Amazingly brutal optical test site. No SCT left alive!

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 6:48:54 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 12:37:04 UTC+2, wrote:
If you believe what some of those reviewers and "new owners" are saying then they are fooling you.

And themselves, no doubt?

This, despite several lifetimes of critical observational experience with a whole variety of instruments and sizes?

Or are you merely arguing for the sake of it?

You are definitely arguing for the sake of it.

What is your own *direct* experience of making side by side telescope comparisons under a wide variety of seeing conditions?

Under truly lousy seeing conditions I see larger, but mediocre, optics consistently outperform much smaller but better optics.

Under much better seeing conditions I see larger, but mediocre, optics consistently outperform much smaller but better optics.

Would you like to argue about that?

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Wolfgang Rohr is quite an education in optics but not universally loved, nor loathed.

I glanced at the site, didn't find any SCTs reviewed there, but the first review I looked at:

http://r2.astro-foren.com/index.php/...hammer-technik

seems to show that he was at least able to find one telescope (a fluorite apo from TeleVue, the Genesis) that he liked.

John Savard

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Wolfgang Rohr is quite an education in optics but not universally loved, nor loathed.

I glanced at the site, didn't find any SCTs reviewed there, but the first review I looked at:

http://r2.astro-foren.com/index.php/...hammer-technik

seems to show that he was at least able to find one telescope (a fluorite apo from TeleVue, the Genesis) that he liked.

So take a decent-enough 8" SCT, one not obviously defective, and see how it stacks up over the long haul against a TV Genesis.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 8:38:32 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:34:14 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

I hear that nice Mr ----- is now going to cure global warming..

Is it now a disease?

The cure might be worse, for those forced to take it. 0bama and the 0wl probably won't be among that group.

On 8/4/2015 5:37 AM, 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

LdB wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:37 AM, 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

You're a strange person. Don't you ever use you eyes to see anything.I
Looked up from your post and saw this sunset from my yard. Two minutes
later the colours had all gone, On a screen it would have had nothing like
the impact of reality.

https://flic.kr/p/wew4Ys

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...

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:38:56 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:


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.

Does your binocular have eyepieces?

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 3:53:59 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

LsD's tiresome rant deleted

You're a strange person. Don't you ever use you eyes to see anything.I
Looked up from your post and saw this sunset from my yard. Two minutes
later the colours had all gone, On a screen it would have had nothing like
the impact of reality.

I took some video of fireworks last month. The real thing was much better.

There are some interesting still and video images out there. LsD's are NOT among them.

On Monday, 10 August 2015 14:38:56 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:37 AM, 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.

Dog crap.