Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
  1. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ah, bright people are now taking this a zillion miles further than I could ever have accomplished. That is great for amateur radio.
     
    K0IDT likes this.
  2. WF4W

    WF4W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    [​IMG]
     
    KA4DPO likes this.
  3. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    And yet another hollow argument trying to defend an indefensible system.
     
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Good to hear from you again. When we last met, you made some interesting statements. Could please answer some questions regarding your post:
    https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...s-use-compression.672189/page-10#post-5190507

    1. When did Mr. Roubelat write the FCC?
    2. Have you read this document on the "modulation/compression" used by Pactor IV: http://www.p4dragon.com/download/PACTOR-4 Protocol.pdf ?
    3. If you have read that 42 page disclosure and still find it inadequate, can you cite with quotes exactly which sentence(s) and/or paragraphs you feel are incorrect or inadequate?
    4. Can you explain what experiments you have made to cause you to believe that Mr. Helfert is totally wrong in his statement that the modem can read P4? -- or did I misunderstand your view?

    Those are fairly straightforward questions, I believe.
     
  5. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    DPO cannot answer they is why he will not, has not and cannot. He will only attack... lol
     
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    NL7W had a very interesting demand regarding making algorithms known --
    "Make the compression / decompression algorithm publicly known!"

    He was referring to a message from N1FM that appeared to be quoting a highy disputed (and inaccurate) article about PACTOR from the gem of all wisdom....wikipedia.

    Of course -- the Pactor compression you can read about in their published texts.
    The WINLINK compression is LZHUF_1.EXE and it has been put on the internet so many times it is HARD TO COUNT!!!!! The entire protoccol has been documented in writings in 1999, and since, on the winlink page and now repeated in toto by me on FCC filings......it would be amazing if someone didn't know THAT HAS BEEN PUBLIC FOR DECADES.

    For the PACTOR compression (which isn't used by WINLINK ) -- you can read the source code to your heart's content on pp 24-41 of this document https://www.p4dragon.com/download/PACTOR-3 Protocol.pdf as well as more terse descriptions in all the earlier Pactor Technical Descriptions.



    It just looks bad when people don't even know what has already been publicly disclosed, and make demands as if it has been kept a secret. Very bad. Very bad.
     
  8. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    NL7W is just "the gift that keeps on giving" when it comes to statements....

    See: https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/wide-bandwidth-digital-danger.639948/page-30#post-4924376

    here, N8OHU had made an attempt to point out F6FBB B2 compression....which had been around for at least 18 years....(and publicly documented, folks, WITH SOURCE CODE. The Descriptions that I read were what helped me understand how, once again, to read what everone before me also learned how to read.....

    But NL7W was having none of this explanation by N8OHU...

    "If it encodes or encrypts email message content to where it is only read by sysops and email receiptients [sic]-- yest, it is illegal Care to differ? Sing your tune"

    Oh my.....so much wrong with that.
    1. The compression was public domain. All anyone had to do was what Huggins and I and Peter all did --- apply the publicly available instructions.
    2. There is no encryption.
    3. The only reason it wasn't readable is NO ONE DID WHAT THE THREE OF US DID.... and why might that be, folks? more fun to bicker for 19 years???
    4. Claiming it is illegal huh??? One might wish to retract that....it is a provably false claim.

    Oh my, folks....so many false false statements now obvious.....

    The upright thing to do would be to publiclyl apologize to the WINLINK folks and to the PACTOR folks and admit that all of this was public domain and one just didn't KNOW that, and didn't take the effort to DO THE WORK to apply the publicly available information. That is the way to handle it when one has made false claims against other people, or their products, or their work product.
     
  9. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    THERE ARE A LOT LOT MORE PROVABLY FALSE STATEMENTS to go over, folks, but that's enough for now. Remember, other people have rights. You can't make provably false statements about them, have the error pointed out, be asked for a retraction, and refuse to do it in good conscience. That just isn't right. And there were people in that thread trying to point out the truth -- and they were ignored. Looks very bad, very bad. We all make mistakes....but when they are pointed out, it is time to apolgoize and retract them and undo the damage one has done to the other fellow's reputation, the nights of sleep that they lost, the turmoil caused in their lives, the harm to their work or their firm.

    You can avoid a lot of problems by apologizing and doing what you can to make amends.
     
  10. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why have they not gotten the point that Ham Radio.. Nothing we do.. be it WINLINK or what have you use has EVER BEEN ENCRPTED... End of story...
    It would be illegal by todays Part 97 to ENCRYPT any Ham Radio Transmission..

    No Changes required..

    73 Jerry N9LYA
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019 at 5:04 PM

Share This Page