Amazingly brutal optical test site. No SCT left alive!

I had clear skies the last couple of nights. Those nights were 'first (and second) light' for The Beast on its just completed, homemade alt-az mount.

Beneath a sky with a naked-eye limiting magnitude of better than 6.0. My views (through an eyepiece) were awesome! I'll spare most of the finer details (omitting specific objects for example) and concentrate more on the general nature of the sessions.

As twilight darkened a bright blue sky gradually turned into darker shades of blue. More and more stars became visible. More and more constellations became recognizable. The summer Milky Way eventually dominated the sky with it's huge expanse, bright star clouds, and dark dust lanes. I can never mistake the Milky Way for a cloud. Night-time clouds are *darker* than the background sky (unless the moon is up) while the Milky Way is brighter than the background sky.

As various objects were targeted for more prolonged telescopic observation satellites were often seen passing through the wide-field, 31x eyepiece. Some satellites were bright, others were dimmer. Several of my targetted deepsky objects shared the same field with at least one other DSO. All were 'bright' and easily seen. All displayed structural details that made each object different.

Twice a bright meteor was seen zipping through the field of view. One meteor barely 'missed' the DSO I was observing and left a glowing, ghostly train that persisted for a few seconds.

The views were in color. Different stars had different colors. The natural background sky color was different from the much darker region beyond the eyepiece's field stop. The DSOs had their own subtle colors. It would be an error to say that everything appeared in different shades of gray.

For one DSO observation part of the dark sihlouette of a nearby pine tree contrasted strongly with the much brighter sky. Yes, even a magnitude 6.5 sky is bright to the dark adapted eye, especially so when low magnifications are used. Yet, the light of the DSOs punched through. The photons that had been travelling for tens of, hundreds of, thousands of, and millions of years ended their tireless journeys after passing through The Beast's objective, reflecting off a mirror diagonal, traversing eyepiece lens elements, passing thru various eye parts and expending their energy on a human retina, on my retina.

I don't 'waste' money buying telescopes for cameras to look through. If I'm spending 'my' money, I want to enjoy the views myself, firsthand. If a camera wants to look, let the camera buy it's own telescope. Such is my personal philosophical position - a position that I don't try to force anyone else to share.

The tone of the post quoted below sounds troubled. . .

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.


On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-6, LdB wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:37 AM, wsne... wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:34:17 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 03:27:32 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

Then obviously those reviewers and "new owners" are fooling themselves.

Thus spake Solomon ø' Zarathustra, from his subterranean bunker, on the subject of observational, optical crutches.

If you believe what some of those reviewers and "new owners" are saying then they are fooling you.


The only people being fooled are the poor traditionalists. They have
managed to brainwash themselves into believing they can see something
worth seeing with their primitive eyepieces and antiquated methods.
They have to sketch an image of their fleeting glimpses just so they
can remember what was there.

Here is a traditionalist's recent review comparing two telescopes.

Submitted by Seymour Naught

"I chose ScopeA as the better telescope because I could almost see
more through ScopeA than I could almost see through ScopeB and when I
didn't look through ScopeA I could definitely see more than when I
didn't look through ScopeB. "



The simplest fact eludes the poor traditionalists. They could see more
of the sky with an electronic viewer on a small poor quality telescope
than they could ever hope to see with a large good quality telescope
and their eyepieces.

Perhaps the traditionalists are hanging on to their eyepieces because
of their traditional values. In their world something is either useful
or junk.

The traditionalist may not realize how things are changing. Their
centuries old paths are worn so deep the traditionalists can't see out
of them let alone get out of them.

Modern methods and ideas have entered all areas of our society, not
just astronomy. There is no longer any need to hang on to those
worthless eyepieces. They will not end up clogging landfill sites. The
eyepieces will be recycled into something useful.

Some of the material from those recycled eyepieces could end up in a
Mallincam. What a nice thought. Those eyepiece could contribute to the
hobby. Instead of just collecting dust they will be part of a device
that can collect photons.


Then there are the cave dwelling Internet observers like Whata Smell.
The last time he saw the night sky was a magazine photo in the welfare
office waiting room. If he were ever to hold an eyepiece in his hand
he would probably think it was something used to administer a
suppository.

.96" and 1.25" for the average person or a 2" for the pompous sized
opening needed to pass the cockamamie claptrap he smears all over the
Internet.

LdB

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:37 PM UTC-7, Sketcher wrote:

I don't 'waste' money buying telescopes for cameras to look through. If I'm spending 'my' money, I want to enjoy the views myself, firsthand. If a camera wants to look, let the camera buy it's own telescope. Such is my personal philosophical position - a position that I don't try to force anyone else to share.

