Of course, you ae right. But to be fair in understanding the gist of the words here, from the (somewhat hyperbolic) witness on the stand (Nancy/putative Zetas), whatever her/their actual knowledge level (if the Zetas exist), we should recognize that she, as their conduit, would mean that the Moon is ENOUGH off to be considered noticeable.

I am basing this assessment from having listened to her (/their) comments on many topics, which sometimes are more off-the-cuff in expression, but whose contents' subtleties come out over many individual comments.

In other words, if it were WAY off (as you or I might think of it), sure, it would be noticeable naked-eye. But in the context, it seems she/"they" mean it is off enough to be detected, i.e., "way off" enough to be excited about for proving her case.

I am not saying it IS off; and I am not saying that this part of the claim would be NECESSARY to actually positing a PX hypothesis, logically speaking. But it is one facet of her/ "their" testimony. So this is what I think she means.

I notice some people jump on her for these statements, but over time her expressions of enthusiasm for a point get mitigated; the real predictions (anomalous movement, say, with the Wobble, or whatever, as possibly being part of an argument for PX) can be separated from mistakes and over-emphasized claims, such as this one about the Moon seems to be.

I am, again, only emphasizing that to understand if the basic claim of PX is to be understood, we must eparate the witness-claimant (so to speak) Nancy/putative Zetas from the issues of what a PX would do, were it really here, and do we have anything which might be linked to that -- and we do, even if it's flimsy or inconclusive. A case is a case; some cases have no support whatever. This one does, but we must separate the wheat from the chaff if possible, and even so, we can be wrong (either way). Of course.