On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:11 -0700, sam bicke wrote:

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU SHOOT YOUR
IGNORANT UNINFORMED MOUTH OFF NEXT TIME!

I worked for the NSA at Fort Meade. He's a liar.

And I worked for the Israeli government in the COMMINT field before,
during, and after the Six Day War, and do know what happened.

More NSA cover-up. 'Nuff of this crap. I've broken the links.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:20:15 GMT, Mel A. Nomah wrote:

Shameful is in the eye of the beholder. Captain Bucher was not punished
for
surrendering, just as the US didn't punish the Jews who attacked his
sister-ship, USS Liberty on a similar mission. Probably because then the
Navy would have needed to punish those who sent those ships in harms way
without proper means to defend themselves

As well as the NSA/USN brass who, when queried by the Israelis,
adamantly denied that the Liberty was a U S Naval vessel even after
being told that the vessel wiil be blown out of the water if it
wasn't a US Naval vessel. The Israelis had every reason to believe
that the Egyptians or their mentors, the Soviets, would fly the US
flag to avoid destruction if they could get away with it.

And the NSA kept denying...

--
73 de K2ASP / 4X4UQ - Phil Kane



"The evidence was clear, both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty
that this attack on the USS Liberty was a deliberate effort to sink an
American ship and murder its entire crew. It was our shared belief that the
attack could not possibly have been an accident. I am certain that the
Israeli pilots and their superiors were well aware that the ship was
American."

= Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal
cousel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry.

www.ussliberty.org

From: on Sun,Apr 17 2005 9:29 am

wrote:
From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am


How does that tie in with the use of morse code in
museum windows?

The same way your service at ADA ties in with amateur radio policy.

"My service at ADA" was NOT ever presented as any
form of "justification" about "amateur radio policy."

What I originally presented was factual information
based on personal experience in regards to USE OF
MORSE CODE by a large Army communications station.

Army station ADA (it still exists, by the way) USE OF
MORSE CODE MODE was nil, none, nada from 1953 onwards.

World War II ended in 1945.

Further, I stated that (based on Pacific Stars & Strips
published story of 1955) ADA relayed 220 thousand
messages a month in 1955. ADA (also known by the
TTY message identifier of "RUAP") was only the third
largest Army station in ACAN (Army Command and
Administrative Network). Such traffic operation took
place around the clock, every day ("24/7").

Further, I stated (correctly, from Army documents)
that the ONLY morse code operator training in the
1950s was for Field Radio Operator. Field Radio is
exemplified by operations of Regimental-level
AN/GRC-26 self-contained transmitter-receiver huts
on the bed of a 2 1/2 ton truck. "Angry-26s"
were in use at much lower traffic levels, by unit
command, and also used TTY much more than any morse
code...in Korea, in Japan, or anywhere else in the
Far East Command in the early 1950s. Field radio
did not normally communicate with Far East Command
Headquarters directly, but had the capability.
Such was never witnessed by myself, nor appeared
in any operations orders of the station.

The brunt of military messaging is done by the
(relatively, speaking in 1950s terms) high-speed
TTY that can carry message traffic 24/7. All of
that constituted the NORMAL means of logistical
communications...all of that necessary for troop
movements, shipping of supplies, operational
orders, etc., etc., etc. The total personnel
and installations in the Far East Command then
was akin to a small state, therefore the amount
of communications was quite large. At NO TIME
was any bank of morse code operators seen OR
KNOWN serving either the FEC Hq or Army Central
Command ("central" insofar as Japan). Did I
"know" all that? Yes. It was part of my duty
there to not only be at a part of the
communications station but to make trips to
nearby units. Do I have absolute proof of all
of it by referencible documents? No. Only some.
Am I "lying" in stating any of the above? No.
There is NO reason for me to "lie" about anything
there. There is no reason for N2JTV to say
anything about it, yet Gene was there at the same
time I was, the same station but on a different
operating team. [Gene doesn't access this group]

The gist of all that is that: MORSE CODE WAS NOT
IN USE FOR MAJOR COMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC. Not in
The Far East Command at the time. That Command
included USAF and USN.

