1738:"Moon Shapes"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Demki
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Demki » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:05 am UTC

Image

Title Text: "Whenever I see a picture of the moon where the points go more than halfway around, I assume it's being eclipsed by one of those Independence Day ships and interpret the rest of the image in light of that."

What about moons with faces, such as the one in Soul Eater?
Is it me or are the "stars" inside the "moon" circle in the last picture a bit too sparse?

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Charlie! » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:16 am UTC

(#3) OR DURING THE DAY.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby J L » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:21 am UTC

Shouldn't #4 be what the moon looks like from the equator?

User avatar
New User
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:40 am UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby New User » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:28 am UTC

There's either a hole in the moon or a nuclear war on its surface

Or, perhaps, that's no moon...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:36 am UTC

Charlie! wrote:(#3) OR DURING THE DAY.

Any of the first three (even the first).
J L wrote:Shouldn't #4 be what the moon looks like from the equator?

Within the tropics, possibly, various times of year-cycle and day-cycle where ecliptic and apparent Moon-plane are inverted w.r.t. local horizon, but needs more modelling than I can do in my head...

black_pignouf
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby black_pignouf » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:46 am UTC

#4 is totally possible, during the day around the northern tropic.
For example the 5th of October 2016 in central America.
moon_tropic.png

It won't be pitch black around it, but the constrast is high enough that it looks a lot like the drawing.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby J L » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:50 am UTC

Thank you, that's what I was getting at. So that's what Randall means with "only possible during a solar eclipse" here -- bright part is the moon, but night sky needs to be dark to see it like this.

black_pignouf
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby black_pignouf » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:58 am UTC

Is it me or are the "stars" inside the "moon" circle in the last picture a bit too sparse?

When you look at the moon with binoculars or a telescope, the image is so bright that you cannot really see any dim celestial object around it.
Aside from the fact that you cannot see through the moon, this drawing kinda makes sense :)
Finally, the stars aren't well distributed over the sky, and there are patches where you don't see much more than a few dim stars, even with a big telescope. With a really big scope and a long exposure, you can get very interesting results in those "uninteresting" zones : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

black_pignouf
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby black_pignouf » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:12 am UTC

@J L : During a solar eclipse, the bright part cannot be the moon, because solar eclipses only happen during new moons (i.e. moon is fully black). So #4 can be either :
* crescent moon during the day in the northern tropic. bright part is the moon, sky isn't black.
* shortly after/before a total solar eclipse. bright part is the sun. I couldn't find a time and location in Stellarium where the sun and moon are oriented this way.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:42 am UTC

That's not a waning moon, that's a dying Pac-Man.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby J L » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:02 am UTC

black_pignouf wrote:@J L : During a solar eclipse, the bright part cannot be the moon, because solar eclipses only happen during new moons (i.e. moon is fully black).


Thank you, excellent point, and sorry for me writing nonsense in the morning. Even explainxkcd seems a little confused about this point ("This can only happen when the sun is above the horizon. This isn't necessarily only during a solar eclipse, but since a crescent moon means that the Sun and Moon are relatively close in the sky, it's hard to see at other times.")

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby The Moomin » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:10 am UTC

Is it not dependent on how you hold your Jaffa cake?
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby orthogon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:22 am UTC

#6 reminds me of the "star and crescent". I assumed this had always been associated with Islam, but now learn (from that link) that the association is less than a century old. Interestingly the examples in the article appear to show that having the "points go more than halfway round" was a later development and that earlier examples were more "astronomically correct".

I also finally got around to looking into the etymology of the word crescent, which I'd wondered about since I learned that French uses croissant[e] to mean "waxing" (waning is décroissant[e]). It seems that it originally meant "waxing" in English too. Apparently the meaning "less than half illuminated" also developed in French, which is presumably why the iconic French pastry is so named. I'm not clear now whether it's ambiguous in French or not.

In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).

ETA: From wiktionary, it seems that croissant does have both senses in French: in Geometry it has the same meaning as in English, whilst in Astronomy it means "waxing".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:34 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).


I always went with b(irth) and d(eath). You draw a line between the points and see which letter you get.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:17 am UTC

He forgot to draw what the moon looks like just after getting drilled by some high-energy object .


Not to mention this one
goodnitmoon.jpg
goodnitmoon.jpg (10.5 KiB) Viewed 7477 times
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:12 pm UTC

Okay, I know at least some of you are already picturing it:

Image

The_Alchemist
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby The_Alchemist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:33 pm UTC

This puts me in mind of the moon in literature. It's been many years now and I cannot pull out the exact specifics but I recall when reading Bram Stoker's Dracula that the moon was out way too much. And he was kind enough to give times of night that certain phases showed and in that it was in diary form help a lot.

IIRC the Stoker moon was on something like a 17 day cycle with it being gibbous to full over 3/4 of the time. And I did my best to give benefit of the doubt and pad in lots of human error, but there was no way it was close to 28 days.

Anyone else have book examples of moon for story sake, not reality?

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Boilerplate » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:57 pm UTC

Whenever I see a picture of the moon where the points go more than halfway around...


