|
OT : Boobsie will crap rotten eggs and cabbage
When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the
rovers parked on the moon. Joe |
"Joe" wrote in message om... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Joe Bwahahahahhahahhaaha! Even the Hubble cannot resolve that small. Besides, we never landed on the moon. Here's proof. http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html CN I invite you to join the discussion at: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/altwe_love_CaptNeal CN |
When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the
rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Capt RB |
|
Bobsprit wrote: Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? Some are for cutting out ambient man-made light of varrying types. Some work well for photography, others visually. But remember that they also cut ALL light by as much as 4 or 5%. 4 or 5% is bugger all. Better to find a dark sky. Always. Cheers |
Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
Its been socked in fog here since I bought the thing.:o(
But as soon as I focus on a nebulae I with use it. Joe |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. When can we see some photos, Bob? There's not much point in boasting about your Telescope if you cannot post photos, is there? Regards Donal -- |
Donal wrote: "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. When can we see some photos, Bob? There's not much point in boasting about your Telescope if you cannot post photos, is there? Good point. The 9.25 was designed for photography. Cheers |
"Nav" wrote in message Good point. The 9.25 was designed for photography. Cheers Yeah... how about a pic of the $400 Breast Pump Nebula??? Bwahahahahahaaaaaa CM |
Overproof wrote:
Yeah... how about a pic of the $400 Breast Pump Nebula??? Is that listed in the almanac? Can I take a sight on it with my sextant?? DSK |
"Bob**** the big fat LOSER" wrote ... When can we see some photos, Bob? I'm pretty much a visual observer and leave astrophotography for those who have the ability to remove the red eye. BBob |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message I'm pretty much a visual observer Oh Thank the Gods... I thought you might be one of those verbal observers! CM |
Oh Thank the Gods... I thought you might be one of those verbal observers!
Mooron, this yet another area where you know nada. Visual means non-photographic in astronomy. Some folks have dedicated scopes that are geared for astrophotography only. You are an idiot on yet another topic. RB |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Oh Thank the Gods... I thought you might be one of those verbal observers! Mooron, this yet another area where you know nada. Visual means non-photographic in astronomy. Some folks have dedicated scopes that are geared for astrophotography only. You are an idiot on yet another topic. Do they get 'red-eye' when they photograph a Gas Giant?? Bwahahahahahahaaaa CM |
Like Neal?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Overproof" wrote in message news:tzmtd.327115$9b.76868@edtnps84... "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Oh Thank the Gods... I thought you might be one of those verbal observers! Mooron, this yet another area where you know nada. Visual means non-photographic in astronomy. Some folks have dedicated scopes that are geared for astrophotography only. You are an idiot on yet another topic. Do they get 'red-eye' when they photograph a Gas Giant?? Bwahahahahahahaaaa CM |
DSK wrote: Overproof wrote: Yeah... how about a pic of the $400 Breast Pump Nebula??? Is that listed in the almanac? Can I take a sight on it with my sextant?? It might be a heavenly object I suppose. Cheers |
Nav wrote:
It might be a heavenly object I suppose. I figured it had to be somewhere in the Milky Way DSK |
DSK wrote: Nav wrote: It might be a heavenly object I suppose. I figured it had to be somewhere in the Milky Way Haha. Could it be Titania? Cheers |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Good point. The 9.25 was designed for photography. Cheers The 9.25 is a wonderful scope at the eyepiece, lots of fun with a telecompresser as well. It's head and shoulders above the Ultima 8. Bob, You've often stated that photos are needed to prove that people sail. Why is astronomy any different? You love photography. Why would you have a Celestron 9.25 if you weren't taking photos? Show us some astrophotography. Regards Donal -- |
"Donal" wrote in message Show us some astrophotography. I doubt his "Tasco Telescope" has the ability to be fitted with a camera. CM |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Show us some astrophotography. I doubt his "Tasco Telescope" has the ability to be fitted with a camera. Poor Mooron. I mean, really! Tasco OWNS Celestron! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man... how lame a telescope must that make it? Tasco!!!! TASCO!!! Bwahahahahahahahahaha CM |
Overproof wrote: "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Show us some astrophotography. I doubt his "Tasco Telescope" has the ability to be fitted with a camera. Poor Mooron. I mean, really! Tasco OWNS Celestron! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man... how lame a telescope must that make it? Tasco!!!! TASCO!!! Bwahahahahahahahahaha My Celestron 8 is pre Tasco take over scope. Joe CM |
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Man... how lame a telescope must that make it? Tasco!!!! TASCO!!! Yup, everyone knows the the scopes are poor since Tasco took over....NOT! The current C11 and 9.25 are the finest optical sets sold by Celestron to the public. Pre-Tasco scopes were more hit and miss and sometimes worse than Meade in rare cases. Mooron's ignorance and boredom are obvious. RB |
