Print

[WD9EWK]

I didn't respond to this last night, as I was getting set up to receive SSTV pictures from the ISS before going to bed.

I dunno ... we just operate differently. I use first-hand sources ... you want to use a second-hand, un-involved source as gospel.

I have no doubt of Paul's honesty and integrity. But he was not involved in the emails and phone calls that Barry and I exchanged.

Not being a party to your one-on-one conversations with Barry doesn't mean what Paul said is false. You have used that sort of insinuation in the past in other dealings with Barry and AMSAT. If what Paul said about Barry and your conversation(s) was true, then there was no need for Paul to actually hear the conversation (or be in the e-mail exchange) first-hand.

I am happy you agree with me about Paul's honesty and integrity, and are willing to say that in this forum. It would have been disappointing if you were trying to lead people to think otherwise about him.

AMSAT-NA put conditions on me offering "incentives" for new members (sending them a freewill gift simply for joining AMSAT-NA). Barry had concerns that my gifts had monetary value, and he was afraid my mentioning AMSAT-NA might jeopardize his 501(c)(3) standing. I saw his point. Did not completely agree with it (having also consulting with my own CPA). And the conditions Barry cited really eliminated me promoting "AMSAT-NA" in my offer.

Your auction shows a value for each item, so it is reasonable to believe this could endanger the status of donations to a 501(c)(3) entity like AMSAT. Instead of someone making a donation without expecting anything in return from AMSAT, there would be a gift of some value in return for the donation. That could be seen as a sale, and not as a donation. Especially in the context of an auction, where multiple bids on an item would increase the value of that item.

If this is indeed the case, AMSAT has good reasons why it needs to protect its 501(c)(3) status. Losing that could have an impact on the donations it receives. For those in the US taking advantage of the tax deductability of donations, those donations could slow down. For launching our satellites, AMSAT would lose direct access to NASA's ELaNa (Experimental Launch of Nanosatellites) program. Sure, AMSAT could change how it partners with universities, where the universities would have to take the lead on applying for those launch opportunities through the ELaNa program. That sort of change might limit how many satellites we can get into orbit, and whether or not the amateur payloads (transponders) have the same priority on those missions as it does with AO-85, and possibly with Fox-1B.

As for any other conditions, I don't know what they are. In any event, AMSAT - like any other organization in that situation - may need to take actions that protect its legal or tax status. Even if that closes the door on some fundraising opportunities.

Again, good luck with your auctions. Hopefully more of those items get bids.

[K6LCS]

WD9EWK>> ... In my roles as Director of Field Operations and Area Coordinator ...

You have told some satellite program presenters to change wording on some of their slides, and alienated several who are actively promoting the satellites.

Nothing I wold be proud of ...

Just acquired a really unique item I am selling for charities' benefit: It is a USPS / NASA project from Shuttle Mission STS-8. This item is UNIQUE because it is the first to record the flight into space with originating and returning postal cancellations. The stamp affixed is also noteworthy because it was issued at the Kennedy Space Center on August 12, 1983. The August 14 cancellation date indicates the day STS-8 was scheduled to launch with this envelope in its cargo bay. And there is the cancellation date when the Shuttle CHALLENGER returned to Earth.

Communications satellite INSAT-1B was deployed during this mission, as well as several important experiments. One experiment included using an electrical field to separate molecules in liquid suspension - for possible pharmaceutical applications. Also, the 50-foot-long mechanical arm in the cargo payload area was tested in preparation for retrieving the Solar Observatory Satellite which was launched several years beforehand to monitor our Sun.

This envelope comes in a beautiful three-page binder, with photographs and description of the mission. It is a wonderful, frame-able piece of American Space History.

Clint Bradford K6LCS
http://work-sat.com/Auction.html
(909) 999-SATS
(909) 999-7287

[WD9EWK]

You have told some satellite program presenters to change wording on some of their slides, and alienated several who are actively promoting the satellites.

This is another case of you misrepresenting the conversation. You weren't on that phone call, and - even if you were - this statement is false.

I never tell anyone they must change their presentations. For the specific instance that you are referring to, I suggested that a presentation about working satellites should offer more than one or two options for someone looking to get a radio and antenna for SO-50, the only FM satellite we had at that time (late 2013). That's all. I give the same advice in my presentations and demonstrations, explaining that there is no one magic radio/antenna combination needed to work a satellite - especially an FM satellite. I also give this advice to anyone who asks me about how to address this part of a presentation or demonstration, on what equipment can be used. This is different than if the presentation was more like "This is how I work satellites", where someone would describe their equipment, which may be one radio/antenna combination.

As for this gentleman, he had asked me for over 2 years to become an AMSAT Area Coordinator. When I became Director of Field Operations in June 2013, my first act was to contact him and ask him if he wanted to be an Area Coordinator. He did, and I made that appointment. Interestingly enough, he resigned his appointment four days after you were dismissed as an Area Coordinator. I was disappointed to see him resign, but wished him luck in the future.

