What difference does it make how Ware gets his Meade equipment?? He
still gets outstanding results from his 14" RCX400, doesn't he??
Comparable to what a very few are getting from RCOS scopes--isn't that
And I am not going to dis Tony Hallas ( we have some mutual friends )
but I can tell you he is on a very limited budget and probably also got
his gear at a "special price" from RCOS. But, again, so what?
As Tony and Daphne would be the first to admit, the CCD astrocamera
used, the filters used ( Astrodon or similar ) and the user's skill at
post processing the images, are every bit as important as the scope
optics. A "pure" RC scope, in and of itself, is no magic answer to
great astropics these days no matter how outrageous its price is.
And the guy still using film and Parks reflectors ( Bill Mattil?? ) is
a joke--he is not in the same league with Hallas and Ware. He clearly
is also clueless on the governing law. "Plonk" indeed--he has the
mindset of a 10 year old.
All three, I suspect, know the difference between the RCX400 and the
RCOS scopes--that is the issue in the lawsuit, isn't it?
And how do you get around the fact that Dan Azari ( the RCOS employee )
lied in his lawsuit against Meade? OK--because Meade is the
Defendant?? The Courts won't share that view of Azari's clear contempt
for the federal court system I don't think.
> M104galaxy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Funny, I compared your website to that of Jack Newton and Jason Ware (
> > with their Meade astrophotos ) and concluded you ought to buy a Meade.
> Maybe you ought to try
> That you would be Tony Hallas by the way. In my opinion more talented
> than Jason Ware who gets the equipment from Meade gratis