Barrett programing
Ralph
software
BARRETT 900 SERIES ( TRC-930/940/950 THOMSON CSF ), TRANPROG v1.25
or similar version
The software on their web site is demo only :-(
Any help would be appreciated
Ralph
Eddie
to program the radio directly.
"Ralph" <ralph....@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Ralph
I would also like to activate extra menus on radio like B.I.T.E. (self test)
also be able to select low/hi power, currently at hi power on all channels
"Eddie" <eddie_...@optusnet.com> wrote in message
news:41b579aa$0$9113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Jim
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/barrett_hf_radio/
Cheers
Jim
"Ralph" <ralph....@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b6...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Eddie
MENU
enter default password
1234
this should open up the menu to change your settings etc
BITE is not of much use, need to be in usb mode and not on some bands before
doing it, or it gives false readings.
depending on firmeware versions and hardware versions there are heaps of
software bugs and hardware fixups that can be done.
some firmware is incompatable with some board versions, a real dogs
breakfast in my opinoin.
Eddie
worry. Everything will be all right. You'll see. Now it's Bobby's
turn." Such coolness differs greatly from what is revealed in the
recently declassified LBJ tapes in which, after the
assassination, Rose could not even speak two sentences to the
Johnsons without dissolving into tears. But the portrait is in
keeping with the ruthless monarchy that Davis takes great pains
to portray.
As I said above, the main focus is Kennedy's short-lived
"dynastic" presidency. And this is where some real questions
about Davis' methodology and intent arise. As he does in his
assassination book Mafia Kingfish, Davis proffers a long
bibliography to create the impression of immense scholarship and
many hours quarrying the truth out of books, files, and
libraries. But, like the later book, the text is not footnoted.
So if the reader wishes to check certain facts, or locate the
context of a comment or deduction, he is generally unable to do
so. But fortunately, some of us have a background that enables us
to find out where certain facts and deductions came from. This is
crucial. For in addition to his wild inflation about the
prominence of the Kennedy family in the power elite, another of
Davis' prime objectives is to reverse the verdict of the Church
Committee and place Kennedy in the center of the CIA plots to
kill Castro.
Pinning the Plots on Kennedy
As I said in Part One of this article, there is no evidence of
such involvement in either the CIA's Inspector General report of
1967, or in the Church Committee's report, Alleged Assassination
Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, issued in late 1975. In fact,
both advance evidence
Jim
many people he thought would read the actual report versus how
many would pick up the paperback version of his book (which
features a blurb by Liz Smith). To me what these authors have
done at least suggests the "reckless disregard" rubric of the
libel statute.
To be fair to the Kennedys, it is hard to castigate a family
which has sustained so many tragedies. Andy Harland called up
Steve Jones after reading his article in The Humanist (Probe Vol.
4 #3 p. 8). He was an acquaintance of Peter Lawford's who talked
to him a few times about the assassination. Jones' notes from
that phone call includes the following:
Lawford told him that Jackie knew right away that shots came
from the front as did Powers and O'Donnell. He said shortly
after the funeral the family got together.... Bobby told the
family that it was a high level military/CIA plot and that
he felt powerless to do anything about it.... the family
always felt that JFK's refusal to commit to Vietnam was one
of the reasons for the assassination....Lawford told him
that the kids were all told the truth as they grew up but it
was Teddy who insisted that the family put the thing to
rest.
Evidently, Teddy wanted to preserve his career in the political
arena and knew that any airing of the case would jeopardize it.
Which was probably true. Under those circumstances, the Kennedys
can't even protect themsel
Ralph
give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to
kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a
Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not
enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In
intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the
waters. This means that by confusing and confounding the listener
with diverse and prolific amounts of information, the main point
becomes obfuscated. Since none of the Mafia plots succeeded, one
could claim they were ineffectual. The huge amount of publicity
garnered by them could eventually be deflected onto the Mob's
role in them and not the Agency's. The AM/LASH plots, exposed in
even more copious documentation, could be used in a similar way.
