Astrologers box shadowmoon

When he refused, Gul'dan imprisoned him and assumed control of the Iron Horde. Kilrogg Deadeye was the first to drink the blood of Mannoroth and become corrupted. The foundation of all Iron Horde technology is a primitive, coal-fired centrifugal engine which can be used to turn wheels, belts, and chains, allowing for the construction of crude vehicles and siege weapons, including tanks, cannons, and chariots.

The Kor'kron Iron Star, an early, unmounted version of this engine, was first unleashed by orcish siege engineers during the final battle of the Siege of Orgrimmar , and it is this technology that Garrosh smuggles into the past. It was suggested at BlizzCon that some of the Iron Horde may join the Horde at the end of the expansion to level out the Horde and Alliance power. Sign In Don't have an account? Start a Wiki. This article concerns content exclusive to Warlords of Draenor. This article should only contain officially released content, such as beta and press release content.

Astrologer's Box - Object | WoW Freakz

A heavily aspected Pluto and an 8th house stellium. I am into reincarnation, life after death matters, the hidden and taboo. Uranus conjuncts North Node in Gemini and I teach astrology and am a life long student of that science. I too have Uranus and the Part of Fortune in my natal 11th house in Cancer with Venus and the Dragon's Head in my 8th house under Aries , and I have been involved with astrology and various esoteric matters since my early teen years Pluto in my natal chart is in the 12th house, under Leo, and I consider the 12th hoiuse involved with those who seek to bring "secret things" or "hidden things" to light Arthur Fomalhaut.

There are a number of stars on this, off the top of my head, Acrux, Mimosa, Sadalmelik, and many others. People that I know of who had experiences like Kundalini rising and others never failed to have one. Maybe someone can double check it. I am thinking of the occult here, as in doing it, doing things, as different from just researching it.

For astrology you have many threads always in astrology fora and more stars, for example Deneb Adige, Alphecca I seem to remember. There was a conversation in Skyscript on of course how predisposed they were to astrology, and being into traditional, was put down to great Mercury, Virgo and stuff. But then they said, look at that, Evangeline Adams, Dane Rudhyar and cant remember who else, have Mercury in Pisces which is very bad.

I say they were missing it was always at the beginning of Pisces, where there are a number of mercurial stars which in past times were in Aquarius. I would place my bet on Mercury with any important mercurial star, then more things. Something that I ve noticed is that you cannot normally do well in "both sides", people who do well in "the other world" appear to me to be liable to delusions over here.

In that respect, the occult and astrology would be different. If you look into all siddhis, for example, it is all about how well you do in the other side.


  • Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon;
  • Mani Navasothy astrologer | ytaradywyhuj.cf – Esoterica, Paganism & Ritual Magic..
  • aries november 26 birthday astrology!
  • Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon!
  • october 27 2019 sagittarius astrology;
  • virgo love horoscope in urdu!

To access clear astral vision, you need dissolution of ordinary mind, so that the brains enters a secondary state of functioning, which exists, though most people dont know about it. Therefore I would give some credence to normal stuff like 8th house, Pisces, etc. If you believe in Morinus' determinations theory, whereby planets mean only what they are "determined to", i.

Good luck to you with your spooky things anyway. Last edited by Arthur Fomalhaut; at PM. Tags astrology , general , interest , mediumship , occult Thread Tools. All times are GMT. The time now is PM. Contact Us - AstrologyWeekly. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent. The US Government decided to stop funding it. I know exactly the equipment they are using, I have even targeted the telescope myself trying to get pings back from the moon.

They quite openly admit there are many unresolved issues that prevent them from sending men out of low-earth orbit. One of them, as I have mentioned and you have ignored, is the radiation problem. Except for the faked moon missions no one claims that any human has ever left low-earth orbit. What to speak of going to the moon? We can not even get people out of low-earth orbit, and NASA openly admit this. So what makes you so dishonest.

So the show they gave us on the television of men walking on the moon was obviously fake. And yes. They spent 25 billion developing the technology. So if they actually developed technology allowing them to send men to the moon they would still have that technology now and would not need a trillion dollars to develop it again. So if they want a trillion dollars to develop it again then it is obvious they have not yet developed it.

