RadioBanter - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/81521-05-235-any-new-procode-test-arguments.html)

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?

From: on Dec 18, 3:57 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

Actually the place that I see the difference in operating skills is on the
VHF bands in the VHF contests. When I review my contacts in those contests,
the large majority of them are Extra class operators. They seem to be the
ones to have the skill necessary to put together and operate a station
suitable to make long distance VHF contacts and the skill to do so.

Wow! Someone should have TOLD the U.S. Army Signal Corps folks
at Evans Signal Laboratory in 1946 when they were the first to
bounce a radio signal off the moon!

How much power was used by the Army?

The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced
3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them
back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to
1000Ts.

3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W
input.
The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input.

Was RADAR a legal mode? What was the PRF?

RADAR is an acronym for RADIO Direction And Ranging.

Radar was perfectly legal for the DoD to use. The FCC has
no governance on the government radio energy use.

"PRF?" With an echo return delay of 2 1/2 seconds, isn't
much good for lively back-and-forth anything. 0.3 Hz
PRF could be used. :-)

The USN put it to use in communications first, simplex only
with, I think, RTTY. I'll have to find the excellent USN
paper "From The Sea To The Stars" history somewhere on an
archive CD here. Has the history of the USN involvement
in space and communications thereto, from an official USN
website.

There's a lot more info at:

http://www.campevans.com/diana.html

Jimmie is nostalgic over experiments done 59 years ago.

He wasn't there but he was there.

btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system.

Tsk, Jimmie thinks "communications systems" arrive full-blown,
fully-proven? :-)

Project Diana was an EXPERIMENT to test whether or not the
moon could be used as a radio wave reflector. It was and
what followed were more experiments by many to determine
what the frequency ranges were, the reflection characteristics.

There wasn't any need to "radar" the moon. The moon's orbit
has been accurately known for years, if not centuries. We
can all make certain of where it is. No radar needed for that.

The mode used was OOK CW. The echoes were heard as beeps.

Really? :-)

Civilian at Fort Monmouth Signal Labs told us it was
first observed on an oscilloscope, one of the long-
persistence phosphor types used in some radars then.
Of course that was told to us in 1952 AT Fort Monmouth
by one of the experimenters. Since he didn't give a
ham call sign Jimmie would suspect him of lying. :-)

1952 was only 6 years after Project Diana. The
experiment was fresh in his mind and, having been
there as part of it, could recall much.

Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at
at least 13 wpm:

Conditionals or FCC tested?

Uh huh, like Coles, Evans, and Squier laboratories was
busy, busy on ham radio research in 1946? :-)

In reality, the 1945-1950 time was one of transition from
a world war effort to peacetime and lots of the movers
and shakers in technology-intense war efforts were out to
carve new niches for themselves and their groups. Good PR
was the word of the day. A "moon bounce" thing was hot PR
at the time, attracted attention from the budget-keepers
in Congress and the Pentagon.

Those are just the hams I know of that were involved. There were
probably more.

There always are.

...and Jimmie "knows" them. :-)

They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the
time, and
an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots
of resources.

A fantastic use of post-war resources.

That "111 Megacycle" radar was already surplus before WW2 ended.
Not a problem. :-)

Anyone riding a bus to Red Bank from Fort Monmouth could look
out and see lots and lots of "junk" at two of the labs along
the highway in 1952, just 6 years after the Diana success. All
sorts of "bedspring" antenna structures were sitting in the
vehicle parking areas.

Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea,
which he first began working on in 1940.

What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications
purpose?

In 1940 that ancient Project Diana radar set (the
original, not the kludge version used IN Diana) was
still undergoing operational testing. Even then it was
a late-comer using rather conventional vacuum tubes in the
usual ring-oscillator circuit...the style of transmitter
used by the Brits for radar along the channel.

The Brits would come up with the magnetron to make microwave
radars the future practical success. We would incorporate
those in all the later radars at S, C, and X bands during
WW2. The "star" of Army radar was the semi-trailer size
SCR-584 gun-laying radar set which was definitely well above
VHF in frequency range. Those were far from "surplus" in
1946. Monmouth had a couple for radar school practice in
1952. :-)

Isn't that like bouncing a basketball off of a backboard with no
intention of making a basket?

Jimmie "Knows" what was intended, deep in his heart. He "felt"
it 59 years ago.

The concept of reflection of radio waves was well known in
basic radio physics in the 1940s. What was lacking was
some definite information on the characteristics of
radio wave reflection. Nobody had any CONFIRMED idea of
the reflectivity of the lunar surface in the 1940s.

... During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL
Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end.

I really don't think so, having known a lot of USA, USN,
and Air Corps vets who trained during WW2. Some of them
said they used a USN basic book. Nobody mentioned
any "ARRL books." shrug

A 2-hour lab class one afternoon had us examine a bunch
of "basic hardware" of radio. One item was a two-tube
MOPA style HF transmitter. That MIGHT have been made
from a ham design although it didn't tune into ham bands
that existed then (instructor told us so, monitored on
an old Hammarlund receiver). We didn't take notes. In
fact, written notes were discouraged. Not for "secrecy,"
but for the need to have it in the head, much more useful
in the field which didn't allow for notebooks or stacks
of magazines for reference which could get rather wet.

