Or are those convienient to use and I am not suggesting you are but it would seem that some have a propensity for mocking and I am sure that not all of it is because of false teachers
When something is presented as "a sign" but nobody can say what this alleged sign points to, what response is appropriate? A sign isn't much of a sign unless it points to something.
If it is presented as an omen, a harbinger, a sign, whatever, but nobody can say anything specific about what it portends, what use is the claim? When the best that backs up the claim of being a sign is a general observation that things in the world seem to be getting worse, that doesn't prove anything. You might as well say that each of your successive birthdays is a sign that things will continue to get worse.
Put another way it's one thing to demonstrate a correlation (although as far as I can tell nobody has even correlated the blood moons with anything relevant) but to demonstrate causation requires a higher level of proof. And given the examples from the Old Testament where a prophet essentially says "Thus saith the Lord .... (event) will happen .... then you will know that I am the Lord", we can see a pattern. God warns that something specific will happen, and when it does people will know that he is the Lord. With the blood moons all we have is an allegation that something will happen but nobody can say what will happen or when it will happen. It's not even clear whether this mysterious future event is good or bad.