From: on Aug 26, 1:06 pm

wrote:
From: on Fri 26 Aug 2005 06:22
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Aug 25, 7:12 pm
wrote:
[i]
Japan was not DIRECTLY involved in the Korean WAR, true. The
Occupation was over when I was assigned there. Was I supposed
to break rules, go against the UCMJ, to go to the "front?"

The point being that you never served in a forward area, let alone
a combat area. Matter of fact, the only thing "forward" about you is
bad manners and a propensity to deceive.

The point is that a low-ranking Marine knew enough to call you out on
your military service lies.

Tsk. The stealers of valor cry foul when their stealing is stolen.

Adding to the basis of "ther" double-standard.

Notice that Dudly NEVER explains EXACTLY which "front" He was in.
His usual tactic is to immediately denigrate his accuser in an
attempt to avoid a direct answer.

I arrived in Japan in February 1953. Combat action in Korea was
in a minimal state due to on-going talks about a cease-fire/truce.
In July 1953 that Truce state was entered and has remained so for
52 years! On the other hand, the USSR had aircraft bases in
Manchuria, the biggest being a cluster in Kamchatka. Those were
within range of Honshu Island, Japan (Tokyo is in the middle).
It doesn't matter on aircraft type numbers that the USSR had, the
point was that there were USSR aircraft that could reach Tokyo
from land bases. Jimmie Noserve picked out my one error in USSR
bomber types of 1953 and tried to imply that I was "in error" in
all my postings.

Compare that to Dudly. Dudly has NEVER specified the Where or
When of HIS "seven hostile actions." Probably because he was
never IN them. He could have been in the military at that time
but then he would be in the non-heroic position of being in a
rear area.

Dudly has NO PROOF whatsoever of his "forward area" action. NONE.
Aircraft ground maintenance personnel are NOT in any "forward area."

Actually, it just might be possible. I know of some rear area
personnel who were permitted to go on helo excursions so that they
would qualify for hazardous duty pay. Yet the douche bags had no
weapon, no TA50, and no sense. It was just a scam, and they should
have been reprimanded.

I beleive that Steve is up to such stunts.

I have no opinion on that.

If one is NOT in a "forward area," one is in the "rear area." Such
as an Okinawa MARS station where Dudly claimed to be "Assistant
NCOIC." [wow...lots of responsibility there...in a NON-commo role
if he was really there...MARS was never a part of the Defense
Communications System]

How could it have been??? "MARS IS Amateur Radio!"

The Defense Communications System (and whatever names it was changed
to) was NEVER any amateur effort. It has always been run by
professionals. MARS served as a sort-of auxilliary that MIGHT be
an asset "if all else failed" but all else did NOT fail. MARS was
valuable for troop morale in Vietnam in the first half of the 1970s.
The U.S. Army acknowledged that and it is written up on the website
of the Army Center for Military History. But, that was over 30
years ago and before Dudly's claimed time in service.

Dudly has never referred to any common small-unit land force radio
by nomenclature or familiar name. Neither has he done so for any
common avionics radio of the 1974-1992 period. That is unthinkable
for anyone who has really been IN the military involved in radio
communications of any kind. Ergo, Dudly NEVER DID what he claimed.

Ergo, Dud UXO lied.

An 18-year period of enlistment is quite long in an average human's
lifespan. To have NO record, no memento, not even a snapshot or a
name of a "buddy" to use as a reference in all that time is so
strange
that it is unthinkable. Ergo, what Dudly claimed was a LIE.

Dudly has presented NO PROOF of this claimed military service. He
has presented nothing but verbal generalities that can be gleaned
from publications or entertainment shows.

Such as a 1950's issue of "This is the Air Force?"

Not if Dudly was in the USMC or USN. :-)

Anyone truly proud to
have served will have some sort of documentation which can be
scanned and presented for proof. Dog tags can be scanned. Dudly
has offered NONE. Not even personal snapshots.

He got sand in his eye.

For 18 years, yes. It's a wonder he can see anything at all now...

Dudly says all who challenge him on his military claims should "call
the VA [Veteran's Administration]." The VA will not reveal details
to non-familiy members and must have assurance that a requestor is
legitimate. The VA cannot reveal details due to a federal law that
is almost three decades old. The same is true for NARA, the
National Archives and Records Administration, which has a large
records archive in St. Louis, MO. NARA has a website which
contains the form required to request details...the filled-in form
can be e-mailed for personal data, but must be sent surface mail
for full disclosure.

He hides behind his "Ask the VA" claims. Wonder where he hid during
the "seven hostile actions?"

I'm tempted to reply "in a bud's rear-area" but that would be in
bad taste so I won't reply that...

The only logical conclusion is that Dudly's claims to military
service are a FRAUD, a fabrication, a LIE. In his case, a "rear
area" is what he has been giving us.

