This editorial is my opinion, shaped by years as an active DXpeditioner and reinforced by my role as a HQ member of the DA-RC. 
Some guys may find it uncomfortable. That’s fine. But as my Dad used to say, “comfort has never improved standards!” And this is an adage I tend to live by…
At its core, Freeband DXing—ours and my favourite hobby—does and has always run on trust. But for me, trust isn’t blind faith. Rather, it’s earned through transparency, accountability, and evidence.
When those ingredients are missing, however, things quickly degenerate into little more than what I’d call “storytelling over a mic”.
On the 11m band in particular, in the absence of formal neutral validation systems like those we might find in the Ham community, we need to be honest with ourselves.
Claims without proof, after all, are worth nothing!
The Freeband Community is Easy to Rort
Rare DX is intoxicating. A new IOTA, a highly sought-after Division, especially an ATNO, will instantly light up the QRG…
And that’s precisely why our community is vulnerable to being rorted.
Claiming to be QRV from a rare DXstination is easy. Proving it, is another matter entirely!
For me, when unverified claims are allowed to stand, DX Hunters waste time and money, awards and milestones lose meaning, and genuine DXpeditioners end up tarred with the same brush.
One questionable activation, furthermore, can undo years of good work!
Clubs That Look the Other Way Are Part of the Problem
Here’s the uncomfortable part: clubs that are slack with validation of their members’ activities actively enable this behaviour…
And there are several clubs in our community, unfortunately, who are guilty in this area. Clubs who should know better.
When a club promotes an activation without demanding proof, or validates it internally while refusing to share evidence with the wider DX community, it isn’t being neutral—it’s empowering the problem!
Silence from our clubs actually becomes an endorsement for rubbish behavior. Weak standards become permission…
A club that rubber-stamps claims isn’t actually protecting its members. It’s damaging them and the hobby!
And for what? To say their club achieved the rare DX before another? It’s embarrassing!
DXpedition validation exists for one reason: to stop hoaxes, exaggeration, and outright fabrication from poisoning the well.
Anything less than that is negligence!
Proof Is Not Hard Anymore—So Don’t Pretend It Is
There was a time when documenting a DXpedition took real effort. That time is long gone…
Today, every DXpeditioner carries a high-res camera, audio recorder, video rig, GPS, and publishing platform in their pocket. It’s called a phone.
If an operator can’t produce photos, recordings, or videos from a claimed location in 2026, that’s not bad luck—it’s a red flag.
In my head, the technology excuse for not providing proofs is dead. Privacy concerns, too, can be managed. If guys could find a way 50 years ago (See above and below), then so can a guy in modern times.
In my opinion, there’s no credible reason not to provide proof!
DA-RC’s Position: No Proof, No Validation
At the DA-RC, proofing is non-negotiable. Full stop…
As a HQ member, I can say this plainly: if you activate under our banner, you will provide proof. Not eventually. Not if asked. Not selectively.
Proof is expected, timeframes are enforced, and validation is earned—not assumed. At a HQ level, we do this not because we enjoy bureaucracy, but because we refuse to contribute to the erosion of trust on 11m that some groups perpetuate.
The DA-RC will continue to set the standard for proofing, even if that makes some people uncomfortable. High standards always upset those who can’t—or won’t—meet them.
Believe Less. Verify More
If there’s one message I’d love our DX community to take away from this editorial, it’s this: “stop accepting claims on faith alone!”
Demanding transparency with things of this nature isn’t hostility.
Proofing isn’t an insult.
Verification of an activity isn’t distrust.
It’s how a serious hobby like ours protects itself from being turned into a circus by clowns in a HQ or DXpeditioner costume.
For me, a DXpedition doesn’t end when the station goes QRT. It ends when the activity is proven, validated, and openly accepted by the wider DX community. Anything else is just QRM.
And in my view, as someone who is seriously invested in its future, the 11m DX community deserves better than that!
Hi Darren, yes, that’s right, many don’t provide proof of their activations. Some even steal photos of amateur radio activations to create fake ones. There are also 500s that aren’t on the DXCC list, so I don’t contact them at all because we don’t know if the ham is in a good DXCC location. There was a group in Greece that was doing activations from their country, for example, an African country whose number I don’t remember. With my 6-element Yagi from back then, it was clear that pointing in the DXCC direction was not good at all, and pointing towards channel 18, it was working at 5/9+. In any case, I know that I’m logged into several DXCCs by you and Giovanni. In any case, I can’t pay the $3 per contact that radio groups ask for, some of which I no longer log into because of their bogus 500s. Anyway, the US dollar… And PayPal doesn’t want to give any more money to those thieves. I’d be happy to meet if I can, given my small pension and my poor English. 14hd001 dan and 14zk1399. However, I can send via EQSL.
May I add, that, moreover, providing proofs is a way not to decide for the others. There are DXCCs that aren’t clear cut (ITU, UN, Scarborough) and since the DXCC rules can NOT be exactly applied to 11m (for instance, section I, point 7 of the DXCC rules) there is still some place for interpretation of what is valid or not for some DXCCs (a Filipino licensed DXpedition from Scarborough wouldn’t count for the DXCC “Scarborough reef” on ham bands, but for a Philippines IOTA, while on 11m, from the very same place, it would, since you don’t need and won’t get a chinese licence anyway).
Nick 14AT228
Thanks Darren, this information is very important for all 11 mts community without evidence not validation correct 100% .
My respect and Vy 73’s
73 de Ramon
Very good article!
2NY140 Terry