I have seen his presentation once, in 2014. Other than taking issue with one point in his presentation (being able to work Europe from the US Midwest on an FM satellite at that time - it was only possible with HO-68 when it was in FM mode, from late 2009 to early 2011, and certainly not via SO-50), I had no issues with his presentation. Might I have presented the content differently? Sure. But everyone does presentations in their own way.

As for alienating anyone, if this is in reference to that gentleman and his group, I don't know what to say about that. It's another misstatement by Clint, full stop. For me to counter this, based on e-mails I have received over the past 9 or 10 years, I'd have to reduce this to yet another contest involving a ruler or measuring tape.

[K6LCS]

>> ... this statement is false ...

Want me to have one of those whom you wanted to change their Dayton presentation to give you a call?

Clint Bradford

[WD9EWK]

Want me to have one of those whom you wanted to change their Dayton presentation to give you a call?

Dayton presentation? I never discussed that specifically with that gentleman. I saw one slideshow that was sent to me in late 2013, and offered suggestions based on what I saw in there in a late 2013 phone call. That's it. This was months before that 2014 presentation in Dayton. Then he resigned his AMSAT appointment as I said, 4 days after you were dismissed from yours.

As for a phone call, I'm not sure what that would accomplish. That gentleman, and his group, are doing their own thing. We parted on friendly terms, when he resigned his appointment. It seems like the only person who has issues with all of this is you.

[K6LCS]

So much nonsense ... boring 99.999% of the readers here. I am not changing what I have been doing the past decade. AMSAT and ARRL officials  have seen my show, and no one is complaining about any of its content. I wanted to raise money for AMSAT-NA, but I did not like the restrictions placed upon me - no problem, nothing against AMSAT-NA, but I chose others to benefit.

And my Web site "errors?" A true gentleman would have CALLED me ...

CALLER: "Clint - on your Fox-1 page. You know that little icon graph you're using? Dude, that's the OLD freqs. Of course, anyone who clicks on it for a .pdf copy of the freqs always receives the CORRECT freqs, but you might wanna change that little image ... "

CLINT: "Dude - you are right. That little icon IS wrong - but, as we all know, the freq chart that is downloaded when they click on it IS correct. I will change that tonight!"

CALLER: "And thanks, Clint, for getting that info out in print before anyone else - it only helps us promote the Fox project."

CLINT: "No problem - had the freq chart reviewed by AMSAT-NA before publishing. Glad to be of service."

PERIOD.

A one-minute call. Instead, you have written a score of messages and several hundred words.

We do, indeed, operate differently.

Clint Bradford
(909) 999-SATS

[WD9EWK]

So much nonsense ... boring 99.999% of the readers here. I am not changing what I have been doing the past decade.

So, more plagiarism, fabrications, and misdirection? Oh, joy.

And my Web site "errors?" A true gentleman would have CALLED me ...

And this coming from someone who just said that he didn't want a one-on-one call with me, just two days ago...

I have absolutely no desire to speak with you "one-on-one."

(from a thread here on eHam's satellite forum, http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,108627.msg919241.html#msg919241 )

You say I should call you, yet you also say you won't talk on the phone. Can't have it both ways, Clint. Which is it? My preference is a public forum; less chance of you trying to misrepresent what I say/write that way. If you try to do that, my comments are present for all to see.

You insist that I'm insignificant in your life, yet you spend all this time making false accusations about a phone call 2 1/2 years ago that you weren't a part of, along with replying to my posts, in addition to everything else you have misrepresented (to put it mildly) that has been well documented in various public forums.  Again, trying to have it both ways. Sad.

As for "a true gentleman"... a true gentleman wouldn't do the things you have done in these public forums over 2 1/2 years - plagiarism, fabrications, etc.

Good luck with your auction.

[K6LCS]

You need to cite a precise case of me plagiarizing anyone the past 50 years, or I suggest that you either delete that post or publicly apologize here today.

Clint Bradford

[WD9EWK]

You need to cite a precise case of me plagiarizing anyone the past 50 years, or I suggest that you either delete that post or publicly apologize here today.

I don't know about going back 50 years, but I'll start with just over 2 years ago....

Number 1...

