Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+cq\s+160m\s+cw\s+spot\s+analysis\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+cq\s+160m\s+cw\s+spot\s+analysis\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] cq 160m cw spot analysis (score: 1): Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:13:32 -0000; I'll keep this to the bare minimum this time... only a few really big ones stand out. The top 10 spot getters for the weekend: DX count YT6A 94 A61AJ 76 VP5/VE3NE 74 EA8BH 74 MD4K 58 D4B 55 JT1CO 49; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00447.html (13,127 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] cq 160m cw spot analysis (score: 1): Author: "Timo Klimoff" <timo.klimoff@dnainternet.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:33:09 +0200; OH2NQ and OH5JH are fake calls. OH2BNW is a real call but with google search has only one hit (to Finnish "FCC" call sign list) = propably faked inactive call. Selfspotting seems to be quite easy is; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00454.html (8,072 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] cq 160m cw spot analysis (score: 1): Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>; Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:29:54 +0200; I seriously doubt YT6A made those spots. They would have to be really plain stupid. Somebody from locals seems to have had fun trying to make them look cheaters. There is a spot from YU6ESC (op at YT; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00457.html (10,810 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] cq 160m cw spot analysis (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:04:21 +0000 (GMT); Clearly some people are cheating. More importantly, I totally agree with Tonno ES5TV: AURORA causes UNFAIR ABSORPTION and MUST BE BANNED 73 Roger VE3ZI _______________________________________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2004-01/msg00476.html (7,996 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]