Re: Astronomy photographer of the year 2010

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Sep 10, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    : On Sep 10, 1:26 am, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    : > http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/sep/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
    Robert Coe, Sep 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:23:41 -0400, wrote:
    : On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >On Sep 10, 1:26 am, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    : >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/sep/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
    Robert Coe, Sep 11, 2010
    #3
  4. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:34:24 -0500, Allen <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    : > : On Sep 10, 1:26 am, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    : > : > http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/sep/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/artanddesign/gallery/2010/sep/09/astronomy-photographer-year-2010-pictures

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 11, 2010
    #4
  5. On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:54:43 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:23:41 -0400, wrote:
    >: On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >: wrote:
    >:
    >: >On Sep 10, 1:26 am, Val Hallah <> wrote:
    >: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/sep/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.
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 11, 2010
    #5
  6. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 11, 2:53 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> 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.
    Twibil, Sep 12, 2010
    #6
  7. On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <>
    wrote:

    >On Sep 11, 2:53 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> 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-shit 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 fucking 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?
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 12, 2010
    #7
  8. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 11, 9:12 pm, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Pulling syntax-stretching-shit 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.
    Twibil, Sep 12, 2010
    #8
  9. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 12, 12:54 am, Superzooms Still Win <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > "I got the last post, so I *WIN!*"


    Heh.
    Twibil, Sep 12, 2010
    #9
  10. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 13, 3:39 am, wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 12, 12:54 am, Superzooms Still Win <> 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!
    Twibil, Sep 13, 2010
    #10
  11. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <> wrote:
    : On Sep 13, 3:39 am, wrote:
    : > On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:33:07 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    : >
    : > <> wrote:
    : > >On Sep 12, 12:54 am, Superzooms Still Win <> 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.

    Not so far-fetched. Ansel took rather crappy pictures with his Brownie when he
    was a kid.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 14, 2010
    #11
  12. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 13, 8:18 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > : 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.
    >
    > Not so far-fetched. Ansel took rather crappy pictures with his Brownie when he
    > was a kid.


    Cool! So did the DSLR troll!

    http://gstroop20537.com/uploads/brownie_d043.jpg
    Twibil, Sep 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:32:24 -0500, George Kerby
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 9/11/10 11:45 AM, in article
    > >, "Rich" <>
    > >wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > >> If you revel in ignorance, my condolences. I'm frequently appalled by the
    > >> worship Americans (and some Brits) have for being completely clueless about
    > >> anything scientific.

    > >
    > >I'm constantly appalled by the preference that you Limeys have for being
    > >absolute arrogant assholes. So there.

    >
    > Well, they do speak "pretty English" I guess so that gives SOME of
    > them the impression that they are smarter than they usually are.


    "Rich" (Richard Anderson, a.k.a., "RichA") is Canadian, for your information.
    However, English is only his second language (with gibberish, being the first).

    > For the most part though I will defend the general populace of the
    > Island Kingdom as being warm and friendly. There is, of course, always
    > the random deviant.


    If Rich ever visits Great Britain, he'll be considered an undesirable alien,
    most likely. Would Canada take him back, then?

    Personally, I think that he should be deported to Pluto!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #13
  14. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 24, 10:37 pm, John Turco <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > If Rich ever visits Great Britain, he'll be considered an undesirable alien,
    > most likely. Would Canada take him back, then?
    >
    > Personally, I think that he should be deported to Pluto!


    That's cold.
    Twibil, Sep 25, 2010
    #14
  15. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:15:18 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <> wrote:
    : On Sep 24, 10:37 pm, John Turco <> wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : > If Rich ever visits Great Britain, he'll be considered an undesirable alien,
    : > most likely. Would Canada take him back, then?
    : >
    : > Personally, I think that he should be deported to Pluto!
    :
    : That's cold.

    < :^) > !!
    Robert Coe, Sep 26, 2010
    #15
  16. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Sep 25, 6:04 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > : > Personally, I think that he should be deported to Pluto!
    > :
    > : That's cold.
    >
    > < :^) >  !!


    Double entendres are the names of the game.
    Twibil, Sep 26, 2010
    #16
  17. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    Twibil wrote:
    >
    > On Sep 24, 10:37 pm, John Turco <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > If Rich ever visits Great Britain, he'll be considered an undesirable alien,
    > > most likely. Would Canada take him back, then?
    > >
    > > Personally, I think that he should be deported to Pluto!

    >
    > That's cold.



    Being from the frozen tundra of Canada, Rich is already quite accustomed to
    such a frigid environment.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 31, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Azzz1588

    Some Astronomy photos

    Azzz1588, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    394
    Azzz1588
    Nov 28, 2003
  2. floastro

    My Digital pictures in Astronomy

    floastro, Jan 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    295
    Jürgen Eidt
    Jan 25, 2005
  3. bAZZ

    WTD: Astronomy book

    bAZZ, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    418
  4. Rajesh5575
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,285
    bedro
    Apr 20, 2010
  5. David J Taylor

    A billion pixels for a billion stars - CCDs for astronomy

    David J Taylor, Oct 11, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    493
    David Ruether
    Oct 11, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page