I've seen documents that stated the communications
plans from 1948 onwards would handle ALL normal
message traffic by TTY for the future. I do not
have such a document to "prove" it but can state
that, from 1953 onwards, it WAS TRUE by example,
by all operational orders between 1953 and 1956,
by various Army documents published since 1956,
by various Signal Corps photographs (none of
which show any morse code operators at work) in
the Far East Command.

Was there ANY morse code used in the U.S. military?
Of course. All in Battalion or smaller units for
field radio in the Army...on board ship in what
Hans Brakob describes as "small boys" such as
DDs (destroyers) or lesser-tonnage vessels. Morse
code skill was required by some airborne radio
units (ASW and the like) and for aircraft on long,
over-water flights...also for the (then) Distress
and Safety (international) frequencies shared by
everyone. I do not have any specific cites of
morse code use by SAC units of the 50s or 60s, but
TAC does not include it. Long over-water flights
my USAF military transports required morsemen on
board. What you have to understand is that the
cruiser or heavier class ships had carried RTTY
since first starting with that in 1940. That was
necessary to insure the secure "rotor machine"
encryption terminals (on-line or off-line capable)
for Command orders and responses. Regardless of
nit-picking on the names of such systems or their
absolute, exact nomenclature, their existance was
acknowledged in at least two civilian books first
published in the 1960s (David Kahn's "Codebreakers"
was on the NYT non-fiction bestseller list for
several months, a seminal text on history of
cryptography).

Morse code use in small-unit radio decreased and
decreased from the 1950s onward. All branches,
even the USCG. TTY rates jumped from 60 WPM to
100 WPM, then morphed into "data" in various
forms at rates up to 2400 WPM over HF radio links.
By 1978 the USAF (one of the remaining strong users
of HF) was shutting down HF as a spectrum component
in favor of the new satellite relay and
troposcatter, VHF and UHF (they'd had the 225-400
MHz "military aviation band" since shortly after
WW2). By then the sole use of morse code was
limited to emergency communications as a secondary.
It MAY have been used for ALERT messaging of
submarines but another (with actual experience of
such communications) will have to give details.
By the 1980s, the ALERT messaging to boomers and
sharks was done by some form of encrypted DATA.
As to the SAC messaging on "oil burner routes" or
otherwise on loitering flights, I can't comment
on those formats or content other than to say
morse code was NOT used for those.

So, there has been a lessening NEED for any
"trained morsemen" in the U.S. military over the
past HALF CENTURY. It has VANISHED for use in
actual communications in the military...since
the International Distress and Safesty system
was implemented a few years ago worldwide, the
USCG has stopped monitoring 500 KHz. The military
has had MILLIONS of U.S. citizens in service in
all that time, still has a million-plus serving.
Morse code use in the military is limited solely
to INTELLIGENCE INTERCEPTS (one-way, "silent
listening").

GONE is the NEED for "trained morsemen" of any
kind by the United States government. There is
NO NEED of any sort of "trained pool" of such
morsemen for the national use. That lessening
began about 57 years ago although it was already
happening during WW2 when HF commercial SSB was
carrying TTY messaging to Europe and Asia.

What is left is a lot of daydreaming by amateurs
based on myths begun in WW2 of glorious use of
morse "in battle zones" or as the valiant radio
operators of B-17s and B-24s (actually more
gunners than radio operators) and "fighting men"
in ship radio rooms, etc. Generations of day-
dreaming amateurs passed them on to succeeding
generations until the mythos became almost
palpable. The only radio service in the USA
that requires morsemanship skills is Amateur
Radio Service and that ONLY for privileges below
30 MHz.

When it comes to "handling traffic" on HF, *NO*
amateur radio group or net can come even close
to the amount handled by the third-largest radio
communications station of the Army did a half
century ago. Not even if you use mulltipliers
to make up for the (usually specious) claim that
amateurs "use only their own purchased equipment."
Further, amateurs do NOT do it 24/7 for months
on end, "CW" or not.

