Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Astronomy photographer of the year 2010

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Astronomy photographer of the year 2010

 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-10-2010
On Sep 10, 1:26*am, Val Hallah <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../09/astronomy-...


That isn't the solar corona as the image caption states. The eclipse
was annular, that is the edge of the solar disk you see.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Sep 10, 1:26*am, Val Hallah <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../09/astronomy-...
:
: That isn't the solar corona as the image caption states. The eclipse
: was annular, that is the edge of the solar disk you see.

Good catch, Rich! I was about to make the same comment myself. Compare it to
image no. 9, which actually does show the corona.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:23:41 -0400, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)>
: wrote:
:
: >On Sep 10, 1:26*am, Val Hallah <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../09/astronomy-...
: >
: >That isn't the solar corona as the image caption states. The eclipse
: >was annular, that is the edge of the solar disk you see.
:
: Thank you for your consistent negativity Rich. I am so glad SOMEBODY
: can look at all that beauty and see only what is wrong with it.

Rich's comment (and mine, since I said the same thing) was about the accuracy
of the caption, not the beauty of the scene. Indeed, an annular eclipse, which
is, I believe, even rarer than a total eclipse, is a spectacular sight that
few can hope to ever see.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:34:24 -0500, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : On Sep 10, 1:26 am, Val Hallah <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > : > http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../09/astronomy-...
: > :
: > : That isn't the solar corona as the image caption states. The eclipse
: > : was annular, that is the edge of the solar disk you see.
: >
: > Good catch, Rich! I was about to make the same comment myself. Compare it to
: > image no. 9, which actually does show the corona.
: >
: > Bob
: The link you posted is incomplete.
: Allen

I didn't post a link. It appears that the link was already truncated in Rich's
note to which I replied. Anyway, here's how it appeared in the OP (assuming my
newsreader doesn't truncate it on transmission):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...-2010-pictures

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Superzooms Still Win
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2010
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:54:43 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:23:41 -0400, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)>
>: wrote:
>:
>: >On Sep 10, 1:26*am, Val Hallah <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../09/astronomy-...
>: >
>: >That isn't the solar corona as the image caption states. The eclipse
>: >was annular, that is the edge of the solar disk you see.
>:
>: Thank you for your consistent negativity Rich. I am so glad SOMEBODY
>: can look at all that beauty and see only what is wrong with it.
>
>Rich's comment (and mine, since I said the same thing) was about the accuracy
>of the caption, not the beauty of the scene. Indeed, an annular eclipse, which
>is, I believe, even rarer than a total eclipse, is a spectacular sight that
>few can hope to ever see.
>
>Bob


Wow, wherever did you read that bullshit from? Annular eclipses are the
common version.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2010
On Sep 11, 2:53*pm, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> >Rich's comment (and mine, since I said the same thing) was about the accuracy
> >of the caption, not the beauty of the scene. Indeed, an annular eclipse, which
> >is, I believe, even rarer than a total eclipse, is a spectacular sight that
> >few can hope to ever see.

>
> >Bob

>
> Wow, wherever did you read that bullshit from? Annular eclipses are the
> common version.


(A) Not the case. Partial solar eclipses are seen by many more people
than are either annular *or* total eclipses, so the partial eclipse is
the "common" version.

(And while we're at it, only slightly more eclipses are annular as
opposed to total anyway.)

(B) He said "I believe", meaning that he was admitting that he wasn't
sure.

(C) He was perfectly correct in saying that few can ever expect to see
an annular eclipse, and that it's a spectacular sight.

(D) Since he admitted that he wasn't certain of his facts -while you
did no such thing (and were arrogant about it) while being equally
wrong- he wins and you lose.

(E) You're still the same little psychotic DSLR troll and he's not; so
he *really* wins.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Superzooms Still Win
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2010
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sep 11, 2:53*pm, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Rich's comment (and mine, since I said the same thing) was about the accuracy
>> >of the caption, not the beauty of the scene. Indeed, an annular eclipse, which
>> >is, I believe, even rarer than a total eclipse, is a spectacular sight that
>> >few can hope to ever see.

>>
>> >Bob

>>
>> Wow, wherever did you read that bullshit from? Annular eclipses are the
>> common version.

>
>(A) Not the case. Partial solar eclipses are seen by many more people
>than are either annular *or* total eclipses, so the partial eclipse is
>the "common" version.


Pulling syntax-stretching-**** out of your ass in order to troll for
attention again?

Between total and annular, annular is the more common version. Nobody was
talking about partial eclipses you ****ing dumb-ass troll.

>
>(And while we're at it, only slightly more eclipses are annular as
>opposed to total anyway.)
>
>(B) He said "I believe", meaning that he was admitting that he wasn't
>sure.
>
>(C) He was perfectly correct in saying that few can ever expect to see
>an annular eclipse, and that it's a spectacular sight.


Anyone hoping to see an annular eclipse has a better chance of that than
seeing a total-eclipse. And it's not any kind of spectacular sight. Few if
any book flights to go see an ordinary annular eclipse. He's wrong on both
counts. As are you now, as well. The annulus is as bright as the sun.
Meaning: you cannot look at it directly (no different than any partial
eclipse), none of the chromosphere nor corona is visible, no Baily's Beads
are ever seen, there is only a slight darkening of the sky and terrain (as
in any partial eclipse), and in general it's just a rather dull event, a
symmetric partial eclipse.

(D) You have proved yet again that you're nothing but a moronic dumbshit of
a troll with no real-life experience to boot.

Enjoying your mommy's basement are you?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2010
On Sep 11, 9:12*pm, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> Pulling syntax-stretching-**** out of your ass in order to troll for
> attention again?


Poor Sibyl.

See (E): You're still the same little psychotic DSLR troll and he's
not; so
he *really* wins.

This will continue to be true until you get help, so just take it as a
given reply to any of your posts.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2010
On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> "I got the last post, so I *WIN!*"


Heh.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On Sep 13, 3:39*am, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Sep 12, 12:54*am, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> "I got the last post, so I *WIN!*"

>
> >Heh.

>
> When did they change the rules to last post? I always thought it was
> clever content!!


These unannounced rules changes are just part of the massive
conspiracy that's designed to prevent you from accepting the fact that
the DSLR troll is actually the living and breathing reincarnation of
Ansel Adams.

We're also behind the little green men who anally probed you last
week, the Mossad's plot to control the world, the "face" on Mars, and
the fact that you can't find those car keys that you *know* you left
on the dresser just last night.

Thanx for asking!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Share-Point-2010 ,Share-Point -2010 Training , Share-point-2010Hyderabad , Share-point-2010 Institute Saraswati lakki ASP .Net 0 01-06-2012 06:39 AM
CFP with Extended Deadline of Mar. 31, 2010: The 2010 InternationalConference on Modeling, Simulation, and Visualization Methods (MSV'10), USA,July 2010 A. M. G. Solo VHDL 0 03-25-2010 12:04 PM
17 year old photographer. Advice about website. TheGurtner@gmail.com Digital Photography 2 08-15-2008 11:34 AM
New 16 Year-Old Photographer's Website TheGurtner@gmail.com Digital Photography 6 04-11-2007 10:24 PM
Photo 365: A New Year's resolution for every photographer madhobbit.geo@yahoo.com Digital Photography 9 12-30-2006 01:51 AM



Advertisments