>>23075793perhaps it was a really exceptional time when the moon was closer than nearly all the time. its not really much of a variance when you look at it...what...a 5% deviance. given the lunar cycles im sure that was not a '1 in 100 years' but a '1 in 500 years' or something.
can you cope with that? it seems like most of your posts are expressing your own false expectations, uninformed by fact and reason.
and then theres the difference in how different people measure things.
>>23075915/bant/ is where this shit usually ends up, and for a good reason. take it to /x/ and your threads can last for weeks.