He fully understands that disclosure of his military records will
expose him as the fraud that he is. So he hides behind his claims that
the "VA" will somehow release his data, knowing full well that they
won't.

There we have it. A big NOTHING from Dudly, no proof, no documents,
not even snapshots, and all he can do is generate vague generalities
and implications of where and what he has done. His "descriptions"
don't have a ring of personal experience to them. He is a con man,
a fraud, an imposter, and like all of those, tries to smokescreen
direct answers to challenges with personal insults against those
same
challengers. He gives the appearance of answering yet never
answered
anything at all. Typical con man syndrome.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:02:23 GMT, Dave Heil ,
AMATEUR radio operator and defender of liars and identity thieves,
wrote in t:

snip
Steve acts as if status as a lower-ranking Marine is something to be
denigrated.

Do you think being repeatedly busted to a lower rank is something to be
proud of?


Like Billy Mitchell?

No, like Frank "Not-a-model-Marine" Gilliland.


Well, I'll tell ya, Dave -- I have absolutely no regrets about
anything I did in the Marines, not even the actions that resulted in
my loss of rank. But there's one big difference between me and Dudly
that you can't seem to comprehend: I'm telling the truth. And that's
something I am most definitely proud to admit.

Now what I don't understand is why you are so passionate about Dudly
when this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with you. Is he your
butt-buddy? Or are you afraid that you are next in line to be exposed
as a military imposter? Why is his business -your- business, Dave?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Your posts on Steve's service in the Marine Corps are about amateur
radio policy matters?

What is the matter with YOU?

One of my knees is bothering me and I haven't been getting enough sleep.
I'm wondering how best to tackle the mounting of a 6m yagi above my
homebrew 12/17m yagi.

Dave K8MN

....................

May I be so bold as to have the audacity to agree with K8MN? While my
comments may not rest well with some of you "chairborne" commandos, it is
cheap and tawdry to call into question or submit falsehoods about the
service of Veterans.
Whether or not you approve of Veterans such as W4NTI or K4YZ, the fact
remains that they SERVED!
While you Chairborne Hams were nit-picking over license qualifications these
two guys were serving their, and YOUR, country.
I defer to K8MN. He is correct and "on the money". Would that the rest of
you do the same.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:23:09 -0500, "T-10" anon@jumper wrote in
:



May I be so bold as to have the audacity to agree with K8MN? While my
comments may not rest well with some of you "chairborne" commandos, it is
cheap and tawdry to call into question or submit falsehoods about the
service of Veterans.


It's even worse to impersonate a vet. Wouldn't you agree?


Whether or not you approve of Veterans such as W4NTI or K4YZ, the fact
remains that they SERVED!


No, that's not a fact. K4YZ has, through his own words, proved beyond
any reasonable doubt that he did -NOT- serve, at least not in the
capacity he claims. I've run into many of these impersonators over the
years, most of whom claim to be Viet-Nam vets that did "secret ops" or
worked independently "behind enemy lines", and often quoting lines
from the movies "Apocolypse, Now", "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket"
(and even that early Jack Webb movie). But ask them for proof and they
clam up and get all defensive, just like K4YZ, and now K8MN.


While you Chairborne Hams were nit-picking over license qualifications these
two guys were serving their, and YOUR, country.
I defer to K8MN. He is correct and "on the money". Would that the rest of
you do the same.


Honor is earned, not stolen. By defending a valor-thief you are
subverting your own intentions and disrespecting those who -did-
serve, those who are serving right now, and those who have died and
will die in the future. If you want to do the right thing then don't
let yourself be fooled by these fakes -- any true vet will have no
problem with showing proof of service when asked.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

correct and "on the money". Would that the rest of
you do the same.


Honor is earned, not stolen. By defending a valor-thief you are
subverting your own intentions and disrespecting those who -did-
serve, those who are serving right now, and those who have died and
will die in the future. If you want to do the right thing then don't
let yourself be fooled by these fakes -- any true vet will have no
problem with showing proof of service when asked.

///////////////

And just where you step in is indeed a question. You, as easily as the
others, can be just as much a "fake".
I don't know you, so for all I know you are a Troll. I know Dan, W4NTI, and
I know of his service.
Dan has earned, in your childish words, his "honor". So also have several
other Veterans who comment in this or other groups.
I, unlike you, don't question the service of fellow Veterans. I accept them
as they are.
It has been, and will continue to be my practice to give a hand salute to
all Vets.

Now, about jumping a T-10 chute...ever been there?

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Sometimes these armchair types only have their double standard to fall
back on.

You'd know best, Your Couch Potatoness.

Steve, K4YZ

You hide behind the Privacy Act. Spare us any more nonsense about your
claims of seven hostile actions. Never happened.

Nope. Not "claims". Sure did.

Steve, K4YZ