In 1952 at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth we (at
least in radar basic classes) used training films on
basic principles and Army FMs, TMs for paper study,
some mock-up training aids that included a "block of
frozen RF" (acrylic plastic 3-D waveguide fields and
waves, roughly the size of 1 GHz guide). I'm not
acquainted with what was used at the Field Radio
and Telephone schools at Camp Gordon (now a Fort) used.
Monmouth in 1952 was basically for radar training with
advanced schools for the VHF, UHF, and microwave radio
relay sets...and photography, then a part of the Signal
organizational envelope (photography is now under the
media graphics specialty groups, not part of SigC).

As I remember the old ARRL handbook from the late 1940s,
I can't recall a heckuva lot of multivibrators or radar
or microwave information, nor of servo motors (but there
was a mention of Selsyns, surplus for beam indication).
Perhaps the ARRL had to exorcise all that "wartime
literature" because of "secrecy?" :-)

[unsigned message, under wraps due to Title 18 U.S.C.]

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?

wrote:
From: on Dec 18, 3:57 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Dec 15, 3:21 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message

How much power was used by the Army?

The transmitter used was a modified SCR-271 radar unit. It produced
3000 W on 111.5 Mc. (that's what the Signal Corps called them
back then). Pair of 6C21 triodes in the output - they look similar to
1000Ts.

3000 W output with those tubes at that frequency means about 5000 W
input.
The amateur power limit back then was 1000 W input.

The USN put it to use in communications first, simplex only
with, I think, RTTY. I'll have to find the excellent USN
paper "From The Sea To The Stars" history somewhere on an
archive CD here. Has the history of the USN involvement
in space and communications thereto, from an official USN
website.

All anyone has to do is google that title and the website's URL
will come right up.

Project Diana demonstrated EME radar echoes in 1946.

Amateurs demonstrated radar echoes in 1953.

The Navy first demonstrated EME *communications* in January
1960 (RTTY, Washington DC to Hawaii).

Amateurs demonstrated 2-way EME communications in July 1960.
(Morse Code, 1296 MHz, California to New England)

There's a lot more info at:

http://www.campevans.com/diana.html

is nostalgic over experiments done 59 years ago.

He wasn't there but he was there.

I'm not "nostalgic", Len. Just passing on some information.

Am I not supposed to post urls here?

btw, it was a moon RADAR experiment, not a communications system.

thinks "communications systems" arrive full-blown,
fully-proven? :-)

It took the US Govt. 14 years to go from the EME radar experiments
of 1946 to a working EME communication system of 1960.

Project Diana was an EXPERIMENT to test whether or not the
moon could be used as a radio wave reflector.

Was it?

Or was it an experiment to prove that VHF radio waves could penetrate
the
atmosphere from the earth? (It was already known that radio waves could
do so in the opposite direction, from radio astronomy experiments
before
WW2).

Or was it a gee-whiz sort of stunt to be the first to do something and
try to impress people?

Or maybe some of all of the above?

It was and
what followed were more experiments by many to determine
what the frequency ranges were, the reflection characteristics.

Was there any doubt?

There wasn't any need to "radar" the moon. The moon's orbit
has been accurately known for years, if not centuries. We
can all make certain of where it is. No radar needed for that.

Yet it was indeed a radar experiment.

Those Diana folks had a some hams involved, though - all code tested at
at least 13 wpm:

Conditionals or FCC tested?

Doesn't say. Probably FCC tested.

Uh huh, like Coles, Evans, and Squier laboratories was
busy, busy on ham radio research in 1946? :-)

The amateurs named were all long-time-licensed hams.

In reality, the 1945-1950 time was one of transition from
a world war effort to peacetime and lots of the movers
and shakers in technology-intense war efforts were out to
carve new niches for themselves and their groups.

Ah - so it was partly a form of radiosport for bragging rights, eh?

Good PR
was the word of the day. A "moon bounce" thing was hot PR
at the time, attracted attention from the budget-keepers
in Congress and the Pentagon.

IOW, a gee-whiz sort of stunt to be the first to do something and try
to impress people.

They used power levels 9 dB above those permitted to amateurs at the
time, and
an antenna that was quite beyond "backyard construction". They had lots
of resources.

A fantastic use of post-war resources.

That "111 Megacycle" radar was already surplus before WW2 ended.
Not a problem. :-)

Typical ham radio swords-into-plowshares ingenuity. Why build a new
system
if an old one can be converted?

Anyone riding a bus to Red Bank from Fort Monmouth could look
out and see lots and lots of "junk" at two of the labs along
the highway in 1952, just 6 years after the Diana success. All
sorts of "bedspring" antenna structures were sitting in the
vehicle parking areas.

Looking isn't doing, Len.

When it comes to amateur radio, you're a looker, not a doer.

Lt. Col. DeWitt, W4ERI, was the driving force behind the whole idea,
which he first began working on in 1940.

What idea? To bounce a signal off of the moon for no communications
purpose?

Yes.

In 1940 that ancient Project Diana radar set (the
original, not the kludge version used IN Diana) was
still undergoing operational testing. Even then it was
a late-comer using rather conventional vacuum tubes in the
usual ring-oscillator circuit...the style of transmitter
used by the Brits for radar along the channel.