The tone of the post quoted below sounds troubled. . .

Ya think? This fellow has no clue whatsoever, he is blinded by... well, I think is just plain blind...

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:38:56 PM UTC-6, LdB wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:37 AM, wsne... wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:34:17 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 03:27:32 UTC+2, wsne... wrote:

Then obviously those reviewers and "new owners" are fooling themselves.

Thus spake Solomon ø' Zarathustra, from his subterranean bunker, on the subject of observational, optical crutches.

If you believe what some of those reviewers and "new owners" are saying then they are fooling you.


The only people being fooled are the poor traditionalists. They have
managed to brainwash themselves into believing they can see something
worth seeing with their primitive eyepieces and antiquated methods.
They have to sketch an image of their fleeting glimpses just so they
can remember what was there.

Here is a traditionalist's recent review comparing two telescopes.

Submitted by Seymour Naught

"I chose ScopeA as the better telescope because I could almost see
more through ScopeA than I could almost see through ScopeB and when I
didn't look through ScopeA I could definitely see more than when I
didn't look through ScopeB. "



The simplest fact eludes the poor traditionalists. They could see more
of the sky with an electronic viewer on a small poor quality telescope
than they could ever hope to see with a large good quality telescope
and their eyepieces.

Perhaps the traditionalists are hanging on to their eyepieces because
of their traditional values. In their world something is either useful
or junk.

The traditionalist may not realize how things are changing. Their
centuries old paths are worn so deep the traditionalists can't see out
of them let alone get out of them.

Modern methods and ideas have entered all areas of our society, not
just astronomy. There is no longer any need to hang on to those
worthless eyepieces. They will not end up clogging landfill sites. The
eyepieces will be recycled into something useful.

Some of the material from those recycled eyepieces could end up in a
Mallincam. What a nice thought. Those eyepiece could contribute to the
hobby. Instead of just collecting dust they will be part of a device
that can collect photons.


Then there are the cave dwelling Internet observers like Whata Smell.
The last time he saw the night sky was a magazine photo in the welfare
office waiting room. If he were ever to hold an eyepiece in his hand
he would probably think it was something used to administer a
suppository.

.96" and 1.25" for the average person or a 2" for the pompous sized
opening needed to pass the cockamamie claptrap he smears all over the
Internet.

LdB

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:37 PM UTC-7, Sketcher wrote:

Twice a bright meteor was seen zipping through the field of view. One meteor barely 'missed' the DSO I was observing and left a glowing, ghostly train that persisted for a few seconds.

This is an interesting observation. I have seen meteor trains, in the past, that have persisted for at least a couple of minutes naked-eye, and once I saw an incredible fireball whose train persisted for about 20 minutes in my 25" f5 Obsession Classic. If I hadn't actually timed this observation I would have called myself a liar, but I swear it is true. A bunch of astro-buddies were part of this experiment, and we all were amazed with the fact that this train was visible for such a long time.

Perhaps on another occasion I will be treated to a repeat performance... perhaps even tomorrow night, when I will be in California's White Mountains (Grandview Campground), at 8500 ft, witnessing the Perseids, predicted to be the best show in years. I'm really looking forward to this...

Sketcher, keep up the good work, you are an observer after my own heart... except for the sketching part... :)

I don't even log my observations most of the time, that way I get to see new friends all the time!

\Paul A

Hi Paul, I have no problem believing your meteor train observation. I was once similarly amazed by one that persisted for several minutes to the naked-eye, extending to at least 20 minutes when 8x42 binoculars were added to the mix. (This *may* have been during a wonderful Leonid 'fireball' shower from several years ago.)

If I can manage to get in a decent nap today - and my sky cooperates - I hope to devote the beginning portion of the night to telescopic observations, and later switch over to gazing upward for Perseids.

Of course, I don't always make sketches ;-) Sometimes I just take notes ("sketching" with words!) Other times I simply enjoy the views - leaving all paper, pencils, atlases, etc. inside. If I felt obligated to always make a sketch a pleasurable pastime could quickly turn into *work*. Sadly (in some ways), some sights simply *cannot* be adequately recorded by any means currently available. They must be experieced first-hand. (A total solar eclipse and Comet Hyakutake come to mind as extreme examples.)

Have a wonderful, starry, night - hopefully with plenty of Perseids!

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:04:20 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:37 PM UTC-7, Sketcher wrote:

Twice a bright meteor was seen zipping through the field of view. One meteor barely 'missed' the DSO I was observing and left a glowing, ghostly train that persisted for a few seconds.

