wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Oct 1 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Do you mean "Robeson"?

yes jim

Who is "Robeson?"

Don't you know who you are talking about, Len?

Who is "Jim?"

There have been at least three people with that first name who posted
here regularly. They are easily told apart by their FCC-assigned
amateur radio call letters:

Jim KH2D

Jim WA4STJ

Jim N2EY

Only the last still posts here - occasionally..

Why do you say "imposter"?

well what else do you call someone that fakes their background

Maybe this "Jim" (whoever that is) meant "imp poster?" :-)

"Imposter".

The Imposter has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself
from that claimed "18-year USMC career."

RRAP doesn't accept documents or snapshots, Len. Just text.

You say this person "has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself"

Don't you really mean that he has never sent any of those things to
*you*?
He could have sent them to other people, without you being aware of it.

The fact that *you* have never seen something does not mean it does not
exist.

In EIGHTEEN years
he has NO evidence?

Don't you really mean that he has never sent evidence to *you*?
He could have lots of evidence - and simply kept it from you.

Bull****. He is a FAKE...or the
circumstances of his not making a "full 20" are so damn
embarrassing to him that he can't post them in public.

That's certainly one possibility. But it's not the only one.

For example:

He may have left the military as part of one of those 'early out'
programs that existed before September 2001. Or he may have left due to
family hardship, health problems, planned reduction-in-force, etc.

Not everyone who leaves after 18 years is embarrassed by the
circumstances.

But that's not the point, really. The fact that you have not seen the
evidence you demand isn't proof someone is a fake or imposter.

You claim to know who served and who didn't. Isn't he in the database?

he is no data base that I can find

This "Jim" (whoever that is) laid a small word trap there.
He carefully did NOT specify WHICH database.

A database that lists military personnel - that's obvious.

The Imposter
IS in the FCC database, thus will appear in the QRZ data-
base.

And you will not!

This "Jim" (whoever that is) will then begin a big
argument over databases, possibly spinning off a whole new
thread...ignoring the original military Imposter subject.

This "Jim" has NEVER served in any military branch.

How do you know for sure?

He
may think the "database" (of those in the military) is
some freely accessible database somewhere on the Internet.
It is NOT. For those actively serving NOW it is available
via the DSN (through the Internet) but ONLY to those with
clearance to access that information.

For military veteran information, one goes to NARA
(National Archives and Records Administration) St. Louis
Missouri, NMPRC (National Military Personnel Records
Center) there. One MUST supply the veteran's
personal identity (besides the name) such as a Social
Security Number and/or military branch serial number
if that was used during the term of service. But that
can gain access ONLY if the requestor is identifiable
family/kin or a previously-identified Human Resources
department or investigative organization (police
departments, FBI, etc.). The VA (Veterans
Administration) has to go that route also. There is
NO WAY that any government agency is going to realease
information on anyone 'casually' from a simple phone
call to the VA.

So what your saying is that *you* really *don't* know who has served
and who has not. You don't have access to that information in the
official Government databases.

IOW, you're just guessing who served in the US military and who didn't.


This FAKE takes advantage of that in
his bluffing in here ("call the VA" repeated often).

Have you called the VA?

Let's take another example of the FAKE's bluffing.
The CAP (Civil Air Patrol) flies CIVILIAN-registry
aircraft.

Hence the name.

In ALL air traffic communications around
the world (that includes airport towers) ALL inbound
and outbound aircraft communicate in English to air
traffic controllers and identify themselves by the
aircraft registry number. In the USA that is an "N"
prefix followed by numerals with a one- or two-letter
suffix.

Like "N2EY" - there's actually a registered aircraft with that tail
number....

In the USA it is common to use the last two
numerals and suffix in IDs with local towers. The
"CAP radio callsign" is NOT used for that. The FAKE
has glossed over any mention of the aircraft that he
supposedly flies (as "pilot in command") or its ATC
ID.

So? What does that prove? Do you need every detail?