wrote in message My Celestron 8 is pre Tasco take over scope. Then again you aren't claiming it cost more than Scotty's car and is the top of the line telescope and better than anything anybody else on this group has... are you? You simply made a statement that you have a telescope and it's make. You enjoy the scope for it's purpose and not because it may be of better quality than someone else's. Bob purchases items based on cost, bragging purposes and I doubt he gets much use of his much bragged about telescope in a city like NYC. CM |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message Yup, everyone knows the the scopes are poor since Tasco took over....NOT! The current C11 and 9.25 are the finest optical sets sold by Celestron to the public. Pre-Tasco scopes were more hit and miss and sometimes worse than Meade in rare cases. Mooron's ignorance and boredom are obvious. See Joe..... here Bob is bragging once again about the quality of an instrument that he cannot possibly realize the full use of in his current area. He's being pretentious and self righteous. He can't admit the fact that he has an idiotic piece of equipment for his location... yet feels obligated to point out the fact that his scope is the best on the market.... not the best to suit his situation. He even goes so far as to state that they are the most powerful scopes sold to the public!!?? WTF... "the public" can buy way more powerful telescopes than those. It's not like you need a license to own a telescope.... unless the Patriot Act has suspended the privilege of purchase. CM |
Overproof wrote: "Bobsprit" wrote in message Yup, everyone knows the the scopes are poor since Tasco took over....NOT! The current C11 and 9.25 are the finest optical sets sold by Celestron to the public. Pre-Tasco scopes were more hit and miss and sometimes worse than Meade in rare cases. Geee I read that many seek out the orange tube model. That the quailty at the time was un-surpassed. Mooron's ignorance and boredom are obvious. See Joe..... here Bob is bragging once again about the quality of an instrument that he cannot possibly realize the full use of in his current area. He window peeps! Lots of building in NY. He's being pretentious and self righteous. Really! I'm amazed. He can't admit the fact that he has an idiotic piece of equipment for his location... yet feels obligated to point out the fact that his scope is the best on the market.... not the best to suit his situation. He even goes so far as to state that they are the most powerful scopes sold to the public!!?? WTF... "the public" can buy way more powerful telescopes than those. I think most larger mirrows than 11" get very expensive. But your right, if ya got the bucks Ill sell you a 20 footer from the University of Arizona. But finding something off the shelf larger than 11" might be a hard task. It's not like you need a license to own a telescope.... unless the Patriot Act has suspended the privilege of purchase. Not sure about telescopes, but I heard you now need permission, or some sort of permit to launch Estes type rockets. Joe CM |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... You enjoy the scope for it's purpose and not because it may be of better quality than someone else's. He never gave any report about using the scope. Poor, poor Mooron. It's like a nightmare for him! I'm not the one with the impending crayola coloured lens on my mid range 1.5K telescope because I wasn't keeping an eye on junior... Bob! Breast Pump - $400.... Celestron Telescope - $1200 Brody Jr. getting mobile and destroying everything Bob owns... Priceless! CM |
Bobsprit wrote: You love photography. Why would you have a Celestron 9.25 if you weren't taking photos? Show us some astrophotography. I may try some piggy back stuff with the D70 on the C11 for a start. I have to look into mounting the D70 at the back of the cell and what's involved. Yep, it's called a bracket. I'd guess it costs about $25 for your scope. But really, short focal length stuff is for babies... Cheers |
Overproof wrote: "Donal" wrote in message Show us some astrophotography. I doubt his "Tasco Telescope" has the ability to be fitted with a camera. Provided you know what you need, Tasco make same economic starter scopes provided you keep to 3.5" apertures. You can certainly use them for guiding. Since most people know little about how to set up a scope properly, a well collimated Tasco may out perform a comprable aperture "top of the range" scope in the hands of an novice. Cheers |
Only $25??????
Boobsie will never be able to buy one (ego won't let him). Maybe if one of us were to buy one and then put it on E-bay for $400. That might work. ') How about it Boobsie? Nav wrote: Bobsprit wrote: You love photography. Why would you have a Celestron 9.25 if you weren't taking photos? Show us some astrophotography. I may try some piggy back stuff with the D70 on the C11 for a start. I have to look into mounting the D70 at the back of the cell and what's involved. Yep, it's called a bracket. I'd guess it costs about $25 for your scope. But really, short focal length stuff is for babies... Cheers |
I prefer my Bushnell 13-1250 binoculars for sky gazing. Besides being too
lazy to set up equipment, there's the whole comfort factor. I can't think of anything more relaxing than lying on the beach with my gal, my glasses, and a trillion stars. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
What's a 13-1250? It's can't have 1250mm objectives!