The British used it effectively. They had relatively crude equipment
but skilled operators and an effective communications network.

Without their radar capabilities the Battle of Britain may have turned
out
differently.

The Brits would come up with the magnetron to make microwave
radars the future practical success.

The reentrant cavity magnetron, actually.

We would incorporate
those in all the later radars at S, C, and X bands during
WW2. The "star" of Army radar was the semi-trailer size
SCR-584 gun-laying radar set which was definitely well above
VHF in frequency range.

The "star"?

How about the airborne radars? Air-defense radars (some so well
developed they were
built into submarine periscopes)? Radio altimeters?

Those were far from "surplus" in
1946. Monmouth had a couple for radar school practice in
1952. :-)

None of which had the power or antennas to do EME anyway.

The concept of reflection of radio waves was well known in
basic radio physics in the 1940s. What was lacking was
some definite information on the characteristics of
radio wave reflection. Nobody had any CONFIRMED idea of
the reflectivity of the lunar surface in the 1940s.

So they built a radar set to do the job.

... During WWII, the Signal Corps used the ARRL
Handbook, Leonard. I'll bet that chafes you to no end.

I really don't think so, having known a lot of USA, USN,
and Air Corps vets who trained during WW2. Some of them
said they used a USN basic book. Nobody mentioned
any "ARRL books." shrug

Yet the books were used. A special "Defense Edition" ARRL handbook
was printed and used by various military branches.

A 2-hour lab class one afternoon had us examine a bunch
of "basic hardware" of radio. One item was a two-tube
MOPA style HF transmitter. That MIGHT have been made
from a ham design although it didn't tune into ham bands
that existed then (instructor told us so, monitored on
an old Hammarlund receiver). We didn't take notes. In
fact, written notes were discouraged. Not for "secrecy,"
but for the need to have it in the head, much more useful
in the field which didn't allow for notebooks or stacks
of magazines for reference which could get rather wet.

In my opinion and experience, that's a poor method of training.

The act of creating a notebook means the student must mentally
process the information and write it in his/her own words. In other
words the student must take an active, rather than passive, role in
the process. Of course the notebooks cannot be depended on
during testing, but that is not their purpose.

Note that in other training systems, such as qualifying in WW2
submarines, the creation of a notebook with all required information
is an essential part.

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?

KØHB wrote:
wrote

There's also the story of "The Ghost of Guam".

The "Ghost of Guam" was US Navy Radioman 1st Class George Tweed. He wasn't a
ham. Was reputed to be laid up drunk in a house of horizontal refreshment when
the Navy evacuated the island just ahead of the WW-II JA invasion so he missed
his ride. Had to hide out in the jungle for a few years until the USN came
back. In the book/movie "No Man is an Island" he comes off as a hero, but was
in fact not popular with the locals, several of whom (including a native RC
Priest) lost their lives for not revealing his whereabouts. After the war he
skedaddled without so much as a thank-you.

73, de Hans, K0HB

But Jim knows him and knows him as a ham. Jim is, after all, the final
authority on military and ham history.

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?

Easier licensing

Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?

From: Dave Heil on Dec 18, 5:46 pm

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Dec 18, 8:51 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 14, 6:22 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 13 2005 4:32 pm

Tsk, tsk, tsk, if you want to do rec.movies.critique.negative
go to the appropriate newsgroup.

How about this instead: If you bring something up, make sure it is
something you know about rather than foisting off your factual errors as
fact.

Oh, oh, the Dominatrix is extending her whip, demanding Order
and Obediance! :-)

Here's some "facts" written by others in he

"FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

"MARS IS ham radio."

The book's author, Davis Grubb had a hard time with reality.

PCTAs have a hard time with reality also... :-)

I'm certain that it appears that way to you.

It appears that way to many, many readers of this morseblog.

This newsgroup is NOT a movieblog or a literaryblog.

In one
interview, he said that he could remember that whenever an execution
took place at the prison in Moundsville, the lights all over town would
dim.

No doubt the electricity was wired in by an "A-1 Operator."

Operators wire for electricity? That doesn't make sense. The point was
that they weren't using electricity.

UNBEND, Davie. :-) You are too wound up and literal. :-)

Tsk, I just asked a question.

No, actually you didn't.

A question mark punctuation sign doesn't denote a question? :-)

No, I was actually here on leave while in the Air Force. I saw portions
of the film shot and took some great photos of the cast, in and out of
character.

I have the film and also have "Night of the Hunter" along with those
books and several more by Grubb.

"Night of the Hunter" was released in 1955. That means that
actual filming was done in 1954. You were IN the USAF in
1954? That doesn't fit with what you've said before in here.

It was shot on location in Moundsville and Marshall County in 1970.

Is that the movie you are referring to? You aren't being clear
in your remarks on film production.

Of course, this morseblog isn't ABOUT motion picture production,
is it? :-)

...so it is useless to get you to unbend your dictatorial
Prussian persistence in puling orders.

What's a puling order?

Pule: vi "To whimper or whine, as a sick or fretful child does."
also "puled, puling"

Don't you get anything right? :-)

Your current views as regards amateur radio exhibit no shades of gray
whatever.