If Castro knew about these plots within his midst, couldn't he
then claim turnabout and use the same tactics by employing a
Communist in the U.S. to kill Kennedy? This, or a combination of
the two, has been what suspect writers like Jean Davison and Jack
Anderson have been foisting on the public for years.
The Establishment Takes Some Hits
The political fallout from the Church Committee was quite
intense. The CIA took quite a few hits, though it emerged intact.
Eastern Establishment-GOP mainstay Allen Dulles was implicated in
the authorization of two assassination plots (Lumumba and
Castro). Even Republican icon Dwight Eisenhower was implicated:
The chain of events revealed by the documents and testimony is
strong enough to permit a reasonable inference that the plot to
assassinate Lumumba was authorized by President Eisenhower.
Nixon was shown to be obsessed with getting rid of the Allende
regime in Chile. And since he had already been disgraced with
Watergate, his defenders, like Bill Safire of the New York Times,
felt that this was piling on. As we shall see, Safire struck back
through Judith Exner.
But the plots against Castro took cen
Eddie
true." The suggestion in the last sentence is that everything
else is not. Or, at least, the diary's destruction is all she
knows for a fact.
If Mary's own sister is not forthright, then who among the rest
is? Don't rely on Rosenbaum to find out. He is a friend of both
Angleton and the Post. Consider the man who helped him write his
1976 Mary Meyer piece, one Philip Nobile. When I interviewed
Deborah Davis about the attempted censorship of her book, which
exposed the Post's ties to the CIA, she told me that her troubles
began with a whispering campaign to her publisher. The whisperer
was Rosenbaum's partner Nobile. When that wasn't enough, Nobile
talked to Alexander Cockburn of the Village Voice. Cockburn
printed the rumors that her book was unfounded and that she had
cried in her publishers' office when challenged on this. Both
accounts were untrue. But Cockburn was not an unbiased observer.
As Nobile must have known, his live-in girlfriend at the time was
Kay Graham's daughter. It is odd that Rosenbaum would choose to
write on such a controversial subject with someone who seems to
be such a friend to the Post. Related to that, in his 1991
reflections on the 1976 article, and in the article itself, he
tries to insinuate that these people - Bradlee, the Truitts, the
Angletons - are actually friends of Kennedy. In addition,
Rosenbaum and others never seemed to ask why those involved all
seemed so eager to violate Mary's privacy by reading the diary.
In no version I have read was th
Ralph
her, whenever there is friction in the relationship, Kennedy
pours on the charm to smooth it out. Even when Hoover confronts
him with the Exner-Giancana association, Kennedy insists on
seeing her. At one time, he asks her to board Air Force One with
him. She won't because she wants to spare Jackie's dignity.
There is one scene in the book that caps her aforementioned
personal appeal vs. JFK's. It crystallizes the Errol Flynn/Don
Juan image that Exner wishes to construct out of Kennedy. It is
used by some authors of the type we will discuss, most notably
CIA-FBI toady and New York Times-Washington Post veteran Ron
Kessler in his book Sins of the Father. On the first day of the
Democratic convention in Los Angeles in 1960, Kennedy sends for
Exner. She arrives at the hotel but several people are there,
including Kennedy's sister. He assures her that they will all be
leaving momentarily and that he wants to be alone with her in his
moment of victory. Eventually most of the visitors leave except
for two: a tall skinny secretarial type, and Kennedy's adviser
Ken O'Donnell. As JFK and Exner slip into the bedroom, the
secretary type slips into the bathroom. Exner is puzzled.
Kennedy/Flynn then suggests a menage a trois. Exner is outraged,
"I can't tell you how disappointed I am in you." Kennedy is in
love with her though. Sweetly, he eventually calms her down and
they later resume their relationship.
There was something about this hotel scene that bothered me.
Something was off and I couldn't put my fin
Ralph
the ones I want etc and also to delete/add tx frequencies..
"Eddie" <eddie_...@optusnet.com> wrote in message
news:41b6c4e7$0$17883$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...