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?"

Who is "Jim?"

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?" :-)

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." In EIGHTEEN years
he has NO evidence? 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.

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. The Imposter
IS in the FCC database, thus will appear in the QRZ data-
base. 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. 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. This FAKE takes advantage of that in
his bluffing in here ("call the VA" repeated often).

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

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, 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. 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.

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. 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.

Shalom,

On 2 Oct 2006 06:34:25 -0700, Secwet Woger wrote:
:
: Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

No, *I* post as Stagger Lee. You know me: I'm the Admin of NIM
Busters. I'm the one who keeps removing all of your posts from the
main board and putting them over into the lounge.

Smile: You're on Candid Camera!



=====(sig)=====
"KC8JBO is an idiot in my opinion." -- Stephen K. Gielda, owner of
COTSE, in message

"Now, now, after I feeling sorry for you after reading your 'what it's
like behind the scenes at COTSE' you insult one of your users.
Not very prudent. I guess it shows what you're really all about. You
claim to protect freedom of speech." -- Roger Wiseman's response to
Gielda's statement

Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as " wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

writes:

I see a much more serious
concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious,
anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations
thrown on our screens by OTHERS.

That type of thing has become a real problem here. Eighty or ninety
percent of it could be cleaned up by eliminating just one
individual--Roger L. Wiseman. He is a problem child under his multiple
sock puppets on usenet (not only in this newsgroup)

Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

I've told you repeatedly, UnWiseman, that I post as no one but myself.
I never have; I never will. You seem a little confused on the topic
since you made mention of a Houston ISP. I don't have a Houston ISP and
I don't live in Houston. I live right here in the same country as
little demented you.

That aside, you are the poster of filth. Your stream of consciousness
ramblings about people having sex with their parents, their children,
with animals, with those of the same gender take us on a disgusting
visit to Roger World. You're a piece of detritus, a chunk of human garbage.

and he has been a
problem child in amateur radio.

Learn to read, asshole.

I've been able to read for over fifty-one years. I've read that you
have received a couple of missives from your old pal Mr. Hollingsworth
and that you were ordered to retest. This all comes in the short period
in which you've held an amateur radio license. I also know that one
additional strike would likely do you in.

I've read your comments about the owner of Ohio Valley Internet Service
and I saw how quickly you were cut loose. That has happened to a number
of your service providers. It is the reason that you need to hide
behind the various sock puppets.

His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna
bird replies don't excuse your behavior.

Then what is your excuse? sarcasmOh, that's right you are the "Super
ham!" /sarcasm

Read my posts, Roger. I neither flood newsgroups nor post filth. If
you want to call that being a super ham, fine. I will point out that
this isn't amateur radio. This is usenet.

Isn't clean-up of such filth
the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police?
I guess not.

This isn't a moderated newsgroup, Len.

Then why are you attempting to do so?

I'm not, Roger. I'd like to see this newsgroup so clean that decent
people can read it without wading through your disturbed thoughts.
You're a sociopath and you don't know how civilized human beings act.
You need to be in a rubber room with no radio equipment and no internet
access until a cure can be found for your mental illness.

Dave K8MN

wrote:

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."

I've never made any military documents available for you to view, Len.
I've never shown you a snapshot. Are you going to accuse me of being an
imposter?

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

A trap, eh?

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

I found an online military database in very short order. It shows
information on the individual you are calling an imposter. The
information is available for free, online. I am not going to provide
you a url. I am not going to copy the information and post it here.
You can find it easily for yourself.

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

So?

He
may think the "database" (of those in the military) is
some freely accessible database somewhere on the Internet.

There is a freely accessible database which shows some, but not all
information.

It is NOT.

There is another of your factual errors.


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

Yet no military veteran has any obligation to supply such information to
you for any reason. Go figure!

Dave K8MN

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.