Yahoo! News - Top Stories Photos - AP
ok is it me or does this look like it’s just a close up of airbrush art off of a 1977 dodge custom van?
i bet if they could ratchet up the magnification we could see knights slaying dragons and busty maidens in see through white tunics. and shit.
10 responses so far ↓
1 rcg // Mar 11, 2004 at 2:55 pm
The irreverence.
You’re looking at Creation itself… and you see a 1977 van.
2 Don // Mar 11, 2004 at 3:02 pm
Ratchet up does not sound right. I think ratchet down is the right way to use the word ratchet. It’s like you’re tightning something down with a Craftsman ratchet. Not up.
3 rcg // Mar 11, 2004 at 5:11 pm
And another thing.
These Hubble geeks composite a 800-exposure image of the universe in its infancy, searching deep into space, billions of light years away… and you want them to *increase* the magnification?
I scoff (*scoff*) at this post. Scoff.
4 Natty // Mar 11, 2004 at 5:49 pm
Richard, some people are just never happy (and they like it that way). It is a fact of life that I am still trying to adjust to.
5 J Sargent // Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Ya man, I am with RCQ on this one. This is some pretty cool stuff, most of which is lucky to even exist because there are people who would rather take the billion dollars or so that the hubble telescope has budgeted and spend it on something useful like creating new and inventive ways to kill people or funding a luncheon for some high-ranking official in some capacity.
Of course I am just bitter that we’re still using 1970s technology to get into space. My PDA has more processing power than the space shuttle, I am sure.
However, I digress…..let the scoffing begin.
JS
6 jefke // Mar 11, 2004 at 11:00 pm
jebus h cripes. i can’t believe that you all 1) believe that we have actually put anything into space and that said objects have actually yielded images such as these. spinning little galaxies? bright orange suns? moon landings with shadows indicating multiple light sources….
ok i dont’ really care about that shit. I can say this, i don’t really give a fuck about images of areas that may be closer to the cetner of the universe, if one were to believe there is one (which means one believe some sort of post big bang expanding universe) i sure as hell don’t have any sort of reverence toward images of this shit. i mean, crap, stellar system A98032b23q could be a smudge on the lense, and don’t tell me the hubble doesnt’ have those problems, remembe when it couldn’t focus for 3 years? oh i do, cuz most of the parts were made in CT, and it was some sort of statewide crisis.
show me pictures of valleys at the bottom of the pacific and i’ll get all hot and bothered. shit 1000 trillion light years away… yawn.
and give me some credit– this shit does totally look like air brush art.
7 Natty // Mar 12, 2004 at 1:14 am
If you’re that interested in the science here on earth, things more directly related to you, then does this mean that you will have a new found enthusiasm for my nursing studies, particularly when I want to share informaion with you? I’ll take that as a yes. Oh, there is so much to share!
8 J Sargent // Mar 12, 2004 at 2:32 pm
awww bitter, bitter jefke. I agree that we ought to better explore the other 80% of the earth which is aquatic, but its still pretty cool that we have telescopes which can see stuff which we could only imagine.
Think of Contact (not the cheezy love part), and imagine that if we are here there might be something there. What a cool freekin’ thought.
JS
9 Louis // Jan 9, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Hi, just stopped to sign, visit my page.
10 louis // Jan 9, 2005 at 7:04 pm
correcting my url