> That said, the criticism above is very scarce on details. What exactly is the nonsense about mathematical concepts that he is objecting to? There are example

> That said, the criticism above is very scarce on details. What exactly is the nonsense about mathematical concepts that he is objecting to? There are examples in the thread I linked to. > But the strongest argument going for Clark, IMO, is his stunning pictures. I've seen countless amateurs produce far better images with much cheaper equipment. He also misses the point of modding cameras, improving Ha sensitivity allows more structure to be captured. A case in point, this is my quick and cheap North America nebula with an old modded DSLR and Ha filter: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4490/37423232795_8a37a7ecbf_h.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4490/37423232795_8a37a7ecbf_h.... My colour image isn't great but it shows a great deal more structure than Mr Clark's, despite using the same 200mm camera lens and less exposure time: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/593/22026540174_273c7ffa8b_b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/593/22026540174_273c7ffa8b_b.j... For comparison: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/north-america-nebula.c07.25.2015.0J6A4162-213-c-c1-1181s.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/we...