He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.
Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the time interval of when it would occur again was predictable.
You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.
I brought up the prediction of an eclipse's path because it's a prediction that RET can make, but FET doesn't seem to be able to. Sounds like a point in RET's favor to me.
The predictions of lunar eclipses in real science goes even further: anyone who looks carefully enough will see that the full moon is almost never perfect; at its fullest point in the lunar month a small strip of the moon, either on the side pointing to the North or the side pointing to the South relative to the observer, is not lighted. When that strip is negligible there is a strong possibility of a lunar eclipse, and never else.
This way you can predict the possibility of an eclipse even with just a hand held, small telescope, without any tables or knowledge of previous eclipses, and without careful, painstaking measurements of the exact position of the Sun and the Moon.
In this way you can make predictions that the FE'ers will never be able to match, and you will demolish Tom Bishop's tables and the anti-moon "hypothesis". And all of it with not much more than Galileo had, 400 years ago.