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. 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.

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

But let's not lose sight of your hilarious DB9 computer statement.
That was truly funny! And you got to be wrong yet again!






RB

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!!!!




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

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

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......




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

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
--

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

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.

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
--

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
--

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