If you are applying for money for research and development then obviously the research and development is not yet done. Otherwise there is no need for doing it again. But that is EXACTLY what NASA is doing, on one had they spend the 25 billion to develop the technology to put men on the moon, now they have their hands out for another trillion dollars to develop the technology to put men on the moon, again… Insane?

You bet. So I know everything about this experiment and you know nothing. And everything I said is correct. I have the real actual experience, I have seen and even used the equipment, you have not. Hare Krishna Prabhu! All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Please accept my humble obeisances. Even if some evidence is found that moon is coming in front of sun during solar eclipse this July as you say in one of the below comments , should we accept this theory? I think we should never accept this bogus theory. I will never accept it Prabhu. This is complete nonsense that moon is coming in front of the sun to cover it.

Demigods do not fight with each other like this. We do not accept any of the modern scientists theories. They have no access to real knowledge. But the problem is we do no understand or comprehend the Vedic description of the universe. And what we see happening in the sky with our imperfect eyes is not necessarily what is actually happening.

Earth Viewed from Moon During Eclipse

From the Fifth Canto, for example, we find out that Mt. Meru and also the ring of mountains outside the entire Bhu-Mandala structure is solid gold and reflecting light like a mirror. So when we look up in the sky in many cases what we may be seeing could be reflections in a mirror. And these are strange mirrors, curved, in the shape of an inverted cone, etc.

So simply by looking in the sky we can not understand anything conclusively about how the moon, sun, planets, stars, etc, are situated. The only way we can get any factual knowledge from this is through the Vedas. So even if you can take pictures of the moon coming in front of the sun, which I highly doubt, we could be looking into a reflect and everything we are seeing could be reversed as to what the actual situation is….

Indeed, any further comments by Mr. Dasa become an exercise in irrational conspiracy claims. If Mr. You can find dozens of photos of earthshine during a solar eclipse now. But that is only since I started talking about it and only since they [the astronomers, scientists] have realized the moon must be the brightest object in the sky [except the corona] during a solar eclipse.

If you read my article you will see the points are very valid. I do not discount the possibility of the moon coming in front of the sun, nor do I discount the possibility of Rahu coming in front of the sun. And a few photos of the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse on the internet does not prove it. Because I do not know if you are aware of Photoshop. Anyone can produce a photo of the moon in front of the sun during an eclipse in one minute in Photoshop. So next solar eclipse, which I think is later this year, I will myself try to take the photos of the moon in front of the sun, and I suggest you try it also for yourself.

So let us see if it is actually there or not. Rather than just blindly believe a few photos on the internet. These days photos are not proof of anything unfortunately. It is so easy to make a photo of anything you want to see in Photoshop…. This idea, that solar eclipses are not caused by the moon, but by a dark planet called Rahu, is the Vedic conclusion. It is the way eclipses are described in all the books of Srila Vyasadeva, the author of the Vedas. Also according to the description of Srila Vyasadeva the moon is above the sun, so it is not possible for the moon to come in front of the sun.

So if one is a follower of the Vedas then he has to consider these points. And that is what I am doing here, considering these points. And that means visible to our naked eyes. Just like the earth would be clearly visible from the moon if you were on the moon during the full moon day even though it is night on the earth. You would still be able to see everything illuminated on the earth by the moonshine. It is a simple point. And because we do not see this, because, during a solar eclipse, we see a totally dark body coming in front of the sun, that supports the Vedic idea that it is Rahu, it does not support the scientists idea that it is the moon.

So you have to become open to the possibility that scientists sometimes, or even often, make mistakes and are wrong…. You think all the astrophotographers on the planet, including the amateurs are in some vast conspiracy? Come on now, it should be easy to figure out the apparent magnitude.

It astonishes me that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the western scientific theories about these things and yet you so religiously and zealously attempt to defend these ideas that you do not understand at all. These photos of the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse are a new thing. They did not exist before digital photography for sure. But this is by no means proven. Very few of these photos exist and certainly even if it is impossible to see the moon in front of the sun during a solar eclipse there will be some photographers who will fake this.

That is just the way people are. Not that every scientist or astronomer is dishonest, but there are some who will fake it to produce an award-winning photo. That is the history, that is human nature, you can not argue with that. This shows your complete lack of knowledge as to what is going on at the time of a solar eclipse and your lack of comprehension of the Western model.