You are getting very tiresome on this petulant
complaint about one other radio activity on
HF or bitching about someone who was there.
Put an end to it. All your petulant whining
about the glory and efficacy of morse code is
of NO value in the whole wide world of radio
communications today. All you have left is the
mythology of "greatness in morsemanship" to
rationalize keeping the morse code test for a
HOBBY use of radio by amateur radio hobbyists.

From: on Sun,Apr 17 2005 9:29 am

wrote:
From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am


You're misquoting all over the place, Len. But it doesn't matter.
Here,
I'll clear it up:

This is NOT a court of law and "exactness" of quoting
is NOT required...except by those who live for the
pitiful "word battle" and self-glorification.

MARS and amateur radio aren't the same thing. But many radio amateurs
are involved in MARS.

The MILITARY Affiliate Radio System is DIRECTED by the
Department of Defense. They function quite well by
sole use of military personnel. See the links to the
actual words of the DoD DIRECTIVE posted in here...see
the links to several of the "Grecian Firebolt" radio
exercises posted in here.

That's my position. If Steve says different, argue with *him*.

Considering that James P. Miccolis is a "good buddie"
of that wonderful representative of a modern U.S.
Amateur Extra, that is a specious comment of yours. :-)
You HAVE supported him in the recent past and not long
ago disavowed any attempt to control his emotional
outbursts.

MARS always was and remains a MILITARY radio system.

But most of the participants aren't in the military.

How do YOU know?

I have sources, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That is acceptible ONLY to reputable
journalistic practice. YOU are NOT a "reputable
journalist." You do NOT have the qualifications.
You are NOT INVOLVED in journalism. :-)


Do you feel insulted by my posts, Len? It seems so - you seem to find
insult in everything.

Not me. You are the one with daydreaming about the
"need" of morsemanship in amateur radio licensing
test.

Oh, yes, that ties right in with a Canadian museum
having morse code in its window...sure...

Those windows really seem to bother you.

? I wash windows. I like Microsoft windows.

What "bothers" me is that a NON-SERVUNG (EVER) person
tried to make out like he was the "expert" on the
United States military use of radio.

You are NOT QUALIFIED for such a judgement. shrug


What has that to do with your claim that:

"If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it.
Simple as that."

That's what you wrote, Len. Does it only apply to Steve and not to
Brian.

Simple. Brian has NOT insulted me personally, not even
many times over. Robeson HAS and continues to do it.

I'm just showing what a damn LIAR he is.

What lie?

The claim he has made is that he found someone who knew you from when
you were allegedly at NADC. And that someone says you didn't do such a
great job there.

That's the LIE you are referring to.

Why do you say "allegedly" there? If you don't believe I
was there (I was), then Robeson's claim is irrelevant.
Why do you feel you are INVOLVED with Robeson?
You've already disavowed any capability of controlling
his emotional tantrums in here.

Now maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. But it's basically your word
against that of some unknown person.

IMAGINARY person.

I can't "disprove" something that doesn't exist.

If you wish a reference to the fact that I WAS at NADC
or that I worked with NADC engineers in the 1970s, you
can verify that with KD6JG.

Jimmie boy, you are getting VERY tiring with all this
"intellectual word gaming" in here. All you are doing
is WASTING TIME of others. I have plenty of time but
grow tired of your constant petulance. You have NO
return on any investment. All you seem to do is follow
your buddie's word and SUPPORT him. You have NO proof
that this imaginary "reference" of Robeson exists,
can NOT present it to anyone else. Why bother with
all your foolish word games in here? Are you that hard
up for something to do?

Bye. Off.

From: on Sun,Apr 17 2005 9:29 am

wrote:
From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am




Psycho Pstevie still hasn't come up with a SINGLE
detail of "proof" on his insult of my "fitrep" at
NADC.

Nor have you proved him to be mistaken.