Civil Aviation radio band is used (118 to
137 MHz, always voice). Use that two-number plus
suffix a few times in tower-controlled takeoffs and
landings and it is hard to forget. [I still remember
"two-one-whiskey" (21W) for the Cessna 150 I used in
some flight lessons 43 years ago at VNY]

But you don't remember *everything* from then, do you?

Ergo, this
supposed "major" isn't involved in actual flying per
se, just using some common phrases tossed out AS IF
he were a real pilot.

Maybe.

Or maybe he just didn't go into a lot of detail.

The point is, you don't know for sure.

He may not have any "major"
rank at all. His QRZ bio shows a picture of him in
a flight suit with captain's bars, clothing that can
be bought surplus at an "Army-Navy Store" by anyone
with money to buy it. Insignia and medals, ribbons
are available for sale at many more venues.

Of course. That's a possibility.

Or they could be real - the flight suit, the insignia, the medals, etc.
They could all be real, couldn't they? You don't *really* know.....

By the same token, many documents can be faked using commonly-available
digital software. For example, someone could produce a fake DD-214 if
they had access to scan of a genuine one and the right software,
hardware, and skill.

Such a fake might not fool someone who saw the actual document and knew
what a real one was like. But for a scan, it could be very convincing.

And faking such a document is, I think, a serious Federal crime.
Passing it off as genuine is, I think, another Federal crime.

In a series of postings in here, Frank Gilliland asked
some pointed, detailed USMC questions of our fake. Fake
could NOT answer them correctly. In a shorter series
of messages with Hans Brakob,

You mean K0HB?

The person you referred to as "Herr Breakup"?

the fake screwed up his
responses on military cryptographic equipment and
procedures, including familiar names of equipment and
methods. Hans was a Master Chief PO in charge of
crypto during his active duty time.

Were the two of them in the military in the same time periods?

In an earlier tell-
tale sign of bluffing fakery, the Fake could not name
a single item of military radio equipment used over his
supposed 18-year career term, radios that would be
common to non-radio-specialist military personnel use.
Already a licensed radio amateur and he could NOT
remember either the nomenclature or familiar name of a
piece of radio equipment?!? Inconceivable! The Fake
countered with the usual fake's rationalization: it
was 'classified' and he 'couldn't reveal it!" Bull****.
The nomenclatures of military radio equipment is KNOWN
and the familiar names are familiar, not some 'secret.'
Nomenclatures, even for cryptographic equipment, are in
public display for RFBs of contracts by civilian firms
at the Government Accounting Office and all government
agencies offering contracts. The Fake doesn't know a
"Plugger" from a "Prick-twenty-five" yet both were
operational during his supposed 18-year active duty
time.

Well, that's one explanation.

Here's another: Perhaps he forgot. Perhaps he's leading you on.

Perhaps he made a mistake.

For example, I recall someone who says they were stationed in Japan in
the early 1950s. This person understated the distance from the USSR to
Japan by more than 20%. He also made reference to "Bear bombers" even
though that particular Soviet aircraft did not enter service until
after he had left Japan.

All sorts of people make mistakes, forget things, and remember things
that never were. I think you sometimes confuse me with other people.

So, this "Jim" (whoever that is) wants a "database" with
this amateur extra morseman's name on it? Now he knows
were to look: St. Louis, MO. [www.nara.gov] Good luck
to his little "subsidizing soul" as a taxpayer, taxes
withheld from his paycheck by an unknown employer.

IOW, *you* couldn't access the information. Yet you claim to know who
served and who didn't. You claim to know who is an imposter and who is
for-real.

But, in fact, you're just guessing.

On
the non-database information this "Jim" doesn't know
squat and should keep his nose out of conversations of
REAL veterans about REAL radio. Ptui.

Len, do you think that only veterans can discuss radio?

You want to discuss amateur radio policy, even though you are not a
radio amateur nor an FCC employee nor a professional policymaker. But
when someone you say "never served" speaks up on what you consider a
military matter, you want them silenced - even if they are right and
you are mistaken.

I'm convinced.