The only time the moon is fully illuminated by the earthshine is during the no moon day. At that time moon and sun are close in the sky. On that day both the sun and moon rise and set at the same time and follow a similar path through the sky. Sometimes they share the same spot in relation to a small band on the earth about miles wide. So when this alignment occurs there is a solar eclipse. So because the sun and the moon are in similar places in the sky at this time the brightness of the sun washes out the earthshine on the moon. So there is no question of seeing the moon on the no moon day because it rises and sets with the sun.

But during a total solar eclipse the sun is blocked out and then we must see the moon illuminated by the earthshine, which is something like 50 times brighter than the moonshine on earth on a full moon night. This is confirmed by science, that is not just my idea, it is a fact, if the Western science model is correct. So if it is the moon coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse the moon must be visible and must be the brightest object in the sky except for the corona. That is also confirmed by science, it is not just me saying that, it has to be a fact if the western model is correct.

And you can clearly see the earthshine on the moon on the new moon day, the next day, because by then the sun and moon have separated enough so the sun can set while the moon is still in the sky, then you can very clearly see the whole moon surface illuminated by the earthshine and the fine bright line of the new moon along the edge.

So during a solar eclipse the moon has to be more brightly illuminated by the earthshine that we see it illuminated by the earthshine on a new moon day. The whole moon is illuminated by the earthshine on the new moon day, but the whole surface of the moon has to be more illuminated during the solar eclipse.

This will not appear as 50 times brighter on the moon due to the albedo of the moon being lower than the earth, but it will be five to ten times brighter. Even if it is only three times brighter than a full moon on earth the moon will be completely illuminated. It is fifty times brighter, but because they say the moon is less reflective than the earth, it will appear to be less bright. So anyhow these points are all agreed on by anyone who understands the western scientific model and if you try and understand the model you are trying to defend you will agree with all these points also.

I just have one question. Why do we see phases of moon. If its self luminous, every part of it should emit light at all times, so there should be no concept of phases of moon. Here is one such image. If moon is self luminous, we should not see any shades inside those pits. Its only that if moon is reflecting light from somewhere that those pits have shades.

These shades are nothing but shadow cast on those pits from elevations. I have not said moon is self-luminous. That is not the opinion of Srila Prabhupada. Moon is reflecting the light of the sun. There is a clear relationship of the illumination on the surface of the moon and its relationship with the sun in the sky.

So we can clearly see there is a connection between the illumination of the moon and its relationship with the sun. What Prabhupada explains is there is fire on the moon like there is fire on the sun. But the fire on the moon is described like kusa grass. So it is reflective.

Not real fire like on the sun. Thank you so much pr for clearing this. I always used to think if moon has fire, it must be self luminous. There are still a few queries I have. Its very dim. If this is not earth-shine reflected by moon, then where does moon gets this light from? Its very faint but clearly visible. We see that so many spacecrafts has already been launched by them.

Even India started Chandrayaan. How are they able to land on moon if their calculations are wrong. Have they really landed on moon or some other planet? At that time, when the moon is dark, it is in the sky during the daytime, which means it is on the illuminated side of the earth. That is the whole point of this post, that, at the time of the solar eclipse, which happens on the no moon day, the moon is illuminated by the eartshine, and we can, as you point out, see this clearly on the new moon day [one day after the no moon day].

On the no moon day the moon and sun rise and set together, so it is not possible to see the moon on that day, except when there is a solar eclipse. But on the new moon day the moon is still in the sky for a short time after the sun sets, it is then you can see the earthshine on the moon. So if the moon is illuminated then, and you can see it, then it must also be illuminated in the same way when it comes in front of the sun during the eclipse.

It can not be dark. It must be slightly illuminated in the same way as we see it on the new moon day…. Our modern scientists are wrong about almost everything. We do see them launching spacecrafts. But that is all we see. We see a big explosion and a rocket going up in the sky and disappearing. That is all we see. Then they tell us a story about where the rocket has gone and what it is doing… But we have no idea if their stories are true or not. For all we know the rocket may just come back down and crash into the ocean.

Rahu is close to where they think the moon is, so if they went anywhere they went to Rahu, but if they went to Rahu they would know they were not on the moon because they would be able to see the moon. They can put things into low-earth orbit. We know that. But at this time we have no proof they have gone any further than low-earth orbit. You have an even better incentive to make stuff up than the scientists do, because you think it would destroy your religion.

