.......................SHUT UP AND FISH........................lol...............says sig................
i bought a new phenix and shimano.
i bought a new truck to carry it in.
it already had gas.
i drove to the sea and caught a fish.
i used 65 Ppro, 40 lb mono top shot 30 seagaur flouro, a 2/0 gama.
i cast out a 'dine.
i let it pull line.
i did the tuna shuffle
i got bit.
i reeled hard.
it was a 34+ lb yellowtail from farnsworth banks. maybe it was 25 lb flouro? it was a tough fight... and getting bit with 30 is hard there...
cool?
out of LB
.
.
Last edited by hookdfisherman; 09-19-2016 at 09:17 PM. Reason: this is the right section... no? dang baby... DAAAAANG
Has anyone actually addressed your question?
who wouldn't try to snap a picture of that night sky from the moon? i guess neil armstrong... no?
Lots of reasons. The first and foremost being that they didn't exactly have pockets for snapshot cameras. They weren't on vacation. These guys were heavily trained military men on a mission, not tourists. The cameras they did have were setup for taking the sorts of pictures they did take of the surface and each other. They weren't there to do astronomy and their focus was on the mission, which was the lunar surface, not the lunar sky.
Did they look up and marvel at the sky? No question. Did they take a picture of it? Obviously not. Doesn't mean anything with regards to the mission or photography on the moon.
Ok but didn't someone hit a golf ball on the moon? (Maybe a later mission? But hey, bring a camera will ya? Nope, no can do...!)
Requiring a club, ball or balls in case the hitter shanks one?
And you're heading to the moon. The greatest and most spectacular view worth ever taking a picture of, and you dont even bring a camera?... ok... good answer... thanks.
.
There is not a single piece of cargo (personal or otherwise, casual or otherwise) that is taken aboard a manned space mission without being thoroughly evaluated first. But hey, let's go to Methy-land and entertain the idea of someone taking a standard Kodak 110 and exposing it to the lunar environment. Any ideas what would happen to it? Anyone?
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 09-20-2016 at 11:37 AM.
You're trying to Monday Morning Quarterback a moon mission from almost 50 years ago and you think this "snapshot of the sky" is some sort of big deal. It''s not, but do whatever spins your propeller.
How about this one, which is surprisingly hard for most people to grasp -- it was NOT a night sky. It was actually broad daylight, locally on the moon. Think about it -- when would you, at local lunar time, want to land on the moon? You'd want the sun relatively high in the sky so you could see the surface, and also the Earth also high in the sky, so you can communicate to it directly. With some separation between the two so you don't get interference.
So pointing a random camera up at the stars with the wide angle lenses they typically had, you'd get the sun or the earth in every shot, or at least close enough to get lens flare. And as discussed earlier, they just didn't have the equipment to photograph stars. Why would you? Every ounce of weight is critical, do you waste your precious resources on a long lens, tripod, long lens hood, fast speed film, etc... just to get pictures of stars that you could just as easily get from the earth?
Also, the lunar day is almost 30 earth days long, so the entire time they were on the surface, the sun was in pretty much the same position. No nighttimes occurred while on the surface.
Last edited by shinbob; 09-20-2016 at 12:20 PM.