This is an interesting observation. I have seen meteor trains, in the past, that have persisted for at least a couple of minutes naked-eye, and once I saw an incredible fireball whose train persisted for about 20 minutes in my 25" f5 Obsession Classic. If I hadn't actually timed this observation I would have called myself a liar, but I swear it is true. A bunch of astro-buddies were part of this experiment, and we all were amazed with the fact that this train was visible for such a long time.

Perhaps on another occasion I will be treated to a repeat performance... perhaps even tomorrow night, when I will be in California's White Mountains (Grandview Campground), at 8500 ft, witnessing the Perseids, predicted to be the best show in years. I'm really looking forward to this...

Sketcher, keep up the good work, you are an observer after my own heart.... except for the sketching part... :)

I don't even log my observations most of the time, that way I get to see new friends all the time!

\Paul A

On 8/10/2015 3:22 PM, palsing wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:38:56 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote:

Then there are the cave dwelling Internet observers like Whata Smell.
The last time he saw the night sky was a magazine photo in the welfare
office waiting room.

There is no doubt that the image he saw was far superior to any image your Mallincam could ever produce, and the same goes for uncountable other images available on the internet...


Ya think? This fellow has no clue whatsoever, he is blinded by...
well, I think is just plain blind...



You traditionalists just can't get enough of yourselves, can you?

Your arguments are as useless as your antiquated eyepieces and
methods. To top it off you and the Smell try to belittle your
opponents with insinuations of being handicapped. You are saying they
are blind because you think you are superior to the handicapped. My
bet is that both of you tormented the handicapped when you were
children. It made you feel good, didn't it.

Neither of you can see beyond the confines of the old ways you are
both so desperate to preserve.

No clue?

I've viewed with the old methods for decades. During that time I've
seen as much if not more than most. There is nothing from that time
that can compare with what I see with my cameras today. By todays
standards my traditional eyepiece viewing was a waste of time.

I am proficient in both traditional eyepiece viewing and modern
electronic viewing. That's what gives me the right to discuss both
methods.

You traditionalists know almost nothing about the equipment I use and
how it is used but that doesn't stop you from talking. Is that
because most of you have only talked about viewing? Talking is what
the traditionalists do best.

I know what you can see, and I see what you have to say about it.
Sorry, the mathematics do not add up, unless you drop exaggeration and
wishful thinking into the equation.

Who has the clue?

What I have is insight and the ability to use it. What do you two have
to offer? Status Quo? Change means you two and what you have to say
will not be of any value to anyone but those like you.

Don't stop criticizing everything you're unable to understand. That is
the way of the traditionalists in all walks of life.

Whether you traditionalist ever get enough of yourselves is of little
importance. You can have as much of yourselves as you can take. Those
doing the real astronomy will have no part of you. They'll be too
busy looking at all the sky you traditionalists can only talk about.

LdB

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:15:22 PM UTC-7, LdB wrote:
On 8/10/2015 3:22 PM, palsing wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:38:56 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote:

Then there are the cave dwelling Internet observers like Whata Smell.
The last time he saw the night sky was a magazine photo in the welfare
office waiting room.

There is no doubt that the image he saw was far superior to any image your Mallincam could ever produce, and the same goes for uncountable other images available on the internet...


Ya think? This fellow has no clue whatsoever, he is blinded by...
well, I think is just plain blind...



You traditionalists just can't get enough of yourselves, can you?

This is not the case at all. I told you before that your chosen facet of the hobby was just as valid as any other facet, including my own. If you think yours is better than the others, good for you, I hope you enjoy it to the fullest, because I definitely enjoy my own, which I think is a terrific way to enjoy the night sky.

Can't you just let it go at that? You do your thing and I'll do mine, and we will both be happy about it.

Your arguments are as useless as your antiquated eyepieces and
methods...

Your arguments, on the other hand are nothing more that you own opinion, and therefore pretty much worthless in the big picture... get a life, and let others live their as they please.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 2:15:22 AM UTC-4, LsD wrote:

.... try to belittle your
opponents with insinuations of being handicapped. You are saying they
are blind because you think you are superior to the handicapped.

No "insinuations," just speculation that your vision and skills might be below par based on your apparent dis-satisfaction with what YOU can see.

I've viewed with the old methods for decades. During that time I've
seen as much if not more than most.

Incorrect.

There is nothing from that time
that can compare with what I see with my cameras today. By todays
standards my traditional eyepiece viewing was a waste of time.

Hint: Your video camera and the monitor on which you are forced to view are mere machines. They never let you forget that you are just looking at a screen.

I am proficient in both traditional eyepiece viewing and modern
electronic viewing.

Incorrect.