That may be because so many amateur radio "practitioners" are
into unreal draconian regulations that allow few options.

Go figure!

I have. That's why I oppose the regulation of requiring
a singular mode test for radio amateurs when the regulating
agency makes that mode as optional to use as any other
allocated mode. :-)

Corporations have paid me real money to "get things right" and
I have, consistently.

At least that's your story and you're sticking to it.

It's not a "story" and it is factual. You are welcome to
research my background, all references in work done, even
challenge the IRS, Franchise Tax Board of California, FBI,
CIA, DIA, DCAS, DoE, IEEE, RCA, EOS, MRI, all my employers.
:-)

You're the only
guy who has ever been 1) paid real money by a corporation 2) to get
things right.

INCORRECT. I'm not the "ONLY" one. :-)

I don't go to much by what movie reviewers write.

This newsgroup is a morseblog, not a movieblog.

Don't you get anything right? :-)

Easier licensing

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

How is a non-ARRL history of amateur radio regulations any
different from an ARRL history of amateur radio regulations, Len?

Non-ARRL histories of ALL RADIO regulations don't have the
obvious political spin that ARRL uses to attempt increasing
its membership.

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

That's just the way it is...

That's just *your* spin, Len.

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can.

So go ahead.

But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more.

A day or so for you ;-)

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all. And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Nor does it make regulations.

It certainly tries to! Tries to for a MINORITY of licensed
radio amateurs in the USA.

FCC makes the regulations.

ARRL tries to get FCC to change or keep certain regulations. So
do others like NCI. Yet NCI has a membership of perhaps one percent
of licensed US amateurs.

There were "other groups" back in the 1940s, Len.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

Do you know the name of those groups and what they tried to change?

It's just a HOBBY, Jimmie.

Not *just*, Len. Whatever it is, you're not part of it.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Did you expect that everyone had to build everything themselves?!?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes do. You wouldn't know about
that since you've never done it.

Plain and simple WRONG, Jimmie.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Do you expect sailors to all get sheet steel and torches and
build the ship they are going to serve on?

Not at all. But radio amateurs sometimes build their equipment from
the most basic parts - including sheet metal work. You wouldn't know
about that since you've never done it.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

Do you expect airmen to all get aluminum and engines and build
the aircraft they are going to serve on?

Of course not.

Why not? I've helped do that...and I'm NOT an "airman." :-)

Do you expect choo-choo drivers to build their locomotives
themselves? :-)

"Choo-choo drivers"?

What you call "locomotive engineers."

That's what everyone who knows what they're talking about calls them,
Len.

Did they go to "engineering
school" for their degrees? :-)

Actually, they do go to school and are licensed for the job.

I just disregarded any
NEED to learn morse code since I was never, ever
required to use it in the military or in the much longer
civilian life career I still have.

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

Since no higher deity commanded that morse code testing be
done for amateur radio licenses, ordinary humans must have
done it. Whatever humans have done, humans can UNDO.

Not necessarily. Humans seem to have trouble undoing certain
types of messes, such as pollution.

Yes, the morse code test is still in USA amateur regulations,
POLLUTING the environment for newcomer hobbyists.

There's your antimorse spin!

Of course - because you are not qualified to do it on-the-air.

Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I've only listened to the predecessor of the Condor Net in
Newbury Park, CA, demonstrated by one of the ham-licensed
employees there. At Teledyne Electronics, my employer
during the late 70s. It was the first state-long network
to use all tone switching for routing without using any
microprocessor control.

Gosh, you *listened*! I've done a lot more than that!

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That doesn't agree with www.hamdata.com figures.

I didn't use those figures.

Not good enough for you? Hamdata gets theirs right from the
FCC database. Where does Speroni get his? Crystal ball? :-)

AH0A gets his numbers direct from the FCC database. But I don't
use AH0A's numbers.

hamdata.com's numbers include expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses. The numbers I use do not.

Is that a threat, Len? You're not even a novice at amateur radio.

Why are you afraid of perceived "threats?"

So you admit it was a threat...

Residences are for LIVING in, Jimmie. It is HOME.

SO why shouldn't it change?

This newsgroup/morseblog isn't about zoning ordinances or real
estate, Jimmie.

Not is it about the military, or aerospace, or your jobs, Len. But you
go on
and on about those subjects.

Nor is it about trailer living...wherein
trailers can be towed someplace else for "change." :-)

I've lived at this same residental address for 42 years,

Does that mean you think you have the right to dictate what others can
do with their land?

Some of my neighbors have lived in their for
longer. Why should we "change?"

I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

Especially for some
easterner who doesn't know the territory, doesn't know
the neighborhood, doesn't know any neighbors, doesn't do
anything but try to make trouble for those who have
opinions on amateur radio testing other than his? :-)

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself. Just like the outsider
developer who came into your neighborhood and tried to change the
zoning, you try to change the amateur radio rules.

At least the developer was willing to become part of the neighborhood
by purchasing the land. You folks drove him bankrupt. But you aren't
even a part of amateur radio, yet you want the rules changed.

You resisted change to zoning, but you ridicule and call names
of anyone who tries to resist change to amateur radio regulation.

See your double standard? Others have to adapt, not you.

