Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "PeriscopeFilm" channel.

  1. 26
  2. 7
  3. Ham radio was once an interesting and very rewarding hobby. But not now - being able to call anyone in the word on a cellphone, or send an email, makes it look stupid. But the reasons for its demise as a popular hobby predate cellphones and the internet and are evident in this old 70's film: Store-bought equipment and obsolete technology. While it talks about making your own equipment, almost all the gear shown is store-bought. There's not much fun, and no real gain in knowledge, in being an appliance buyer. When I was in junior high school (early 60's) I decided that ham radio was just the thing - I had been reading electronics magazines and had successfully designed and built a solid state stereo system. In electronics generally, tubes were going out and transistors were coming in. So I built a receiver for a ham band (all solid state) and set about building a 10 watt transmitter, also all solid state. As the licensing authority here in Australia essentially limited novice hams to the VHF bands, this was quite a challenge, but I mastered it. Up to that point, I had not met or spoken to any other hams. But once on the air, the universal response was "You built in yourself? With transistors? Are you nuts? You should have just bought an old tube-type taxi transceiver and changed the crystals." (Lots of these old tube transceivers had been scrapped because the Govt had decided to halve the channel spacing). I was disgusted. I was under a misapprehension - I thought ham radio was about designing and building it yourself, so you could learn the technology, learn some radio engineering, and help advance the state of the art. Silly me - it's not that at all - its about old men having a gossip. After a few weeks I forgot all about ham radio and never went back to it. You'd think they would want to see photos and the circuit. No, they were not interested - they thought it was stupid. Since then, the odd ham has said to me something along the lines of "oh, but we are researching propagation, advancing that field." Well, sorry mate, no way. In the 1950's and 60's the US military did and sponsored a heck of a lot of research into propagation. It's all available in professional journal papers and textbooks - far beyond what any ham would know.
    7
  4. 7
  5. 7
  6.  @ohio  : Communism need never have started in Vietnam. And it had nothing to do with the USA and Australia anyway. What happened is this: At the end of World War 2, Mountbatten decided to divide Vietnam into two - North and South, just as he did with Korea. And the Allies decided, without consulting the Vietnamese, to give it back to the pre-war colonial power - France. There's 2 things wrong with this:- a) Mountbatten thought that the North would come under the protection of Ally Chiang Ki Check, and the French would look after the South. b) He didn't take into account the wishes of the Vietnamese. The first thing that happened was that Chiang Kai Sheck was driven out of China mainland by communist Mao Tse Tung. This was inevitable given Chiang's corruption and general incompetence, and Mao being smart and backed by the USSR. The second thing that happened was that Vietnamese leaders asked Western leaders for help in getting the French out, as they had had it up to here with foreign domination, but nobody wanted to know. So they asked China for help. China said yes, we'll help, but you must adopt communism. That incensed American politicians, so they decided to go to war. Realise this, and you should then realise that Vietnam wanting unification and independence via communism was a consequence of Western stupidity. War in Vietnamn was a consequence of Western stupidity. Yes, hindsight can be 20/20, but sometimes foresight is completely lacking. Changing a country's borders against the wishes of the people never works well.
    6
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. Willard, you could not be more wrong, although he became deeply flawed later in life. During World War 2, after the Japanese started the War in the Pacific by attacking Pearl Harbour, it became apparent that Japan was intending to attack and invade Australia. Since Britain refused to help, failed to use our troops effectively in the War in Europe and North Africa, and essentially pretended the War in the Pacific was of no consequence in order to serve Britain's own ends, and available senior military officers in Australia were not up to the task, our Prime Minister asked the USA to help by send us an experienced capable general to take charge. The USA sent Gen Douglas MacArthur, available as he had been ordered out of the Philippines and was then 62 years old and had retired 4 years previously. He performed brilliantly, preventing by his leadership and strategy the Japanese for getting any closer than they already were, half way across New Guinea. He took command of the US and Australian occupation forces in Japan, sent there to get the country back on its feet after all their cities had been carpet bombed, keep the communists out, and make reforms so that Japan could be an effective modern democracy. Again, he performed brilliantly, and Japan quickly became an economic powerhouse directly because of the reforms MacArthur drove them to make. However, he took charge of US forces in Korea in the Korean War. This didn't go well due to huge assistance given to the North by China. MacArthur wanted to use nukes, and when the US President refused to authorise any nuclear bombs, MacArthur proposed to render the North and part of China uninhabitable by spreading nuclear waste around. In this way, MacArthur, now 71, showed that he had lost the plot, was now a dangerous menace, and the US President had to sack him.
    3
  22. 2
  23.  @erickrobertson7089  : You are pretty right on Vietnam - the US did indeed had no understanding of the situation. Essentially, the Vietnamese were by then pretty fed up with foreigners trying to run their country, and just wanted them all gone. They were prepared to to go to any lengths to get the foreigners out. What I find hard to understand was why the US put Gen Westmoreland in charge - who promptly lived up to his reputation within the US military as an incompetent "rock painter". Was it just some sort of game in which the US WANTED to loose? One can assign various practical aspects as to why the US lost the Vietnam War (lack of political understanding, no attempt to properly encript comms, McNamara's Morons, corruption, etc) but the prime cause was Westmoreland's incompetence. The US in acting as a sort of international policeman often made things worse, due to their culture preventing them from understanding what actually goes on. My motivation in posting was in part to show that Vietnam was an example of this. My main motivation was to remind people of something that this American film does not mention: The Korean War resulted from decisions imposed on them by the West, and Mountbatten in particular. As an expedient, Stalin, Churchill, and Truman divided the world involved in the WW2 into 2 - a part to be controlled by the US (and Britain) and a part to be controlled by the USSR. That was not ideal, but would not necessarily have led to any subsequent war. However, they left it to Mountbatten to divide Indochina. The idiot decided to divide countries up. He split Vietnam along line somewhat naturally along North/hill tribe and South/urban lines. He also split Korea into 2. If he had not done that, there would have been no Korean War. He spilt Korea into 2 because he thought that North Korea could be looked after by Chiang Kai Shev, reducing the burden on the West. Korea was never intended by the West or Mountbatten to be communist, but that should have been an issue for the Koreans. Naturally the USSR and China - especially China were keen so see it go communist, and took political and practical advantage of the split created by Mountbatten.
