what ever has happened to Hams

I First wrote a couple of week I stil basicaly stand by it. I have made at leaest a few contacts most likely before the jammer/bootlegger came on I beleive if I find I can't confrim any of them I am confident that my gear will do EME (in an effort ot work split I did "hear" echo of another qso meaning I can rea dhte largest stations and surley based on the eme literure I can make an eme contact even through such interference I ham seting up a sked to wrok in split mode with neither frq known to other till later in an effort to asure myself I have done what I set out to doIn response to my claim of my first EME contact someone in RRAP came back with "I doubt you can caluate the pathloos on an EME path (or words to that effect)You know what I can't calualte that path lossIndeed I would discourage anyone from trying to calculate it before trying the path what I have heard about those numbers is pretty discouragingWhy can I make such a contact when other say they can't or that I can't?simple becuase I always KNEW I would, from the first monet I heard of EME contact which was from a question on Tech test back in 97 ( I had heard a few days ebfore that No Code License existed I ordered the study but it arrived only the VE session so I tired the test cold KNOWING I would pass it then or next week or..) at the monent knowing nothing more than that such a contact was possible with my license I swore I would make one (or more)I read the about the mode in detail and soon (in 97) realize I would likely have to wait awhile to keep that vow, but from time to time I renewed my efforts at first in data gathering a new milestone 2004 when I heard about the results with JT modes I began to pracetice with the early ones in terestial contact then last winter I learn of current jt65b mode and the details of the power and anttenna requiement abit of agonizing over wether I wanted to work with crushcrafts 31 foot 17b2 that I KNEW would work but that I have trouble steer or keeping safe in our harsh winters or the 13b2 I thought might work (and it did work like a charm, which it is in some sense of course) figuring I could always use it in terrestial modes and that I could later phase it with a second one and be assured of sucess thenbut ALWAYS in mind was the KNOWLEDGE and assurance that I WOULD suceed and that even if I had failed now it was merely a lesson learned , part of paying my dues as it wereI knew I would one day be able to do itI know anybody reading reading these words can do EME if they poccess 2 thingsthe will to reach for the Moonthe confindence to not count the obstaclesYou have MY call on it KB9RQZ if you can't the data drop me a comment here or http://emekb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Deadly Force Michigan and me

Amusing the way those that claim I am a nonenity are always trying to advance the notion I am not allowed to defend myself with deadly forceone can read it in the link but the readers degist abridged version amounts that wether or not the Castle doctrines apllies in a given (recent impending changes expand the castle doctrne in Michigan BTW http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15323) acitizen who is not the agressor is only required to retreat from a dangerous sitution in event he SAFELY do so. I point out in RRAP RRCB that I am able to walk easily and thus I would argue if one of these nuts jobs forced me to by getting himself shoot on my land that my ability to safely retreat is seriously limited if it exists at all, and second the threshold to cause me bodilyharm is lower than most becuase of the same health problemsin short since I have been forced to think i conclude that If come accroos a vandal on my land barring his imediate flight I will quickly exaust any option I have not to use force esp deadly force should it be at my disposal (after all I can't put ma shotgun if since he can better move to take and use it against and I can't enage in hand to hand combat to restrain the Vandal without serious risks to both of us)http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20020731_S118181(77)_Riddle4apr02.op.pdf