Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Bartholomew

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Richard Bartholomew

  • Birthday 02/08/1956

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/bartholoviews
  • Yahoo
    bartholoviews@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

4,736 profile views

Richard Bartholomew's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Hi, Richard. Mr. Caddy actually responded in the separate thread I created for the questions. That exchange is here: Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA After that, you might find of some interest my last three-part series of messages in response to Alfred Baldwin in this thread: Alfred Baldwin For background, you also might enjoy There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate and its foundational articles (linked therein). And after that, I believe you'll see how the article, The "Pentagon Papers" was a CIA op, fits into all the foregoing. I've come to the opinion that the solution to the Jello problem is to place it on a level horizontal surface, then drop the wall on it. No nails required. Thanks for the references, Ashton. I spotted those yesterday, and I will read them. I have often wanted to agree with the "imaginary friend" view of DT. What I have to get past, though, is that much of the DT info could have been obtained only from NSA-type data mining. Did Woodward have that kind of access directly, instead of through a guy like his friend Inman, an Admiral with Naval-Intel/Signal-Corp access? Your certainty tells me there is good evidence for Woodward's direct, prior knowledge, and/or slam-dunk evidence excluding Inman. Can you direct me to that specific information?
  2. I see that questioning these JFK/Watergate players hasn't changed. Outside a courtroom, it's still like nailing Jello to a wall. Even after all of the Mark Felt hype of the past year, I continue to strongly suspect that Admiral Bobby Ray Inman is Deep Throat.
  3. Selected pages from Barr McClellan's manuscript of October 22, 1997, and documentation of my contribution to that research.
  4. The plan became operational on April 24, 1963 when LBJ gave a radio interview at KRLD in Dallas and stated a "go" code about shooting the captain of the ship of state. Several researchers keep hitting on this as a date when major players started moving. But the 1962 elections were crucial in placing Connally and Earle Cabel in important positions. Don't know about Harvey, but Angleton was very familiar with Rome from his past experience there.
  5. Ron, in September, 1997, J revealed the Wallace print evidence to me for the first time. As I recall, at first he approached the Kinser case the same way your brother did. He showed me the letters from his 2-year correspondence with Texas DPS. Initially, he was told that the print card would have been routinely purged from the crime files. J somehow made them look anyway. His contact at DPS wrote that he was surpirsed that the card was still on file. But there followed a series of legal reasons for not releasing it to J. I don't remember all of them, but I think one was that only family could have access. J got legal help and argued against every excuse for two years. Finally, DPS exhausted their defenses and was forced to release the document. There is no need to rely solely on my memory about this, or start from scratch to get the print evidence. I assume J's correspondence with the DPS is in the same place as the certified print card he pried from their reluctant hands -- in the collection of Walt Brown.
  6. Ron, in September, 1997, J revealed the Wallace print evidence to me for the first time. As I recall, at first he approached the Kinser case the same way your brother did. He showed me the letters from his 2-year correspondence with Texas DPS. Initially, he was told that the print card would have been routinely purged from the crime files. J somehow made them look anyway. His contact at DPS wrote that he was surpirsed that the card was still on file. But there followed a series of legal reasons for not releasing it to J. I don't remember all of them, but I think one was that only family could have access. J got legal help and argued against every excuse for two years. Finally, DPS exhausted their defenses and was forced to release the document. There is no need to rely solely on my memory about this, or start from scratch to get the print evidence. I assume J's correspondence with the DPS is in the same place as the certified print card he pried from their reluctant hands -- in the collection of Walt Brown.
  7. Stan, a conspiracy by definition has multiple motives. That is why motive is never pursued in a conspiracy investigation. I discussed focusing on motive as a disinformation technique in my paper: "The Gun That Didn't Smoke". If we deal with the real conspiracy evidence in the assassination, Shanet's "pretexts" from "medical surveillance" has a sophisticated meaning: Kennedy's doctor was assigned to one of the farthest vehicles from the limousine in the motorcade, the VIP bus. He was therefore kept from attending his patient at Parkland Hospital. There was a conspiratorial reason for that. Admiral George Burkley had the medical knowledge and cortisone crucial to saving Kennedy - a trauma patient with an adrenal deficiency. To those who knew about Kennedy's need for cortisone in the event of trauma, it was never necessary to mortally wound him. Any trauma would have killed him. In other words, any major "non-fatal" wound would have killed him, as long as Burkley could be prevented from administering first-aid. The conspirators blew his head open, yes. But because of their "medial surveillance", they did not have to take the chance of requiring a "kill shot." All they had to do was inflict any traumatic wound, and keep the emergency room in the dark about the proper medical history and treatment.