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

Now it's clear. You weren't top of the form in Morse Code, so the
code must be a bad thing....

Plainly and simply inaccurate and plainly and simply just your
personal insult mode trying vainly to masquerade as "civil"
discussion.

What's inaccurate about it?

And where's the insult?

The mask is quite transparent. We can all see
through it. Take it off, it will be more comfortable for you.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean. You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

Yes, radiotelegraphy was used by many,

Indeed!

but it was
NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

Teleprinting was necessary then
and it was used for the majority of military, government,
and commercial messaging around the globe. That's just the
way it was...

So what? Does that mean *amateurs* shouldn't use Morse Code?

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change. Just like that developer....

I've just never had to USE any radiotelegraphy skills nor
wired telegraphy skills for ANY REASON...and I was DOING
long-distance HF communications before your existance.

"Existence".

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Easier licensing

stevei alters another post more forgery

truth in title more heaping stinking stevie shit

Easier licensing

From: on Dec 20, 1:56 am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm

etc

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

Yes, there were. :-)

But, trying to present all those, finding the references,
noting them in here is all wasted effort on my part. You
will simply not accept any of it. What you will do is
write something like:

That's just *your* spin, Len.

And all my effort will be for naught. :-)

That's the way it has been in here and that's just how you
will handle it. That's just the way it is... :-)

If anyone else cares to look at the history of ALL radio
they are welcome to peruse two texts by Hugh G. J. Aitken,
"Syntony and Spark," "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio 1900-1932, Princeton University Press.

For those who wish to review Thomas H. White's history
of USA radio, go to http://earlyradiohistory.us/ or
find a much-more abbreviated history at the FCC website.

There are many others of the non-amateur histories, but
you just don't want to hear of those, do you? :-(

So go ahead.

For what purpose? I'm not a "radio evangelist" out trying
to hold "tent revival meetings" that we should all believe
in the Church of St. Hiram. :-)

Jimmie, U.S. radio amateurs were BANISHED from the "long
waves" after WW1 and had to be on the "short waves" from
200 meter wavelengths and down. BANISHMENT is banishment.
U.S. radio amateurs have NEVER been granted any band
allocations below MF since the FCC was created in 1934.

BTW, you are free to use the CORRECT term of decades in
the EM spectrum that others use; i.e., HF, VHF, UHF, etc.

TODAY's use of "shortwave" refers to the high microwave
region, usually above 10 GHz. Very short wavelengths
indeed.

1923 was 82 years ago, Jimmie.

This is the year 2005. Do try to keep up.

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all.

ARRL is a MINORITY special interest group, Jimmie.

Only one out of five licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of the ARRL.

And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Okay, so this MINORITY "representative group" practices
oligarchy. So what? :-)

FCC makes the regulations.

Ah, but, on 10 December, you wrote "FCC doesn't license
radio amateurs!" :-)

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

PROVE that fact. Show your work...tell us why we should care.

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Jimmie, you did not comment on that, yet you quoted it.

Are you going to "argue" that now? Don't try...it will only
make you look more foolish than you are in regards to
national service.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Whether or not you "fon't think so" is irrelevant. I have.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

It was radio equipment. No one paid me for it, ergo it was
"amateur." :-)

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

Using ENTIRELY MY RESOURCES, Jimmie. Paid for out of my own
pocket. That classifies it as "amateur" as opposed to
"professional."

I've used others' brake, mill, and lathes, exhanging services
of mine for their loan of tools. All the rest were mine,
owned outright. Fair exchange of services agreeable to all.

Most "chassis" are easier to use purchased off the shelf. I have
the Greenlee chassis punches on hand to do those jobs, had them a
long time, even visited the very workshop in the department of
Greenlee's factory that made them back in 1950. [it was, and
remained, a tiny, tiny part of the overall Greenlee factory]

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

The travel departments at various companies arranged for my tickets
and lodging reservations, accounts payable argued with me on my
expense reports. I didn't have solo meetings with myself in design
reviews, if that is what you mean. :-) [do you hold meetings
with yourself at your work?]

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

No NEED for ME, Jimmie.

My, my, you DO come across as an UNDERPAID engineer who is all
the time talking about "money." :-)

Are you really a surreptuous socialist? A closet communist?

Maybe you believe that you should get "free radios" because
you are a radio amateur?

Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I am accurate. I'm am quite QUALIFIED to not only operate
a radio transmitter (or any RF emitter), but to design it,
build a prototype, test it, align it, make it work.

I am not AUTHORIZED to USE it on frequencies which are
regulated by an AUTHORIZING AGENCY. In this case, the agency
is the FCC.

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

The amateur Condor Net operates ON the "220" band, Jimmie,
not above it.

I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952.

I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

It's not a question of "should," Jimmie.

You've made it quite clear that you "fon't" want to change!

:-)

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr.-I'm-an-amateur-for-38-years, the FCC,
which is NOT requiring any commissioners or staff to be
licensed in amateur radio, has been TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO
IN RADIO OPERATION for 38 years. :-)

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

You are welcome to go search the Los Angeles Superior Court
records, the Los Angeles City government records, if it is
so "important" to you. :-)

City government activity involving zoning ordinances have
NOTHING to do with radio, Jimmie.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

I've never claimed to be "top of the form in morse code."