Are the scientists in ISRO lying to you? A pretty amazing bit of work — all credit to them. Geostationary satellites are times higher up than low earth orbit. They exist. And they do, reliably, as they prove to billions of people every day. I disagree with your point. Just like the illumination of the earth is slight on a full moon night compared to at noon.

Earth Viewed from Moon During Eclipse

And the corona during a total eclipse is not that bright, the whole sky becomes dark and the stars come out like at night. Corona light is not more than the light of a full moon, probably much less because during a total solar eclipse it is much, much darker than on a full moon night. Compare it. Try to go to the next total Solar Eclipse in South America yourself this year. And see it for yourself. Corona is not bright and it is dark, darker than on a full moon night.

So your points are not valid. If the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun then the moon MUST be illuminated by the earthshine. If it is not the theory is wrong. And illuminated does not mean we have to do special processing in photoshop and superimpose the moon over it… It means we will be able to see the moon come in front of the sun. It is illuminated. If your theory that you can not see because of the corona then take a telescope that can get zoom in on the moon so the corona is not in the frame, then you will be able to see the moon for sure, without any special processing, because at that time actually the moon is the brightest object in the sky, except for the corona, because of the earthshine.

If you can not see the moon come in front of the sun under these conditions then the theory is wrong and there are two possibilities: it is not the moon, it is rahu or our idea about the location of the moon is incorrect and it is much further away causing the earthshine to be less. So either way the modern theory is wrong. You are brainwashed by modern scientists. Whatever they say you just blindly believe. That is the problem. You are not able to think for yourself. You just parrot what the scientists say. But the history actually shows that the scientists have always been wrong.

In fact if there is no scope for questioning science then there will never be any scientific advancement. And, if you study it, whenever some brilliant scientist has rightly questioned some incorrect scientific theory that has been accepted by the body of science they are ridiculed and rejected by science. In reality modern science is wrong about almost everything, that is a conversation that is too long for discussing here.

But one point is science says life comes from chemicals. We never see it happening. Everywhere we see life coming from life. We have never experienced life coming from chemicals. In fact life and chemicals are two completely separate things. Science is completely ignorant about life, they have incorrectly concluded that life arises simply from a combination of chemicals. But they can not combine chemicals and produce life. So in this way science is stupid.

Krishna consciousness is not a religion. It is the absolute truth. It does not change. It is written in the Vedas that solar and lunar eclipses are caused by Rahu. So we accept it. And it is true. I personally do not understand it. But our observations during the total solar eclipses tend to support the idea that it is Rahu, not the moon, coming in front of the sun.

That is the point I am making in this post. I may be wrong, it may be the moon, but my point is that is not yet established as a fact. You have to admit the possibility. I admit the possibility that it is the moon. But it may not be the moon, that is also a possibility you need to consider. So it is just an extension of the same lie spread over different countries in an attempt to make it more believable.

There may [or may not be] satellites above low earth orbit. That is not the point. The problem is sending people out of low earth orbit. There are many problems, one is radiation. We have to stick to the point. This post is not about satellites, or NASA, or low earth orbit. These are all off-topic. Topic is the solar eclipses and if it is the moon or rahu coming in front of the sun. These people are like you. They blindly believe what is told to them by the scientists. So they are no lying.

The have faith in the scientists and are faithfully repeating the doctrine of the scientists. So they have faith in the scientists, we have faith in Krishna. Everyone has faith. It is just a question of who is correct. The scientists or Krishna? But both doctrines are reasonable explanations of what we observe happening in the sky. These things the scientists present are only theories.

There is no guarantee that the actual system work in accordance with the scientists theories.

Myths of Babylonia and Assyria , Donald Alexander Mackenzie

But their theories, generally, make fairly accurate predictions of the workings of the system. So they are valid predictive models. But having a model that predicts the operation of a system does not guarantee that the system operates according to your model. This is a very important point to understand. Again you are going off-topic. We are not talking about geostationary sattelites here. That is a completely different topic. We are talking about what causes the solar and lunar eclipses. So we have to try and stay on this topic. Are there any rituals to be observed during rahu and ketu?

