Evo X
 

On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote:



On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I
said
earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York.

I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the
boroughs.
I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum
elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my
deck as stated.

You checkmated yourself a while back with this one.

OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC.
My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles
from NY.
Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you
what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image.

You said it wasn't taken from my home.

I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult"
to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that
you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement
that I made was that the image was not taken within 50
miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as
usual.

It was.
You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about
distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you
were wrong twice.


Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than
one
Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city.


Regards

Donal
--

Evo X
 

On Oct 8, 7:20 am, wrote:
On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote:



On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:

As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short
exposure and no wedge.

I wanna see this pic!!!!

Here ya go....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg

1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a
Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the
limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with
it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck!

RB

Oh......

Here is another, not very good, image of the same object!

http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg

Regards

Donal
--





Wow! You did that piggyback with one exposure? Zoweee!



RB

Evo X
 

On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote:
On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote:



On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote:

On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I
said
earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York.

I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the
boroughs.
I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum
elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my
deck as stated.

You checkmated yourself a while back with this one.

OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC.
My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles
from NY.
Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you
what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image.

You said it wasn't taken from my home.

I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult"
to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that
you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement
that I made was that the image was not taken within 50
miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as
usual.

It was.
You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about
distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you
were wrong twice.

Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than
one
Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city.





Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY
taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't
know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken?
Hmmmmm?


RB

Evo X
 

On 8 Oct, 12:35, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote:



On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote:

On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As I
said
earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York.

I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the
boroughs.
I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check maximum
elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from my
deck as stated.

You checkmated yourself a while back with this one.

OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC.
My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles
from NY.
Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you
what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image.

You said it wasn't taken from my home.

I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult"
to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that
you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement
that I made was that the image was not taken within 50
miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as
usual.

It was.
You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about
distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you
were wrong twice.

Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than
one
Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city.

Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY
taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't
know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken?
Hmmmmm?

Now, now, Bob. Calm down.

You are acting like an hyerstical "B" rated actress from the 1930's.

All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of
NY.


As you know, I was correct. I do understand that you are
irritated by my ability to interpret your rather poor
astrophotograph - taken without a wedge!

I have to hand it to you. At least you recognise that you
would need a wedge to take a proper photo, with that cheap
fork mounted scope. What you don't know, is that even with a wedge,
that setup cannot produce a decent photo.

If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM,
or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge.


Regards


Donal
--

Evo X
 

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:20:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"



wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:

As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short
exposure and no wedge.

I wanna see this pic!!!!

Here ya go....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg

1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a
Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the
limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with
it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck!

RB

Oh......

Here is another, not very good, image of the same object!

http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg


Regards

Donal

Mmmmmmmm




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

Evo X
 

All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of
NY.




Rewriting history takes some degree of cleverness....and you don't
have it.
You said, again and again, "Care to tell us where you really took the
photo?"
It seems that I did from the start.



RB

Evo X
 

On 8 Oct, 23:33, OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:20:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On 8 Oct, 01:54, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:09 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:05 pm, OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "Capt. Rob"

wrote:

As for the image, I like it a lot. It's taken piggyback with one short
exposure and no wedge.

I wanna see this pic!!!!

Here ya go....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg

1st time I ever tried such a shot and this was with a Nikon D300 and a
Tamron 90 DI Macro lens, ISO 1000 and 64 seconds. That's near the
limit without an EQ wedge due to field rotation. I was also happy with
it since the Scope was sitting on my wood deck!

RB

Oh......

Here is another, not very good, image of the same object!

http://www.lanode.com/astro/m31fsqfr.jpg

Regards

Donal

Mmmmmmmm


If conditions are decent tonight, then I might post a decent photo
of the same object tomorrow!

I'm photographing it now, while Bob is watching an episode
of Baywatch on his home cinema!!



regards


Donal
--

Evo X
 

If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM,
or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge.



I don't want to take photos, at least not in any serious measure. I
wanted a fun and easy to setup scope that would have great GOTO
abilities and cost less than 3 grand complete. The CPC series delivers
exactly that. All I added was a better diagonal and some Telveues and
it's a perfect scope. BTW, I recently sold my 102 Televue APO and am
buying a William Optics 132 triplet.
Sorry!


RB

Evo X
 

On 8 Oct, 23:51, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM,
or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge.

I don't want to take photos, at least not in any serious measure. I
wanted a fun and easy to setup scope that would have great GOTO
abilities and cost less than 3 grand complete. The CPC series delivers
exactly that. All I added was a better diagonal and some Telveues and
it's a perfect scope. BTW, I recently sold my 102 Televue APO and am
buying a William Optics 132 triplet.
Sorry!

Hmmmm...
Your approach to optics seems to be the same as your
approach to boats. You must be the first person in history to move
"up" from a Televue to a Williams Optics.

WO are good, but they are a bit like Celestron. They are
superb value for money. If you want the best, then you
really cannot go for "value for money".

Furthermore, if you want a good refractor, then you need a
quadruplet. The triplets are good, but they are not perfect.

It's a bit like comparing an Evo with a DB9.


Regards


V12 DON
--

Evo X
 

wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct, 12:35, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:28 am, wrote:



On 7 Oct, 22:45, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:33 pm, wrote:

On 7 Oct, 01:00, "Capt. Rob" wrote:

Now, why don't you tell us where you took that photo of M31? As
I
said
earlier, it wasn't taken within 50 miles of New York.

I'm guessing that you mean 50 miles from Manhattan or even the
boroughs.
I know you're pretty ignorant, but you might want to check
maximum
elevation and distance of Kent Cliffs. The photo was taken from
my
deck as stated.

You checkmated yourself a while back with this one.

OK Kent Cliffs is *60* miles north of NYC.
My statement was that it taken more than 50 miles
from NY.
Far from checkmating myself, I have shown you
what can be gleaned from even a poor quality image.

You said it wasn't taken from my home.

I don't think that I said that at all. I "found it difficult"
to believe that you took it from home, as I thought that
you lived nearer NYC. The only definite statement
that I made was that the image was not taken within 50
miles of NY. You have proved that I am absolutely correct, as
usual.

It was.
You were wrong and even more so since you added the part about
distance, so you were even wrong about where I actually am. So you
were wrong twice.

Nonsense! Was it taken from Kent Cliffs? Unless there is more than
one
Kent Cliffs in NY, then it was taken 60 miles from the city.

Nonsense? Haven't you been crying that my photo couldn't POSSIBLY
taken from my home? So what exactly were you wrong about? You didn't
know where I live, but still questioned where it was taken?
Hmmmmm?

Now, now, Bob. Calm down.

You are acting like an hyerstical "B" rated actress from the 1930's.

All I said was that it wasn't taken within 50 miles of
NY.


As you know, I was correct. I do understand that you are
irritated by my ability to interpret your rather poor
astrophotograph - taken without a wedge!

I have to hand it to you. At least you recognise that you
would need a wedge to take a proper photo, with that cheap
fork mounted scope. What you don't know, is that even with a wedge,
that setup cannot produce a decent photo.

If you want to take photos, then you need a proper GEM,
or you can spend a million or two on a fork and wedge.


Regards


Donal
--


Here's BS' new vehicle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktD-SN3C4h4

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com