It could be that the moon has developed an atmosphere.

To be clear, #4 is possible only when the sun is higher above the horizon than the moon.

This omits the most glaring moon shape art error: The giant full moon photoshopped behind a city skyline. Which is invariably wrong for several reasons:
1. The moon is sunlit from behind the viewer (as are all full moons) while the foreground is either in darkness well after sunset when the moon would be much higher above the horizon, or lit from the wrong angle.
2. The moon is enlarged to a giant size not possible from any real viewing point.
3. The moon is dimmed to a brightness level well below its genuine authentic full-sunlit level, while the foreground is lit at much dimmer twilight levels.
4. The color balance is distorted, with a garish pink/purple/orange (or vivid deep blue) sky.
5. The moon is seen in a direction other than within a limited deviation from East or West.

Image

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby moody7277 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:16 pm UTC

New User wrote:
There's either a hole in the moon or a nuclear war on its surface

Or, perhaps, that's no moon...


Or you've killed an albatross and have been cursed.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

richP
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby richP » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:22 pm UTC

Alternate explanation for the last image: a what-if involving the moon is going through its last phase (phase referring to the "more power" phase of the comic, not the moon's phase)

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby peewee_RotA » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:36 pm UTC

More likely scenario for last one. The whole of all XKCD fans attempting to prove him wrong.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

black_pignouf
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby black_pignouf » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:38 pm UTC

@boilerplate: Why do you include this picture? Do you think it's fake?
It's not. The trick to get a huge moon in comparison to buildings is to be far far away from those buildings (-> buildings appear smaller, moon stays the same), and zoom as much as you can.
That's why the photographer (Michael Maloney) shot it from the other side of the bay, with a $5000 camera (Canon 1DX) and a $10000 lens (400mm f/2.8) with a 2x teleconverter.
If you see a big moon with a wide-angle shot though, it's fake.

black_pignouf
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby black_pignouf » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

@boilerplate: You're right that the full moon is much brighter than any landscape at night when the moon is high above the horizon, but when it's close to the horizon, its light must go through so much atmosphere that it gets much dimmer, and gets a brightness comparable to the other objects in the frame. For the same reason that it's possible to look at the sun directly during sunset.

JeromeWest
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:47 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby JeromeWest » Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:58 pm UTC

Boilerplate wrote:2. The moon is enlarged to a giant size not possible from any real viewing point.


While there's certainly no shortage of giant moons photoshopped into the background of cityscapes, this type of shot is quite possible to achieve without trickery, due to the phenomenon of background compression.

By using a long (i.e. more zoomed) lens, background elements are magnified relative to the foreground. If you take a picture of the moon behind some buildings using such a lens, as you move away from the foreground buildings they look smaller, but you're not moving much further away from the moon (relatively speaking) so it stays huge in the frame.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:05 pm UTC

Boilerplate wrote:2. The moon is enlarged to a giant size not possible from any real viewing point.

That's just a function of the zoom level of a telephoto. Angle of arc of Moon hasn't changed, but angle of arc of image is reduced to make it look big. (Meanwhile, earthly scenery/people in photo are made smaller than expected, to fit better within the zoomed image by being further back. But if you assume that a person at 10m distance is being filmed at 1m and background at 10 miles is 'only' a mile away, then you get the strange sight of the Moon that appears to be 10x the size (linearly) of any image that is 'eye realistic' from your everyday experience of unaugmented observation...

(Ninjaed by Jerome on this very point.)

(ETA: and others, that I hadn't yet read, but Jerome's specifically came up as posting while I was composing, turning out to have pretty much the same thoughts behind it.)

User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Rombobjörn » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:10 pm UTC

Image

This one isn't possible at all. Except on Independence Day I suppose. Without the star it could have been a solar eclipse in the distant future, when the moon has moved farther away, but as long as any part of the sun is visible you won't see any stars.

jozwa
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby jozwa » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:13 pm UTC

The last one is my favorite pet peeve in cartoons and such.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby orthogon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:16 pm UTC

Rombobjörn wrote:Image

This one isn't possible at all. Except on Independence Day I suppose. Without the star it could have been a solar eclipse in the distant future, when the moon has moved farther away, but as long as any part of the sun is visible you won't see any stars.

That's what I was on about here, but if the wikipedias are to be believed, the "star" is actually supposed to represent the sun. As I say, the moon part seems to have got exaggerated into this impossible form over the centuries. It's kind of "more mooney" than the moon itself.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

wjbc
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:27 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby wjbc » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:18 pm UTC

#4 and #5 could also just mean that the painting is hung the wrong way. :wink:

User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Rombobjörn » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).

Apparently French ought to be spoken only on the southern hemisphere.

orthogon wrote:if the wikipedias are to be believed, the "star" is actually supposed to represent the sun

... seen from Pluto?

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Boilerplate » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

black_pignouf wrote:@boilerplate: Why do you include this picture? Do you think it's fake?
It's not. The trick to get a huge moon in comparison to buildings is to be far far away from those buildings (-> buildings appear smaller, moon stays the same), and zoom as much as you can.
That's why the photographer (Michael Maloney) shot it from the other side of the bay, with a $5000 camera (Canon 1DX) and a $10000 lens (400mm f/2.8) with a 2x teleconverter.
If you see a big moon with a wide-angle shot though, it's fake.