:-)

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean.

The Defense Communications System, and all its predecessors
since WW2 days, Jimmie. "Communications" is not restricted
to manual radiotelegraphy.

On the average, Washington Army Radio (WAR) relayed a MILLION
teletypewriter messages per MONTH out of Fort Detrick, MD, in
1955. Some of those were the 220 thousand TTY messages
relayed by station ADA in Tokyo of that same year. ADA did
not communicate directly, RUAP to RUEP, but communicated to
Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, Manila, Okinawa,
Seoul, Pusan, and Saigon in 1955. Some USAF, USN messages
were relayed through ADA, along with State Department messages
to Manila. A few, but very few facsimiles were relayed,
mostly for the USAF. Manila had a circuit through Asmara,
Eritrea, to the USAEUR (U.S. Army in Europe).

You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

I'm not "spinning" anything, Jimmie. TTY messaging carried
the overwhelming mass of ALL messages involving the United
States military a half century ago. Insofar as encrypted
messages are concerned, TTY carried very nearly ALL of
those. "DATA" modes now carry the overwhelming mass of
messaging that goes on now...even in the United States Navy.

NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

No argument about it...teletypewriter mode was the overwhelming
medium/mode of messaging a half century ago in the United States
military.

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

No "spin." That's just the way it is.

You will not accept reality since you are a devout desciple of
the Church of St. Hiram, a "True Believer" in the mythologic
efficacy of morsemanship in radio.

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change.

What "force," Jimmie?

I am simply showing the TRUTH of the reality of communications
modes in the REALITY of the radio world.

The FCC gives you the OPTION of using any allocated mode, any
amateur band. One of those OPTIONAL modes is morse code on-off
keying. NO ONE is "taking that away from you" when the morse
code test is removed from amateur licensing regulations.

You will continue to be FREE to use any OPTIONAL communications
mode INSIDE your amateur frequency allocations. The "force"
that you imagine others try to put on you will remain, well,
just imaginary.

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Neither has any staffer or commissioner at the FCC...and they
can, not only tell YOU what to do in amateur radio, but they
can also FORCE you to do things (or not do them) via the U.S.
federal marshalls and federal court system.

Easier licensing

wrote:
From: on Dec 20, 1:56 am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

Yes, there were. :-)

IOW, no, there weren't. :-)

But, trying to present all those, finding the references,
noting them in here is all wasted effort on my part.

All you have to do is tell us who they were, what they did and when
they did it.

But I doubt you can.

You will simply not accept any of it.

Maybe I will, Len. Or maybe someone else will.

Point is, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.

So why should we believe you instead of ARRL?

What makes your "history" any more credible than theirs?

If anyone else cares to look at the history of ALL radio
they are welcome to peruse two texts by Hugh G. J. Aitken,
"Syntony and Spark," "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio 1900-1932, Princeton University Press.

You could scan the appropriate parts and post them to prove your point.
After all, you've
Demanded that others do the same to "prove" things.

Your AOL account includes a web page for each screen name. There's no
reason
you can't use them - is there?

For those who wish to review Thomas H. White's history
of USA radio, go to http://earlyradiohistory.us/ or
find a much-more abbreviated history at the FCC website.

Been there. No contradictions to ARRL's version of events - is there?

You're misdirecting, Len.

There are many others of the non-amateur histories, but
you just don't want to hear of those, do you? :-(

History of *amateur* radio.

U.S. radio amateurs were BANISHED from the "long
waves" after WW1 and had to be on the "short waves" from
200 meter wavelengths and down.

Actually, that happened in 1912, although enforcement wasn't
perfect.

BANISHMENT is banishment.

It was regulation. There was need to have more order among
the various users of radio. The old free-for-all systems just
didn't work.

U.S. radio amateurs have NEVER been granted any band
allocations below MF since the FCC was created in 1934.

So what?

Amateurs were "banished" to the "short-waves" because those
short waves were thought (in 1912) to be useless for long distance
communication. The professionals and regulators were all wrong
about that, however.

1923 was 82 years ago,

Why does that matter? The discussion is about amateur radio history
and your unfounded claims of "ARRL spin".

This is the year 2005. Do try to keep up.

I'm way *ahead* of you, Len.

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all.

ARRL is a MINORITY special interest group,

"No-Code International" (NCI) is a minority special interest group,
too. Much smaller than
ARRL.

Only one out of five licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of the ARRL.

Less than one out of a hundred licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of NCI. This despite the fact that NCI membership is
free, never expires, and can be had for a few mouse clicks or a letter.

And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Okay, so this MINORITY "representative group" practices
oligarchy.

No, they do not. They don't rule - they represent.

So what? :-)

Seems to bother you no end that there is an organization
"devoted entirely to amateur radio".

It's clear from your many anti-ARRL tirades, Len, that you'd
really like it if there were *no* national amateur radio organization.

FCC makes the regulations.

Ah, but, on 10 December, you wrote "FCC doesn't license
radio amateurs!" :-)

Well, Len, that was a typo I made. I've corrected it already.

I wrote "FCC" when I meant to write "FAA". My bad - just a mistake.

Know why it sticks out so much? Because it's so unusual!