Cheers Scout wrote: I prefer my Bushnell 13-1250 binoculars for sky gazing. Besides being too lazy to set up equipment, there's the whole comfort factor. I can't think of anything more relaxing than lying on the beach with my gal, my glasses, and a trillion stars. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
Objective Lens Diameter 50 mm
"Nav" wrote in message ... What's a 13-1250? It's can't have 1250mm objectives! Cheers Scout wrote: I prefer my Bushnell 13-1250 binoculars for sky gazing. Besides being too lazy to set up equipment, there's the whole comfort factor. I can't think of anything more relaxing than lying on the beach with my gal, my glasses, and a trillion stars. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
12 x 50 then? Not a bad size for astro gazing -provided color is
reasonably corrected. 12x is about as high as you can use without a stand or are they image stabilized? Cheers Scout wrote: Objective Lens Diameter 50 mm "Nav" wrote in message ... What's a 13-1250? It's can't have 1250mm objectives! Cheers Scout wrote: I prefer my Bushnell 13-1250 binoculars for sky gazing. Besides being too lazy to set up equipment, there's the whole comfort factor. I can't think of anything more relaxing than lying on the beach with my gal, my glasses, and a trillion stars. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
No stabilization, but I can usually find something to prop my arms with to
minimize movement. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... 12 x 50 then? Not a bad size for astro gazing -provided color is reasonably corrected. 12x is about as high as you can use without a stand or are they image stabilized? Cheers Scout wrote: Objective Lens Diameter 50 mm "Nav" wrote in message ... What's a 13-1250? It's can't have 1250mm objectives! Cheers Scout wrote: I prefer my Bushnell 13-1250 binoculars for sky gazing. Besides being too lazy to set up equipment, there's the whole comfort factor. I can't think of anything more relaxing than lying on the beach with my gal, my glasses, and a trillion stars. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... Joe wrote: (Bobsprit) wrote in message ... When he see the pictures I take with my new Celestron 8. I can see the rovers parked on the moon. Bad news, I own the C11 GPS. I also owned the 9.25, the smallest Celestron worth owning and probably thier best optics. I had a C8 Ultima years back. Good starter scope I guess. Well I hope so. Its my first real telescope came with a box full of 28 eyepieces and 6 filters. 28 eyepieces? You must be joking! Sell most of them. For your 'scope a good set would be 40, 32, 25, 18, 12, 7 and 4mm (the latter used mostly for critical collimation), all wide angle of course. Ones filters really cool a Nebula Line Transmission% Oxygen-III 496mm90 Oxygen-III 501 nm85 H-beta 486nm88 I wish I could afford a pair of sunglasses made out of this stuff. The ulta high contrast will blow your mind. Have any ideal what its for? It's to let you see structure in nebulae more clearly. Cheers |
12 x 50 then? Not a bad size for astro gazing -provided color is
reasonably corrected. 12x is about as high as you can use without a stand or are they image stabilized? I use Orion Mega Giant 2's 11X70. Nice, but I rarely drag them out. I'll probably put them on Ebay soon and use the money for a new lens for the Nikon D70. RB |
I use 7x50 on the boat and for grab and go. I use 30x77 widefield APOs
on a mount for serious bino viewing. But for bragging rights how about this: http://www.binoscope.co.nz/photos.htm It really gives the most amazing views. Cheers Bobsprit wrote: 12 x 50 then? Not a bad size for astro gazing -provided color is reasonably corrected. 12x is about as high as you can use without a stand or are they image stabilized? I use Orion Mega Giant 2's 11X70. Nice, but I rarely drag them out. I'll probably put them on Ebay soon and use the money for a new lens for the Nikon D70. RB |
Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!
I wonder what the cost of building with the 10" mirror would be. Scout "Nav" wrote in message ... I use 7x50 on the boat and for grab and go. I use 30x77 widefield APOs on a mount for serious bino viewing. But for bragging rights how about this: http://www.binoscope.co.nz/photos.htm It really gives the most amazing views. Cheers Bobsprit wrote: 12 x 50 then? Not a bad size for astro gazing -provided color is reasonably corrected. 12x is about as high as you can use without a stand or are they image stabilized? I use Orion Mega Giant 2's 11X70. Nice, but I rarely drag them out. I'll probably put them on Ebay soon and use the money for a new lens for the Nikon D70. RB |
OOPS.....
http://tinylink.com/?xo8tCVzXXz it's $1700 .... Bwahahahahahahaa CM "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Celestron Telescope - $1200 Mooron's ignorance just grows and grows. He can't get one item right and his google must be broken! RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com