You are correct. I stand corrected. I did a quick grab of an example image and ended up with a legitimate one. I guess Google images ranks authentic ones higher than tourist postcard images.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby somitomi » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:58 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).

ETA: From wiktionary, it seems that croissant does have both senses in French: in Geometry it has the same meaning as in English, whilst in Astronomy it means "waxing".

The Hungarian moon is more honest, you can use the words csökken(waning) and dagad (waxing). But I have my doubts about this becoming the norm elsewhere.
—◯-◯

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26356
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

It's the opposite of the sun: If you see the non-full Moon just after the sun sets, it's getting bigger, and if you see it before the sun rises, it's getting smaller.

This may not be as easy to remember, but it has the advantage of working in both hemispheres (though admittedly less well near the poles).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Flumble » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Okay, I know at least some of you are already picturing it:

Image

I'll see your old moon and raise you a new moon:
Image

keldor
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:18 am UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby keldor » Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

#3 and #4 are both definitely possible, just not from the same geographic location. Picture the a crescent moon behind the earth (similarly crescent, for what it’s worth). Now rotate the image around the center of the earth. The crescents rotate with the image, and can be positioned in any orientation you like. Since there’s always a spot on the “top” of the round earth where you could place an observer, that observer would then observe the crescent moon in the same orientation as in the picture.

Since any such picture would be centered near the sun, we can also see that the axis of rotation must be near the equator. Specifically, somewhere between the tropics, depending on the season. This means that the observer has to move roughly north/south to see the crescent appear to rotate. It also means that the apparent rotation changes seasonally, a touch over 45 degrees from one solstice to the other (twice the earth’s inclination).

It’s also quite possible to see a crescent moon during the night. You want conditions similar to if you wanted to see Venus or even Mercury - either early evening or just before dawn.

teelo
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby teelo » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

Last I heard, E'lune was a Naaru.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby orthogon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:41 pm UTC

somitomi wrote:
orthogon wrote:In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).

ETA: From wiktionary, it seems that croissant does have both senses in French: in Geometry it has the same meaning as in English, whilst in Astronomy it means "waxing".

The Hungarian moon is more honest, you can use the words csökken(waning) and dagad (waxing). But I have my doubts about this becoming the norm elsewhere.

That's neat, but, I agree, unlikely to catch on. That's what you get for being a language isolate. (Or is it true that Hungarian is related to Finnish and Korean?)

Incidentally, I've never seen Time so far down the forum so consistently for so long. Was there a freak accident at an OTTer meet-up or something? (I'd look at the thread itself, but I don't I'd come away any the wiser...)
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Demki
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Demki » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:42 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
orthogon wrote:
In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).


I always went with b(irth) and d(eath). You draw a line between the points and see which letter you get.

In Hebrew we use the letter 'zain' and 'gimel' in their handwritten form, where if the moon look like a 'zain' then it is growing/shining('zoreakh' in Hebrew, which has a meaning of both growing and shining), and if it looks like a 'gimel' it is losing/shrinking/fading('goerah' in Hebrew, which has a meaning of both losing and shrinking and fading)

The reason we use the letters is that in handwritten form, both letters look like a semicircle with a serif at the top(the semicircle has a vertical diameter), but in opposite directions.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby somitomi » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:16 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
somitomi wrote:
orthogon wrote:In the same conversation, I also learned how to know whether the moon is waxing or waning: "La lune est menteuse". The moon is a liar: when she looks like a "D", she's waxing (croissante); when she looks like a "C", she's waning (décroissante).

ETA: From wiktionary, it seems that croissant does have both senses in French: in Geometry it has the same meaning as in English, whilst in Astronomy it means "waxing".

The Hungarian moon is more honest, you can use the words csökken(waning) and dagad (waxing). But I have my doubts about this becoming the norm elsewhere.

That's neat, but, I agree, unlikely to catch on. That's what you get for being a language isolate. (Or is it true that Hungarian is related to Finnish and Korean?)

Incidentally, I've never seen Time so far down the forum so consistently for so long. Was there a freak accident at an OTTer meet-up or something? (I'd look at the thread itself, but I don't I'd come away any the wiser...)

I was taught at school, that Hungarian is distantly related to Finnish and Estonian and a little more closely to the languages some tribes living near the Ural speak (all of these belong to the Finno-Ugric languages). I can't recall Korean ever being mentioned by any credible source, but I could be wrong. And just for the record, there was/is some dispute surrounding the subject, although occasionally motivated by political (rather than scientific) concerns.

(took out a typo)
Last edited by somitomi on Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
—◯-◯

Mikeski
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1738:"Moon Shapes"

Postby Mikeski » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:13 pm UTC

I saw Wax Gibbon open for Screeching Weasel at Wembley. Helluva show. [/davebarry]



(...but enough about tonight's presidential debate.)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: da Doctah, keldor, Old Bruce and 33 guests