Now, about typos....

Was it a typo when you told K8MN to 'shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel' ?

Was it a typo when you wrote, almost 6 years ago, that you were going
for Extra right out of the box?

Was it a typo when you lectured a US Coast Guard radio operator on his
military service as a radio operator in the classic "sphincters post"?

Was it a typo when you wrote that all amateurs with
expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses could legally operate their amateur radio stations?

Was it a typo when you accused the ARRL and some VEs of 'very mild
fraud' because of the licensing of some young children? (You never
presented any evidence of fraud other than the ages of the children)

Was it a typo when you twice accused a developer/contractor in your
area of 'payola' to the zoning commission - and the commission
accepting it?

Were all those things typos, Len? I didn't see any corrections to them.

I corrected my FAA typo.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

PROVE that fact.

That's easy.

FCC Docket 9295

"National Amateur Radio Council"

"Society of American Radio Amateurs"

Show your work...

Just did.

But why should I? You don't.

tell us why we should care.

You've called the ARRL a "one party system", "oligarchy"
and claimed all sorts of things about FCC "chuckling" over
comments.

Yet the fact is that two relatively-small groups had a big
effect on the 1951 restructuring. Those groups are long
gone, having disappeared soon after they got their way...

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Are you going to "argue" that now? Don't try...it will only
make you look more foolish than you are in regards to
national service.

The fact is that everyone in the military pledges their willingness
to face combat and mortal danger if and when called upon. No
argument about that.

But that's also true of many nonmilitary people as well. Law
enforcement
officers...firefighters and rescue workers....emergency medical team
members,
to name just a few, face the potential of mortal danger too.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Whether or not you "fon't think so" is irrelevant. I have.

Not true, Len. Without a station license, they cannot be an amateur
radio station.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

It was radio equipment. No one paid me for it, ergo it was
"amateur." :-)

No, it was *hobby* radio.

Or maybe it was a professional prototype that failed......;-)

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

Using ENTIRELY MY RESOURCES,

No. You used other people's tools...

Paid for out of my own
pocket. That classifies it as "amateur" as opposed to
"professional."

No, it doesn't.

I've used others' brake, mill, and lathes, exhanging services
of mine for their loan of tools. All the rest were mine,
owned outright. Fair exchange of services agreeable to all.

Not your own resources, then.

Most "chassis" are easier to use purchased off the shelf. I have
the Greenlee chassis punches on hand to do those jobs, had them a
long time, even visited the very workshop in the department of
Greenlee's factory that made them back in 1950. [it was, and
remained, a tiny, tiny part of the overall Greenlee factory]

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

The travel departments at various companies arranged for my tickets
and lodging reservations, accounts payable argued with me on my
expense reports. I didn't have solo meetings with myself in design
reviews, if that is what you mean. :-) [do you hold meetings
with yourself at your work?]

IOW, you had the help of an engineering team. But you want all the
credit...

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED,

Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

No NEED for ME,

Because you don't want to be a radio amateur. There's no money in it
for you...

My, my, you DO come across as an UNDERPAID engineer who is all
the time talking about "money." :-)

Not me, Len. I'm not underpaid.

Are you really a surreptuous socialist?

"Surreptuous"? What dies that mean?

Do you accept Social Security payments? That's socialized retirement.

Do you accept Medicare benefits? That's socialized medicine.

A closet communist?

Nope. Then again, you're the one who wants one class of license so all
can be "equal"....

Maybe you believe that you should get "free radios" because
you are a radio amateur?

I've already gotten "free radios" because I'm a radio amateur, Len.

Not AUTHORIZED,

Not QUALIFIED, either.

. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I am accurate.

Only in your mind....;-)

I'm am quite QUALIFIED to not only operate
a radio transmitter (or any RF emitter), but to design it,
build a prototype, test it, align it, make it work.

You think you are, anyway.

But have you ever demonstrated any of that to amateur radio?

You claim to have written for "ham radio" magazine for
some years, but none of your articles in that magazine are
construction project articles. Nor are there any depictions of
actual radios you built yourself - there or anyplace else. No
websites, no articles, no pictures.

Also, the ability to design a radio and the qualifications to operate
it are not one and the same.

I am not AUTHORIZED to USE it on frequencies which are
regulated by an AUTHORIZING AGENCY.

Nor are you qualified to use it on the amateur bands.

In this case, the agency is the FCC.

FCC's regulations say a license is required to operate an
amateur radio station. You have not qualified for the required
license, therefore, in the view of the TCC, you are Not Qualified.

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

The amateur Condor Net operates ON the "220" band,

not above it.

The 220 MHz band is above 220 MHz ;-)

I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952.

But you have not LEGALLY OPERATED on any amateur band.

Anybody who has used 100 mW cb walkie talkie and an FRS radio
can say:

"I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952."

I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

It's not a question of "should,"

Sure it is. You keep telling others they should change, while
resisting change yourself.

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr.-I'm-an-amateur-for-38-years, the FCC,
which is NOT requiring any commissioners or staff to be
licensed in amateur radio, has been TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO
IN RADIO OPERATION for 38 years. :-)

They've been telling you what to do as well, Len. In fact
they've been telling you what you *cannot* do for more
than 70 years: You cannot legally operate an amateur
radio station....