  8. I have hi res files on a CD-ROM scanned from a second generation photocopy of the certified copy of the DPS print card that J obtained. Mike Blackwell did the scanning and CD-burning in January 1998. These could not be used as evidence, however. Nor could the photocopy of the certified print card. Only the signed and stamped DPS certified print card would maintain the chain of evidence. J simply wrote to DPS and convinced them that the card could be made public for various legal reasons. It took two years of correspondence for him to convince them. That process could start again by anyone else, and probably use J's precedent to expedite obtaining another certified card. There is an even faster, simpler way, however: Walt Brown has J's certified print card. It should be made available for examination without delay. Richard
  9. This thread seems to have died in a hurry. Anybody still tracking it? I hope the 2084 who read it last month weren't interested only in A) getting an adrenalin high from 'new' information, and/or being spectators to an ugly fight between Walt Brown and me.
  10. MY ONLINE BIBLIOGRAPHY (as of 3/21/06 - for updates, use link in signature below) Fair Play Issue 17 - Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...mblr_frwrd.html Fair Play Issue 17 - What's the Deal with 13-Inch Heads? (An article by Jack White, with a related item by Richard Bartholomew appended to it.): http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...e/13_heads.html Fair Play Issue 19 - The Gun That Didn't Smoke: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/gtds.html Assassination Research Journal - Volume 1, Issue 2 - The Gun That Didn't Smoke: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html Fair Play Issue 19 - Letter-to-the-editor: Don't trust the Z-Film: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i.../rb_letter.html Fair Play Issue 22 - Book Review of James Fetzer's Assassination Science: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...sue/fetzer.html Fair Play Issue 24 - Dial "P" for Perjury: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...sue/dial_p.html JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly - Dial "P" for Perjury: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/perjur~1.htm Fair Play Issue 25 - Oswald's Closest Friend: A Review of Bruce Adamson's DeMohrenschildt study: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_..._Issue/bca.html JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 1, October 1996, pp. 22-25 - Z-FILM: RED FRAME, WHITE LIGHT: http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/zfilm/zfilm.htm Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints: http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm
  11. Although belated, I want to take this opportunity to thank Robert Howard for starting this thread, and John Simkin for inviting me to participate. Thank you, Robert and John. It is an honor. I am committed to giving honest, constructive, and productive comments and responses to everyone who posts here in that same spirit. Thanks too, to all of you who posted such nice welcome messages. Richard Bartholomew
  12. You're welcome! When Jay told me to remove the references to the other matches before adding my monograph to the press packet, I protested. Only Print 29, Box A exceeded 12 points, and that was Jay's rationale for suppressing them publicly. I reluctantly went along. (When I met Darby in Oct. 2003, he showed me his updated chart, which was up to 34 points.) Richard
  13. Larry, I posted the correction. But after 8 years away from being immersed in the subject, my proofreading was faulty. The current web posting now matches my original, faded hardcopy exactly. On first review, I had thought the fingerprint "New Totals" number for Box B was a mistake because 8+3=11, not 10. Also, my analysis in my last reply to you was incomplete. Here is the definitive explanation on how the WC did and did not account for the Wallace print matches: Print 29, Box A (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 9 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 8 for Studebaker and 1 for Oswald. Print 29 was hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC accounted for it as an identifiable print, there would be a "1" in the "Unidentified" column, instead of a "0". So, Print 29, Box A, is now accounted for as a 10th identifiable print, as well as a 10th identified print. Print 20, Box B (matched in 1998 to Wallace's left thumb) was also not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, 2 for Lucy. However, the WC seems to have made a mistake in that attempt to hide Print 20. Print 20 was labelled "unidentified," a catagory in the WC lists of identifiable latents. The WC further accounted for it as an unidentified, identifiable print by mentioning it in the Report, on page 566. So, Print 20, Box B, was accounted for as an 8th identifiable print, as well and now as an 8th identified print. Print 22, Box B (a single number for two latents matched in 1998 to Wallace's left little finger and left ring finger) was not included in the WC's 1964 official list. The WC listed 7 identifiable prints, and identified all of them as 5 for Studebaker, and 2 for Lucy, plus the obscured unidentifed Print 20. As with Print 29, Box A, latent prints 22 were hidden under the label "indistinct characteristics," a non-catagory in the WC lists. Had the WC fully accounted for them as identifiable prints, there would be a "2" "3" in the "Unidentified" column (or "3" with the inclusion of Print 20, Box , instead of a "0" "1". So, Prints 22, Box B, are now accounted for as 9th and 10th identifiable prints, as well as 9th and 10th identified prints. Finally, please note that this correction applies also to the fingerprint subtotal, which is now 24, and the grand total, which is now 32. Thanks, Larry, for your expert peer review, and help with this proofreading. As to your comment about Nathan, I don't remember whether or not Nathan made or verified the matches on latent nos. 20 and 22. I don't think so. I could be wrong about that, however. I'm still reviewing my files for the answer. As for Barr's apparent lack of knowledge, I have no explanation. It could be that the other three matches may have been below the standard of 12 points. I have a vague memory that this was the case. I can tell you that it was not a problem for Jay or myself me. There was and is no universal standard. The FBI's handbook on fingerprint science, which Barr gave to me for study at our Dec. 1997 meeting, even stated that Bureau examiners are so highly trusted that a 3-point match by them was acceptable to the FBI. Richard
  14. RE: "Conflicts In Official Accounts of the Cardboard Carton Prints" http://www.bartholoviews.com/bibliography/mew/conflicts_.htm Larry, you're close -- and you made me aware of two typos. Two latents, #29, Box A, and #20, Box B were the only Wallace prints officially accounted for by the WC/FBI as "identifiable." So, the number in the "New Totals" column, "Box A" row, should be "9" instead of "10". I'll make the correction. "Box B" row gets a little tricky. The WC itemized lists of identifiable Box B prints should have accounted for 8, not 7. The neglected print was numbered (20) and labelled ("unidentified"). As I noted in comment D, the print in the "Unidentified" column, "Box B" row, is print 20. Jay's print examiners matched #20 to the inked print for Wallace's left thumb. It is one of the three in the "Wallace" column. The other two Wallace prints were numbered as one print (see below). So, the Box B "New Totals" should read "10" instead of "11". I'll make that correction too. As far as I have been able to determine, there were at least four ways by which the WC/FBI investigators hid Wallace's, and/or other, identifiable prints: 1) Judging identifiable latents as not identifiable, thus excluding them from their accounting method. 2) Labeling multiple latents under one number, or not numbering them at all. Print #22, Box B is actually two prints, matched by Jay's examiners to Wallaces left little finger, and left ring finger. Keep in mind that print #29 was also matched to Wallace's left little finger. 3) Labeling a latent as having "indistinct characteristics" -- which is a non-designation that means neither identifiable nor unidentifiable. This appears to have been a tricky way to distract attention from an identifiable print, and allow for impunity should a subsequent examination catch the "error." (This trick was used on Print #29, Box A -- matched to Wallace's left little finger.) 4) Reporting numbers that differed from both their official itemized lists, and from testimony that was itself numerically inconsistent. (See comments B1 through B4.)
  15. I signed this petition several years ago. My # is 126. I'm a little amused that Dan Marvin is #127 but I'm dissapointed to see that since then it's only increased to #171. That's maybe an average of 1 signature a month. At this rate, we'll probably have enough signatures when? 400 years from now? Richard - Do you still have title to the vehicle? Was it ever examined? My experience with most vehicles is that if let to sit for a long period they become inoperable. What was it's condition when you last saw it? - Chris (edited to add comment to Richard -CN) Chris - All the more reason to motivate folks to go sign the petition. The first important use of the power will be to collect and protect crucial evidence that is in grave danger of disappearing. I never had the title. When we bought it we put it in the name of one of the buyers, Ronan Lynch, who was a foreign student at UT from Ireland. He graduated and returned to Ireland. We never changed the title after that, mainly, because Texas records list only the current and previous two oners owners. One more name would have eliminated the name C.B. Smith George Gordon Wing. I hope no one else has gotten a title. We were lucky enough that George Wing had owned the car as long as he did, preserving those names his and C.B. Smith's names in the record for some 28 years. The condition was and is inoperable. But highly repairable. I hope no one does any cosmetic changes to it, however. We videotaped the initial search we did on the car. I have everything that was removed from it. However, a more indepth search of hidden spaces needs to take place. All the more reason to get this out of private hands. Richard
×
×
  • Create New...