Any restrictions on food or any activities that vedas prescribe? Please share me Your thoughts.

services-gd

You are speaking craziness here. The moon can not block the light reflected back to it. The solar eclipse only causes a small dot of darkness on the earth, that is about miles across only. The rest of the 8, miles across the earth is in full sunshine. So that sunshine of the full earth is directly facing the moon, the Earth becomes like a huge mirror in the sky, directly pointing at the sun and the moon. So if the moon is in front of the sun at the time of a total solar eclipse the moon will be noticeably illuminated by the earthshine.

I think that it is quite a relevant point, already alluded to by Steve down the comments line. From what you say about the earthshine it is apparent that you leave the umbra effect completely out of account. The umbra means that the surface of the moon facing the Earth is completely screened out from the earthshine which means that the effect of the earthshine you argument with is practically negated during the Eclipse. Even if you stay within penumbra half-shadow circle of about 8, miles, you still see the face of the moon completely shadowed as no rays reflect back to it from Earth at this particular moment.

But it does not mean that the surface of the moon is pitch dark or invisible; it is visible with good lens and exposure. I look forward hearing about the results of your photographing experiment during the next eclipse. Although compared to the total amount of sunlight that is hitting the earth only a small percentage of it is blocked if the moon comes between the earth and the sun.

But the part that is totally blocked is the part that would otherwise be directly inline with the sun and the most reflective part sending the most light back to the moon. So that part that is totally blocked is less than miles wide but the light is dimmed for a much bigger radius as you point out Roodi. You can only see the total solar eclipse in that small, less than mile circle, but outside that circle, for a long way you can see a partial eclipse of the sun. So anywhere you can see any part of the eclipse some of the sunlight is being blocked.

So it may be that the reflection is less than what I have been assuming. But as you point out there is certainly a reflection and the surface of the moon is illuminated. Everyone agrees with this. And we can actually see, even with our naked eyes sometimes, at the time of the new moon, the other part of the moon is illuminated, presumably by the earthshine. So yes. I will do this experiment at the next total solar eclipse and hopefully many others will also.

what is war time correction in astrology

And we will see if we can get the photos. If we can get the photo, even if it is very dim, that proves it is the moon coming in front of the sun and we will just have to accept that if that is really what is happening. So we will see. Next total solar eclipse is not until July 2, And it is only visible on land in South America just before sunset.

It is happening at sunset at the east coast so one real hope of seeing it on land is on the west coast of South America. Otherwise most of the eclipse is happening over the Pacific ocean. The next one is December 14, also in South America. So I will make a serious effort to get the photos then and would encourage as many others also to try as possible. We could practice taking photos of the earthshine on the new moon [which, although I have not done it yet, I understand is not very difficult].

And I am thinking if we can photograph that nicely we should also be able to photograph the earthshine on the moon during a total eclipse. So I would be happy to get the photos actually and to know for sure they were real. Then we would know for sure that it is the moon coming in front of the sun, but until we have it completely proven we can keep the possibility open that it is the dark planet Rahu coming in front an the moon going behind the sun. If it is Rahu we will not be able to get the photos, if it is the moon we will be able to get the photos….

You are correct. Ordinarily we can clearly see the features of the moon illuminated on the day or two after the new moon. The way the moon works is when there is no moon the moon rises with the sun and sets with the sun but when there is a full moon the moon rises when the sun sets and sets when the sun rises. The time when you get the maximum earthshine reflecting off the moon is during the day on the earth and when there is no moon [ie at the time of a solar eclipse. At that time, during the eclipse, the moon is high in the sky and the sun is in the same position in the sky.

So that is the maximum earthshine time. At that time the earthshine would be much greater than when we can clearly see the moon illuminated on the new moon day. So because we can see the earthshine clearly on the moon, the moon is clearly illuminated even though it is new moon, just a tiny sliver, but you can pick out the details of the whole moon, due to the earthshine.

But at this time, new moon, the moon is still fairly close to the sun. So it is only visible in the sky for a very short time and then it is near the horizon. So this is not a very good time for seeing the earthshine on the moon, but we can see it nonetheless. So, if the theory that the solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun then at that time the moon will be fully illuminated by the maximum amount of earthshine.