That's what gives me the right to discuss both
methods.

You haven't discussed anything, you've merely subjected this group to your endless, tiresome rants.

You traditionalists know almost nothing about the equipment I use and
how it is used but that doesn't stop you from talking.

Your equipment stinks.

On 8/18/2015 9:18 PM, wrote:

There is nothing from that time
that can compare with what I see with my cameras today. By todays
standards my traditional eyepiece viewing was a waste of time.

Hint: Your video camera and the monitor on which you are forced to view are mere machines. They never let you forget that you are just looking at a screen.

I am proficient in both traditional eyepiece viewing and modern
electronic viewing.

Incorrect.

That's what gives me the right to discuss both
methods.

You haven't discussed anything, you've merely subjected this group to your endless, tiresome rants.

You traditionalists know almost nothing about the equipment I use and
how it is used but that doesn't stop you from talking.

Your equipment stinks.



Equipment stinks?

The sum total of the traditionalists reasons for hating modern
astronomy. The equipment stinks!

Taking into account the number of traditionalists wading about at the
shallow end of the gene pool that would have be considered a clever
remark.

What happened? Did the librarian kick you out before you had a chance
to cut and paste your usual sort of reply?

When I look at a Mallincam image on the screen I never forget how
useles it was to use an eyepiece.

As for tiresome rants, lets hear another traditional report describing
a object exactly the way it has been described thousands of times over
the past two hundred years.

If Messier could hear the endless droning of the traditional
astronomers repeated descriptions of something they can barely see he
would wish he never looked up at the sky.

Get a life, get a job, get a Mallincam and get a real look at the sky.

LdB

On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 13:46:52 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 8/18/2015 9:18 PM, wrote:

There is nothing from that time
that can compare with what I see with my cameras today. By todays
standards my traditional eyepiece viewing was a waste of time.

Hint: Your video camera and the monitor on which you are forced to view are mere machines. They never let you forget that you are just looking at a screen.

I am proficient in both traditional eyepiece viewing and modern
electronic viewing.

Incorrect.

That's what gives me the right to discuss both
methods.

You haven't discussed anything, you've merely subjected this group to your endless, tiresome rants.

You traditionalists know almost nothing about the equipment I use and
how it is used but that doesn't stop you from talking.

Your equipment stinks.



Equipment stinks?

The sum total of the traditionalists reasons for hating modern
astronomy. The equipment stinks!

Taking into account the number of traditionalists wading about at the
shallow end of the gene pool that would have be considered a clever
remark.

What happened? Did the librarian kick you out before you had a chance
to cut and paste your usual sort of reply?

When I look at a Mallincam image on the screen I never forget how
useles it was to use an eyepiece.

As for tiresome rants, lets hear another traditional report describing
a object exactly the way it has been described thousands of times over
the past two hundred years.

If Messier could hear the endless droning of the traditional
astronomers repeated descriptions of something they can barely see he
would wish he never looked up at the sky.

Get a life, get a job, get a Mallincam and get a real look at the sky.

LdB

You know, lunacy in defense of Mallincam does them favours.

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 12:46:52 PM UTC-5, LdB wrote:
On 8/18/2015 9:18 PM, wrote:

There is nothing from that time
that can compare with what I see with my cameras today. By todays
standards my traditional eyepiece viewing was a waste of time.

Hint: Your video camera and the monitor on which you are forced to view are mere machines. They never let you forget that you are just looking at a screen.

I am proficient in both traditional eyepiece viewing and modern
electronic viewing.

Incorrect.

That's what gives me the right to discuss both
methods.

You haven't discussed anything, you've merely subjected this group to your endless, tiresome rants.

You traditionalists know almost nothing about the equipment I use and
how it is used but that doesn't stop you from talking.

Your equipment stinks.



Equipment stinks?

The sum total of the traditionalists reasons for hating modern
astronomy. The equipment stinks!

Taking into account the number of traditionalists wading about at the
shallow end of the gene pool that would have be considered a clever
remark.

What happened? Did the librarian kick you out before you had a chance
to cut and paste your usual sort of reply?

When I look at a Mallincam image on the screen I never forget how
useles it was to use an eyepiece.

As for tiresome rants, lets hear another traditional report describing
a object exactly the way it has been described thousands of times over
the past two hundred years.

If Messier could hear the endless droning of the traditional
astronomers repeated descriptions of something they can barely see he
would wish he never looked up at the sky.

Get a life, get a job, get a Mallincam and get a real look at the sky.

LdB

Can your Mallincam do this:

http://www.buytelescopes.com/content...1_ngc3582.jpeg

If not, I don't need it.

Uncadeepsky