    2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30.  @stevek8829  : You need to read more widely and with more care. The post-World War 2 history of Vietnam is very complex, but here is an overview, somewhat more detailed than I posted before:- Following WW2. Vietnam was divided into 2 by the silly & ignorant Mountbatten. This naturally led to 3 things: the North going communist in order to get help from China, both the South and the North wanting to unite, and both wanting to fight and get the French out of the South. The South came to be run by the non-communist Diem government, which took over by force and was not legitimate. If free elections had been held, the communist party would have won, leading immediately to unification. The USA decided to send a small number of forces to prop up the Diem government. This didn't work, so they escalated and sent very large forces. They also installed a puppet government - the Thieu government, which had almost no support from the Vietnamese people. Any request to the US from the Thieu government was thus a sham. Both US and Australian forces sent to Vietnam were called "advisors", as were Australian forces sent to Afghanistan. They were called advisors for legal and propaganda reasons - in the case of Australian soldiers, they cannot legally be sent to fight in an overseas war zone unless the government declares war on the opposing participating countries - this involves constitutional difficulties. A declaration of war would obviously have been inadvisable anyway as China was assisting Vietnam. Nobody with any sense believes that the "advisors" were advising and not fighting. Certainly not the Vietnam veterans I know, who all served as privates and got shot at and fired their own guns, seriously risking their lives. Not a single one gave any sort of advice to any Vietnamese - not during the Diem era nor the Thieu era. If you believe they were only advising, at any time, I suggest you watch the available films of them fighting. Nobody with any sense believes that individual Australian and US men went to Vietnam with evil intent - they were forced to go, most as conscripts. That's partly why the Vietnamese are happy to have us visit today. But it WAS evil of the US Government to send their forces and coerce the Australian government to also send conscripted troops. One of the legal fictions/shams that our government in Australia instituted due to not having declared war was that nobody was legally forced to go to Vietnam at all. They were all volunteers. In theory. How it worked was this: Teenagers were conscripted for basic military training as grunts, which was legal under the constitution. Upon completion of training, each was asked to volunteer for service in Vietnam. Anybody that refused was then ear-bashed and shamed by progressively higher officers until he weakened. If that didn't work, he could be referred to an army psychiatrist. Few failed to weaken at that stage, but those that did didn't go to Vietnam.
    2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37.  @stargazer7644  The thing is, if what you do is buy equipment and use it to talk on air (whether voice or packet data or whatever), the novelty is likely to wear off, since you are not doing anything your neighbour can't do with his mobile phone. But if you design, engineer, and build your own gear, you can do something the neighbour can't, and you are much more likely to stick with it and keep up with the technology. Sure it can cost more to build your own than to buy, but just about any hobby costs you money. That just means there is not so much fun in building someone else's design or a design published in a magazine. You get a LOT more out of it if you design and engineer your own. I figured out how to design circuits when I was in primary school and germanium transistors were the latest thing. 70 years later I'm still designing and engineering circuits - its still fun. Not ham radio circuits though. My experience described in the head of this thread is why. Those guys who spend $6,000 on an IC-905 or whatever and be on 10 GHz the same day - are they real hams? No, they are just appliance users. The entry hurdles to get a license are not significant. I did it when I was a 13 year old schoolboy. The requirements are a lot less stringent now. I didn't do a club course - I just bought the ARRL manual and read it. It was more than sufficient to pass the exam (which required candidates to draw circuits and write words explaining how they worked, no silly multiple choice tick the right box jokes.) I own a couple of high performance general coverage receivers - they are quite useful in various ways in a home-based electronics lab, especially since I designed and built them and calibrated the AGC for accurate dB readings. Ham bands are pretty quiet these days. There is more "hash" these days due to the proliferation of computers and switch mode power supplies in consumer equipment, etc, so a signal has to be a few dB stronger than in the 1960's and low cross modulation in receivers is critical. But even allowing for that, the ham bands are pretty quiet compared to what they used to be. Maybe you live in a much larger city than I do, so more transmitters within line of sight for the VHF and higher bands for you. Just as a check for this post I checked the HF ham bands using one of my old general coverage receivers - found only 3 or 4 weak voice signals and some kind of piccolo code - probably an embassy somewhere on a channel they shouldn't be on. I checked with a WinRadio card in one of my PC's for activity up to 2 GHz - no hams on the air this evening. Admittedly the WinRadio noise floor is a bit high. I have no idea how the ARRL has estimated how technically active hams are. I freely admit - how long is a piece of string? Only about 20% of American hams are members of the ARRL (because of the cost??) - did they just estimate for members or hams in general? I do not know. some years ago I trialed a subscription to QEX but the quality of articles was not very good.
    1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1