FCC says you're Not Qualified.

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

You are welcome to go search the Los Angeles Superior Court
records, the Los Angeles City government records, if it is
so "important" to you. :-)

IOW, you have no facts to back up your claims.

City government activity involving zoning ordinances have
NOTHING to do with radio,

Actually, it does, since radio requires antennas.

There's a valid analogy between real estate and radio spectrum, too:

Zoning ordinances are government regulation of land use.

FCC rules are government regulation of (civilian) radio use.

Both are intended to maximize the benefit of all concerned -
"the public", as it were.

Now you may say that you "own" your property, and that no
radio amateur "owns" any radio spectrum.

But if you think you "own" your house and land, try not paying
your real estate taxes and see how long you "own" it. Or try
resisting eminent domain...

The major point is that you resisted change when it applied
to your local zoning - as if the regulation of *other people's
property* was never to change without *your* approval. Yet
you want to impose your changes on others when it comes to
radio regulations.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

I've never claimed to be "top of the form in morse code."

IOW, you weren't.

That's really the whole issue for you, isn't it, Len?

Which says a lot, because you toot your own horn endlessly
about your accomplishments..

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean.

The Defense Communications System, and all its predecessors
since WW2 days,

So what? Amateur radio isn't the "Defense Communications System".

On the average, Washington Army Radio (WAR) relayed a MILLION
teletypewriter messages per MONTH out of Fort Detrick, MD, in
1955.

Were you there? I think not.

Some of those were the 220 thousand TTY messages
relayed by station ADA in Tokyo of that same year. ADA did
not communicate directly, RUAP to RUEP, but communicated to
Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, Manila, Okinawa,
Seoul, Pusan, and Saigon in 1955. Some USAF, USN messages
were relayed through ADA, along with State Department messages
to Manila. A few, but very few facsimiles were relayed,
mostly for the USAF. Manila had a circuit through Asmara,
Eritrea, to the USAEUR (U.S. Army in Europe).

With a staff numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, all working
full-time to transfer those messages. Also investment in equipment
and facilities totalling millions of dollars.

With the authority to override any civilian government objections, too.

You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

I'm not "spinning" anything,

Sure you are. The US Navy was using Morse Code for "communications
circuits" with its ships long after you left the Army.

Mor important, you constantly harp on 1950s military communications
as if they had some overwhelming importance or significance to
amateur radio in 2005.

TTY messaging carried
the overwhelming mass of ALL messages involving the United
States military a half century ago.

I think you'd like to believe that - true or not. No way can you give
Morse
Code *any* credit.

Insofar as encrypted
messages are concerned, TTY carried very nearly ALL of
those. "DATA" modes now carry the overwhelming mass of
messaging that goes on now...even in the United States Navy.

But so what? Amateur radio isn't the US military.

NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

No argument about it...teletypewriter mode was the overwhelming
medium/mode of messaging a half century ago in the United States
military.

How do you know? You weren't in the Navy - or the Air Force - or the
Marines - or the Coast Guard - or the US Merchant Marine.

Or amateur radio...

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

No "spin." That's just the way it is.

It's your spin, Len.

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change.

What "force,"

Your attempts to get the rules changed, Len. You're not involved in
amateur
radio, but you want the rules changed for reasons you refuse to state.

At least the developer who got your local zoning changed was involved,
up-front and honest.

He was involved because he bought the 15 acre tract.

He was up-front and honest because he showed what he wanted to build
there, and
his motive for doing so (to make a profit).

I am simply showing the TRUTH of the reality of communications
modes in the REALITY of the radio world.

Not when it comes to amateur radio.

The FCC gives you the OPTION of using any allocated mode, any
amateur band.

That's right - because I'm qualified to operate an amateur radio
station,

You're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station, Len.

One of those OPTIONAL modes is morse code on-off
keying.

All authorized modes are OPTIONAL in amateur radio, Len.
No radio amateur has to use any specific mode.

Yet the testing for an amateur radio license requires
some knowledge of a wide variety of subjects - almost
all of which are optional.

If someone wants to legally operate an amateur radio
station on, say, 7020 kHz using Morse Code and
vacuum-tube equipment, that person will have to pass
tests that having nothing to do with 40 meters,
Morse Code or vacuum tubes.

NO ONE is "taking that away from you" when the morse
code test is removed from amateur licensing regulations.

Just as NO ONE took anything away from you that was rightfully
yours when the zoning was changed.

You will continue to be FREE to use any OPTIONAL communications
mode INSIDE your amateur frequency allocations.

Of course - because I'm qualified. You're not.

The "force"
that you imagine others try to put on you will remain, well,
just imaginary.

Really?

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Neither has any staffer or commissioner at the FCC...and they
can, not only tell YOU what to do in amateur radio, but they
can also FORCE you to do things (or not do them) via the U.S.
federal marshalls and federal court system.

You are not part of the FCC nor law enforcement, Len.

The fact is that none of the unlicensed FCC staffers or commissioners
is qualified to operate an amateur radio station. Just like the
President (aka Commander in Chief) is not qualified to operate
most military equipment (aircraft, ships, radios, etc.) but
nevertheless
is in command.

You're not in command, Len.