AJ: Great, so someone attempted to plant at different times based on the moon phase and position against the stars to try to "prove" something. The article brought up some valid points (especially toward the beginning), and plenty of unsubstantiated BS like what I've argued about since the beginning. For example, I think the "full moon" or "moon in Taurus, Capricorn or Virgo" idea of making healthier plants is is nuts. Who would've guessed?
Giving this whole moon theory from the article a slight benefit of the doubt, maybe there were some rather chilly winds blowing in from somewhere (maybe originating from the Antarctica?). Maybe those winds were, in fact, at least partially a result of the moon as the article suggests--which is possible to an extent. Or dare I say it, these winds could have been turned around by the Earth's spin on its axis or by cutting into mountains, or even flung their way by a hurricane somewhere further from the equator. But if this was the case, it would be all about the moon's pull on the Earth, and absolutely nothing to do with how the moon appears to be lit from here; how much the planet is blocking sunlight from reaching its moon. And certainly nothing to do with the mentioned constellations.
I also agree with the article that the pull of the moon can cause rain in an area by the accumulation and formation of precipitation clouds, that sounds plausible. It also claims that (if I understood it correctly) just because the moon's gravity causes tides, it can somehow interact with the water molecules in the soil. Okay, in a way, sure it probably can--well, maybe, anyway. But it likely wouldn't cause some huge difference, and in fact would likely not make a noticeable difference at all. It's liquids vs. liquid-containing solids here; they react differently.
This is just like this whole argument from the beginning to begin with: Relying on the old "it happened consistently in the past, it'll probably happen this way forever into the future". Sure, they're doing experiments on planting at different times based on the signs of the moon and distant sky, which is partially admirable. But they seem to use these as part of their "guides" or "proof". The main difference is that this article brings up some convincingly possible local (sun and moon, orbital and gravitational) reasons for explaining some weather patterns. Where it fails is by even considering that the phase of the moon (ie. the amount of sunlight blocked by the Earth from hitting the moon) and some made-up images in space like Taurus, Capricorn, Virgo, Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces have anything to do with it.
Really, why am I still here? I'm getting burnt out on the subject. Tired of reading, typing and thinking about it. It's becoming a chore, instead of something interesting. LOL. Admittedly, because of that I skimmed through the article, and my thinking is getting fuzzy and it's getting difficult to formulate it into words. In fact, I'm doing less proof-reading on this one too, so don't expect to take this 100% accurately (I probably made mistakes for sure in this post, glaring omissions, and missed tons of stuff to comment on/disagree with from the article). But I think my thoughts on the subject are pretty much explained in a broad way earlier in this topic.
Once again, it all goes back to what I've been saying all along: Go by local events within the solar system regarding orbits and gravities of our planet and other nearby bodies, especially the moon. Don't look out to the stars expecting something specific to happen. This article/study at least gets half of that right.
[Nah, actually, not any more; it's been years since I read about him even, and I forgot most everything I knew...]
Where the hell's the "smack self upside the head" smiley when you need one?