NO ONE can either "prove" or "disprove" the existance
of something that doesn't exist. :-)

PROVE Robeson is "telling the truth" on that "person."

PROVE that "person's" existance to the REST OF THE
NEWSGROUP.



And if K4YZ really did participate in seven hostile actions,
then it happened regardless of whether details are given or
not.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUTH? :-)

It's basic logic, Len. If K4YZ really did participate in seven hostile
actions, then it happened regardless of whether details are given or
not. That's objective reality.

Sorry, Jimmie, that's just plain BULLSNIT. :-)

The only thing that "happened" is that Robeson tried
to imply that he was an experienced combat veteran.

You have tried to make that an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Can't
be done.

That's neither "objective" nor "reality."

What seems to be operative here is that you are a BUDDIE
or Robeson and will support him in whatever he says in
here. [do I have to elaborate on what "buddie" means?]

You have presented NO PROOF to anyone on this subject.

If Robeson had merely stated the WHERE and WHEN of those
"seven hostile actions," he MIGHT be believable. He has
not done that yet. Ergo, after months of claiming such
he can only be considered a simple braggart. HE has NO
PROOF at all. Just a simple brag.

Robeson has had ample time to embellish his BRAG or to
PRESENT PROOF to others. He has NOT done so.

Put this matter to rest. You have NOTHING on that subject.
You are wasting everyone's time manufacturing an "issue"
that doesn't exist.

From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 4:37 pm

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former
colleague of Len's? Or
is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually
lies #16 and #17?

Neither, but nice try.

Steve, you lied. The only question is which time?

The conversation with a former colleague of Len's?

The length of tenure on RRAP?

Or both.

Fess up.

Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My
bust.

Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up.

Now where is Len's apology?

Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying,
accusing,
deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind!

Just hold your breath and wait!

Steve, K4YZ

Well, well. So much for your "strength of conviction."

Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and
deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! !

The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense.

I have to disagree. Robeson is so caught up in his personal
hatred of me that he cannot possibly discuss anything
rationally...or even act rationally. He is the constant
antagonist of ANYONE who disagrees with him.

Case in point is others' opinions. Robeson labels those
as "LIES," perhaps even "deceit" even though those are
just personal opinions. Apparently, in Stevieworld,
only Stevie Robeson has the "truth." Ergo, in the logic
of Stevieworld, ALL contrary (to Robeson's) opinions
are "LIES" as well as "errors" and "deceit."

That's quite sick. Irrational. Opinions are just
opinions.

However, Robeson seems to take everything against his
opinions as a "personal attack." He then respond but
that response IS a personal attack on his perceived
attacker. He hasn't yet learned that such is NOT the
way discussions go in our society.

On the other hand, if Robeson has been so brainwashed
by the remaining amateur radio membership organization
that he believes ONLY what they say, then any negative
against him is held AS a personal attack. That is NOT
the fault of anyone voicing a negative opinion against
Robeson's, it is Robeson's fault.

You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't
doing
what you know to be right.

I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right".

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in
this case, it makes lies #19 and #20.

Quite true, but Robeson hasn't learned to communicate
with rational people yet. He simply drives home a
blunt point that HE IS RIGHT with no proof or other
reference that it IS right.

That's either a monstrous ego at work there or it can
be a curious mixture of the reasons I mentioned just
before. Either way, it is not right...to rational
people.

You and Leonard are lairs, Brian.

That's a falsehood, a LIE. Robeson's only justification
of that is that HE IS RIGHT. It is his antagonist style
which is so off-putting to so many...no justification,
just the personal insult and LIE combination.

You don't tell the truth. YOU
make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a
sudden
you think your slates are wiped clean.

Robeson's simple LIE-insult in the first quoted sentence
is an absolute statement. It is without any presented
proof...therefore it is Robeson's OPINION. However, any
of Robeson's OPINIONS are - in his communications here -
perfectly "right." HE IS RIGHT in Stevieworld. Problem
is, everyone else is NOT in Stevieworld (wherever that is).

Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your
demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you
said.
Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years
and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear
campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors???

Sorry...Doesn't work that way.

That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an
outright lie.

Robeson's HATRED and ANGER seem to be overriding any
rationality here. Robeson cannot prove the existance
of this "fitrep" determiner. He has compounded that
by numerous statements, none of which have any proof
of truth. [see my previous message on this...]

Actually, several years ago, Robeson tried the same
ploy and embellished that until nearly in the form it
was recently. That was unproveable then and his
claim is unproveable now.

None of this discussion has ANYTHING to do with amateur
radio policy. It is just the usual Stevie psychotic
activity in here, part of his general misuse of the
newsgroup as his own personal "battleground."

Robeson doesn't seem capable of acknowledging that he
ever does anything wrong. That seems to increase his
anger quotient and his personal insults grow to
incomprehensible blatherings of Hatred and Anger.

Robeson is an EXAMPLE of a modern U.S. Amateur Extra.

Other Amateur Extras seem unable to take any strong
action to stop his pollution of all threads in this
newsgroup. All threads eventually turn into Robeson's
insults of all his "opponents" in any discussion.
A few have made negative comments to his style, notably
Hans Brakob. Responses to those by Robeson were less
than civil and uncomplimentary.

wrote:
From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 4:37 pm

Case in point is others' opinions. Robeson labels those
as "LIES," perhaps even "deceit" even though those are
just personal opinions. Apparently, in Stevieworld,
only Stevie Robeson has the "truth." Ergo, in the logic
of Stevieworld, ALL contrary (to Robeson's) opinions
are "LIES" as well as "errors" and "deceit."

That's quite sick. Irrational. Opinions are just
opinions.

Opinions are just opinions when they start off "My opinion on the
subject is..." Or "I think it would be better if..." THOSE are
opinions.

Lies and deceit are things like "The ARRL BoD is dishonest" or
"ARES won't be able to respond becasue their members are too old and
oover obligated

Quite true, but Robeson hasn't learned to communicate
with rational people yet. He simply drives home a
blunt point that HE IS RIGHT with no proof or other
reference that it IS right.

(A) Neither Leonard H Anderson or Brian P Burke are rational.
They both make statements in public forum contrary to the presence of
data that contradicts their assertions.

(B) Nice try on the "no proof" assertions, Lennie....And only
MORE proof that I am correct in calling you a liar.

Your marionette is presently avoiding answering questions about
his assertions of the viability of ARES in the face of NUMEROUS news
releases to the contrary.

Huge snip of ususal obnxious verbosity to.....

Other Amateur Extras seem unable to take any strong
action to stop his pollution of all threads in this
newsgroup. All threads eventually turn into Robeson's
insults of all his "opponents" in any discussion.
A few have made negative comments to his style, notably
Hans Brakob. Responses to those by Robeson were less
than civil and uncomplimentary.

While I have no doubt that not everyone approves of my "up in your
face" methology of dealing with the two of you, I DO notice that NONE
of them, other than to acknowledge your "First Amendment Right" to do
so, "support" YOUR presence here, Lennie.

It dosen't take one of those "inquiring minds" to know why....

You are both liiars.

You don't do what you'll say you'll do.

They're tired of the same "Back in 1953...." war satories.

You'e deceitful.

It really is THAT simple.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
wrote:

The only thing that "happened" is that Robeson tried
to imply that he was an experienced combat veteran.

Where? Being "involved in a hostile action" doesn't mean someone
actually fought in combat.

And maybe he *is* an experienced combat veteran.

I never said I was a "combat veteran". I don't describe myself as
a combat veteran. I was, however, involved in seven different actions
while I was in the Marine Corps where I was directly involved in the
receipt of or exchange of hostile gunfire.

And no matter how many times Lennie tries to make fun of them, it
doesn't change any facts.

Lennie can just stew in his frustration of not being able to point
and click his way to superior intellect!

Steve, K4YZ