So you can easily tell if the theory of the scientists, that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, is true or not. If it is true the moon will be illuminated. So they try to photograph it and fail and then fake the photos… That is the way of science. If this theory is true you will be able to clearly see, not very brightly, but still quite clearly, like we can see on the new moon day, but brighter than that, all the details of the moon as it comes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.

They identified axial precession before the Greeks did, and calculated the periodicity with a precision not matched in the west until the s or later. Not so. The atmosphere is brightly lit off to the side, and the light refracts inwards only has to refract inwards a few 10ths of a degree so the side facing you cannot be full dark. Dismissing every photograph due to photoshop is silly. Just presume it is Rahu causing the solar eclipses. If an amateur astronomer reads our description he will be convinced that the features of the moon must be visible at the time of a solar eclipse. Which they must be.

So he sets up all his equipment to photograph this. So what to do? He knows he should have got it. He knows it must be there. And he wants that spectacular photo that he has worked so hard to get. So Photoshop comes to his aid… That is the way scientists work.

How to get Astrologer's Box Treasure WoW

So, this may not be the case, the solar eclipses may be caused by the moon coming in front of the sun, but in that case the surface of the moon will be clearly visible, just like in the photo you have linked to. You will note in his photo the corona of the sun is not that bright, and still the features of the moon are clearly visible. That is what a Solar Eclipse MUST look like if the theory that it is caused by the moon coming in front of the sun is true. As far as seeing Rahu we discussed this before. At the time of the solar eclipse Rahu is in the daytime sky.

So if Rahu always stays in the day time sky it will always be completely invisible and undetectable by us. Because during the day you will not see Rahu occulting anything, except at the time of a solar eclipse, which is when it occults the sun. So this is the Vedic description. Solar eclipses are caused by Rahu, they are not caused by the shadow of the earth. So I am just pointing this out. And, in the age of Photoshop, any one of us can produce a photo of the moon in front of the sun.

That is no proof. The real proof is next time there is a solar eclipse you look at it. And if you can see the features of the moon in front of the sun it is caused by the moon coming in front of the sun. But if you can not, then very likely it is caused by Rahu coming in front of the sun. So next solar eclipse I will try to take this photo myself, of moon coming in front of the sun, and I suggest you do it also.

It should not be difficult, it should be clearly visible to the naked eye, as evidenced by the photo you provided. It should look like that, if the moon is actually coming in front of the sun. Point is you can see the earthshine on the moon when the sky is still quite bright. Maybe even when the sun is still in the sky. Certainly when it has just set. When there are no stars in the sky. So the earthshine is obviously quite a bit brighter then the stars.

It is easy for you to check this on the new moon day each month. Not that you have to wait for a solar eclipse to check this. And my point is earthshine will be greatest at the time of the solar eclipse [no moon day]. So at the time of the solar eclipse the moon will be even more brightly illuminated by the earthshine than on the new moon day. So yes, it may be possible, but not likely. Because these photos of moon in front of the earth are only a recent phenomenon, they have only appeared within the past 10 years or so.

Astronomers have been photographing eclipses for a hundred years now. So why has this just appeared in the past 10 years. Could it have something to do with Photoshop? So, how does anybody see anything new and unusual? Only within the past 10 years? Could it be that there are a lot more amateur astronomers with vastly better cameras and telescopes than years ago?

Until the advent of digital cameras with interchangeable lenses, such shots were virtually impossible. The sensitivity range of digital cameras is orders of magnitude better than film. So what other evidence is there that Rahu exists? That the Vedas say so means nothing more than some pronouncement from the bible. Lunar surface MUST be visible during solar eclipse, that is the special circumstance that makes it possible to see the moon completely flooded with the earthshine, which is almost times brighter than the moonshine on the earth.

Because normally, as you point out, with the sun high up in the sky, you can not see the earthshine on the moon. So the reason we can not generally see the earthshine is that during the time we could see it the moon is in the daytime sky, with the sun, and we can not see earthshine on the moon when the sun is in the sky very near to it. That is why we MUST see at the eclipse, if the theory that it is the moon coming in front of the sun that causes the eclipse is true.

Because at the time of total eclipse sky is completely dark, stars all come out, it is like night, and that is the time of the full earth on the moon. So at that moment earthshine on the moon is at its maximum.