peer reviewed journal and I'm not a scientist.
I'm simply a regular citizen that seen the "bowl shaped moon" (exact words from my text message) which I didn't know there was an eclipse anywhere
else on that date. She claims to have seen it perhaps 30 minutes after I sent the message, and she was at least 5 miles from my perspective.
Perhaps the eclipse we saw was in fact caused by a cloud of molecules in space condensing around the planet or condensing in the gravity well between
Earth-moon as I mentioned much earlier.
I've just been grasping to find problems with the data because the idea of "space clouds" is about as unheard of as the hypothesis that maybe Earth
has increased significant mass since the time of when 24' tall mushrooms covered the planet.
I'm trying hard to find an error in the data because if there is no error, then we really are fkd.
I'm sure there will be those that read only up to the point where they find I made a mistake (in which I can't edit after 4hr limit) and they'll not
read further or will dismiss everything I've said. That's fine. There will also be some that will start paying attention.
The data can be manipulated by Math-heads and defended by ###snipped###, so you just have to see for yourself. That means going outside checking the
moon during the lunar eclipses that you aren't supposed to be able to see. Maybe it only occurs during September lunar eclipses during the September
area of space during solar minimum of Sun or whatever all the variables.
This is just giving a lift to stand on so that someone might see further.
edit on 3-2-2018 by apdjbs1 because: Hangover from last night's moon shine.
edit on Mon Feb 5 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because:
(no reason given)