Hello Troy,
You're welcome! Regarding the reporting of the upcoming full moon (and
associated clamor), a very good local paper, The San Jose Mercury, today
reported, see URL and snippet below, that the 1912 full moon was
"actually a far brighter moon". I don't know, perhaps 0.2% is far
brighter but I wouldn't have thought so. I'm not sure whether its this
lunar lemming spin or the Old Farmer's Almanac "hoax" which is actually
more annoying. Perhaps it was the added "So there!" that did it...
http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/moon21.htm
"As for Crazy Horse and the 1866 date, the editors of Sky & Telescope
magazine did some research and found that 1912 was actually a far
brighter moon than in 1866 or 1999. The magazine looked at actual moon
perigee distances from the years 1800 to 2100 and found that the moon
was brighter (closer) in 1912 and only slightly less bright in 1893 and
1930. So there!"
Best,
Luke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks for the very detailed explaination Luke. So is the answer 27.2%
> brightness difference between the June Moon and the Dec. Moon? That would
> mean the paper was wrong. The newspaper also predicted the January Moon
> would be even brighter (something you didn't cover).
> Another thing that bothered me is after the astronomical explanation,
> they author of the article interviewed an astrologer, who basically told him
> the moon was in Cancer (it may have been another constellation for you
> sticklers), and the brightness didn't matter. Then he rambled off general
> predictions depending on your astrological sign. It's hard to believe we are
> about to enter the 2000s...Frankly, I'm disappointed. No flying cars, and
> astrologers are still taken seriously.
> ~Troy