My first run-in with this behavior from Clint was in December 2013. I had posted to the AMSAT-BB list early in the morning on 1 December 2013, after working AO-73 and posting some observations about that satellite. AO-73 had been recently launched and made available for amateur use. That message is in the AMSAT-BB archive at:

http://amsat.org/pipermail/amsat-bb/2013-December/047415.html

Shortly after that, AMSAT News Service editor EMike McCardel (then KC8YLD, now AA8EM) asked me if he could use that AMSAT-BB posting as a news item in an ANS bulletin. I was happy he asked, and told him he could do that. He turned my message written in the first person into a third-person report. This appeared in the ANS bulletin EMike sent out on the following Saturday, 7 December 2013:

http://amsat.org/pipermail/ans/2013/000767.html

Later that evening, I saw the ANS report appear in a few different places. All using the same text as the ANS report. All were posted by Clint Bradford, and all omitted the reference to this appearing in the AMSAT News Service bulletin. This appeared here on eHam's satellite forum:

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=93751.0

on QRZ.com's satellite forum:

http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/patrick-works-ao-73.416074/

and Clint's own Work-Sat list:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/work-sat/conversations/messages/3783

Posters on the QRZ.com forum started to question this posting not long after it was posted. Clint tried to claim I was the source of the message, but I didn't write in the third person like that. I gave the AMSAT News Service permission to do that, yet Clint never acknowledged the source of what he posted. Clint claimed on the QRZ.com satellite forum that an "fellow sat aficionado sent it to me via email", who was never named. AMSAT News Service should have been acknowledged as the source of the text Clint posted, but was not. I mentioned that ANS should have been acknowledged in a posting on eHam, and Clint's reply there was: "I will pass that on to K6LCS next time I see him." AMSAT News Service may not be the Associated Press, but it is proper to give credit to the source of information used in a posting like that.



Number 2...

Last summer, just before the launch of Fox-1A (now AO-85), there was a thread on the QRZ.com satellite forum discussing which satellite of three (AO-27, EO-80, Fox-1A) would be active first. The thread was started on 10 July 2015. On 22 August 2015, Clint posted in that thread about news from Vandenberg AFB regarding a launch on 8 October 2015, which was the launch that put Fox-1A/AO-85 into orbit. A link to that post in the discussion thread is:

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/ao-27-eo-80-fox-1a-the-race-is-on.486292/#post-3577083

I posted a screenshot from the SpaceflightNow.com web site right after Clint's post, showing the same item that Clint had posted on the QRZ.com forum. The text of the SpaceflightNow.com post matched what Clint posted, right down to the "[Aug. 20]" appearing at the end of his post. Clint condensed the date and time of the launch into a single line in his post, where it was on separate lines in the screenshot from the SpaceflightNow.com web site. Otherwise, these were identical. SpaceflightNow.com should have been credited with the information in that post.

[K6LCS]

Neither of those cases come anywhere near the legal definition of "plagiarism." You are not the source of either of those instances. The publishers of that info were not offended by getting those messages out to the world.

Vandenberg was the source for the one of your scenarios. Are you miffed that I posted it first? Accreditation was given in the first sentence: "Vandenberg announced this 08/20/2015."  I do not see you on their media department roster for someone to be "wronged."

>> ... Clint tried to claim I was the source of the message, but I didn't write in the third person like that ...

Yet YOU are cited MANY times as the one working the bird. And YOUR videos are cited. But again, the ownership of that piece is not you, but the list service. There's even a "Thanks to Patrick" at the bottom. And THAT you believe is improper and/or illegal?

You cannot file charges of "plagiarism" when you are not the source nor author.

Pretty weak, immaterial, and irrelevant scenarios, Patrick. Nowhere near any legal definition of "plagiarism" on this planet.

[WD9EWK]

Yet YOU are cited MANY times as the one working the bird. And YOUR videos are cited. But again, the ownership of that piece is not you, but the list service. There's even a "Thanks to Patrick" at the bottom. And THAT you believe is improper and/or illegal?

If I wrote the text that you were citing with the "Thanks to Patrick ... ", that would be one thing. As I said here, and back in late 2013, what you quoted came from ANS editor EMike McCardel. Since you did not cite ANS or even EMike as the author of the ANS item in your posts, then you were not giving proper attribution. I may have been the subject of that post, but I was not the author. I only hoped that the author would get credit for what you posted.

You cannot file charges of "plagiarism" when you are not the source nor author.

I am not filing "charges". I made statements about your posts, backed up by the true sources of the information you posted (but did not acknowledge) in each instance. You demanded that I back up my statements, and I have.

Pretty weak, immaterial, and irrelevant scenarios, Patrick. Nowhere near any legal definition of "plagiarism" on this planet.

You asked me to back up what I said regarding your plagiarism. I have done that, complete with links to your posts and the true unacknowledged sources of the information you posted in each instance. Now all of that is in one place, without having to search mailing lists or web forums or a search engine to run down all those references. I met your demand.

[LA9XNA]

Gentlemen!
I don't think this is the right forum for your fight.
This seams to be some kind of "pissing contest" that is better tone by email or other means of communication.

[K6LCS]

Yessir - lHow this notice of a little charitable auction benefitting charities deteriorated into anything else is sad and a waste of
your time.

Clint