Talk:Michael Riconosciuto

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfae (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This page, and several Inslaw related pages, has been vandalized by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Anne_Teedham recently banned sockpuppets of Anne Teedham]

message: ===Claim: "Computer expert"===
The article's opening sentence describes him as a "computer expert." Is there any independent verification of this claim? Has anyone actually seen this guy write code?PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'course in the end the feds went with an ANNM theory. Partin may have been precipitous thinking it had to be ANFO, or maybe the feds went with something exotic/obscure so fewer questions would be asked. I can't find online reliable data comparing ANFO and ANNM to think on my own whether it'd make the difference ... I can't even find if ANNM is a high explosive; only a high would do that damage. Kwantus 23:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Riconosciuito's claims

message: The article's opening sentence describes him as a "computer expert." Is there any independent verification of this claim? Has anyone actually seen this guy write code?PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim: "Computer expert"

message: Based on his Bureau of Prisons profile, Mr. Riconosciuto is 64 years old as of January 23rd, 2012, which means he was born either in 1947 or very early 1948. He would have been 16 in the 1963-64 timeframe. Following the argon laser link indicates that the argon laser was invented in 1964 by William Bridges at Hughes Aircraft. So, the claim is that Mr. Riconosciuto independently invented the argon laser--and that he may even have a primogenitural claim on it. This would significantly change the history of lasers if it could be verified.PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim: "16-year-old with an [[argon laser]]

message: see also Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb of Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror Riconosciuto was one of many (incl the more "reputable" Benton K. Partin) insisting ANFO couldn't do that - and some suspect a device Riconosciuto is supposed to have invented, a species of FAE or MOAB. 142.177.127.253 17:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 'course in the end the feds went with an ANNM theory. Partin may have been precipitous thinking it had to be ANFO, or maybe the feds went with something exotic/obscure so fewer questions would be asked. I can't find online reliable data comparing ANFO and ANNM to think on my own whether it'd make the difference ... I can't even find if ANNM is a high explosive; only a high would do that damage. Kwantus 23:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: barometric bomb

message: [This topic was moved here from User_talk:Rocksanddirt#Michael_Riconosciuto.]
[Rocksanddirt], You deleted several verifiable sections of material from subsection Early background in science.  Would you please elaborate upon your reasoning.  The material was easily verified by the citations which were provided:
#McCullough, Virginia (17 February 2008). "Who is puppet master, Michael Riconosciuto?". Newsmakingnews. Retrieved on 8 September 2008. 
#McCullough, Virginia (18 February 2008). "Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?". News making news. Retrieved on 20 September 2008. 
#Martin, Harry (16 April 1993). "Another murder connected to the Inslaw case?/" p.18. The Napa Sentinel. Retrieved on 29 September 2008. 
#Martz, Larry (11 January 1981). "The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens". San Francisco Sunday Examiner. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.
Please provide a reply within the next 24 hours to avoid WP:REVERT and WP:EW.  Please reply here [below this message], in order to maintain the continuity of our disagreement.  Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good revert, Rocksanddirt. It appears to be entirely in keeping with WP:BLP. Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph. One hopes User:Hag2 above will not WP:REVERT or WP:EW, but instead will use the "WP:talkpage" of the article to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS. Risker (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment,Risker.  You wrote: "Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph."  I believe differently.  Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position .  To what do you rely upon for your comment? With regard to the "negative paragraph", the items contained within those two paragraphs reference specific, accurate facts.  I will be moving this subsection within 24 hours (via "cut and paste", onto the Talk:Michael Riconosciuto page which the originator of the deletion, Rocksanddirt, may have overlooked in the beginning, and where it would be of greater benefit to all parties concerned in order "to work with others to come to WP:CONSENSUS".  Thank you,   Hag2 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to newsmakingnews.com's editorial policy, any information that demonstrates that it stands behind its reports, or other similar information. When I go to the site, there is not even a "contact us" button on the main page. Thanks for offering to move this discussion to the Talk header, it would be fine by me to do it now, but perhaps Rocksanddirt might want to weigh in.  Risker (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Risker, Thank you for suggesting that I locate News'... editorial policy.  I am very busy right now, but I will attempt to locate.  Please look sometime tomorrow. Thank you.  Hag2 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Welcome back.  I've been watching it too, and noticed that Anne Teedham placed a Maintenance tag several weeks ago.  I do not have problem with this; I think that it is a good idea.  I added my name. ThsQ (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been much movement around here except you and Anne.  It is worth mentioning that every one of the protestors who jumped in here on October 6, 2008, and made accusations of conflict of interests, and personal insulting remarks, has not reappear with any constructive contributions since that day.  It is also worth mentioning that prior to October 6 none of those protestors participated in any of the formation of this article from the beginning.  I am glad to see you insert a guideline in the maintenance tag about References.  There are too many editors who edit material based upon their personal opinions without providing one iota of supporting documentation. Michael Riconosciuto will not be an easy article.  It will be continually controversial.  For example, many of his supporters feel that he was directly involved in both the October Surprise, and the Inslaw Case.  But when you dig deep into the supporting documentation, his claims are only that claims supported by his own documentation, or the affidavits and testimony of less-than-reliable sources such as Robert Booth Nichols, Ari Menashe, Babayan, Bernneke, Chalmer Hayes, Ted Gunderson, James Orlin Grabbe and a bunch of other hucksters.  How's that for a sideshow.  —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of material from subsection ''Early background in science''

message: Establishing a position of neutrality on a two-time, convicted, career criminal seems to be a stretch.  Proponents of a neutral position need to cite some very good reasons why readers of this article should question the wisdom of two juries.  Anne Teedham (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Riconosciuto's supporters should read Michael T. Hurley's 2004 book I Solemnly Swear, published by iUniverse, pages 163-183. Anne Teedham (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to Riconosciuto's conviction in 1974 for burglary and bail jumping.  Located at the Public Library of Law, a preview of his appeal to the conviction begins: "The defendant was charged with grand larceny. The state introduced evidence to show that the defendant had arranged for a man named Pearson to burglarize a residence and deliver the property to be stolen to him. There was testimony that following a burglary of the residence much of the stolen property was in the hands of the defendant, that the defendant had admitted he had hired Pearson to steal the property from the residence, and that the defendant had paid Pearson with drugs for committing the burglary. The defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted possessing the stolen property...." (you need to log in with an account, then use Riconosciuto in a search, then select the court case about State v. Brandon.  Located in the Brandon case is a citation to Riconosciuto's 1974 appeal i.e. 529 P.2d 1134, STATE of Washington, v. Michael James RICONOSCIUTO, No. 2623--I.)  Unfortunately, the reading of the complete case involves a hefty monthy subscription fee at the parent company Fastcase.com.    When taken in light of his conviction for PCP in 1972, and then a repeat offense for methamphetamine in 1992, it would appear that Michael Riconosciuto is a three time loser.  It also begins to shed some doubt on his "technical abilities" and on his "expertise with computers".  One must wonder: how is it possible that this "10-year-old protege of a Nobel Laureate" found himself continually before state criminal courts and also had time for technical training in VAX//1130 computer systems? —Dixie Brown (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality

message: I created a stub on Peter Videnieks to fill the void which existed.  It is now ready for as much additional information as we can find.  I look forward to everyone's input.ThsQ (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Videnieks 

message: It has been over six months since User: Anne Teedham inserted the tag  requesting a citation from Riconosciuto's supporters that Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner" (see here).  Not one supporter has provided anything substantial to back up that claim.  
There has been a great deal of criticism from those supporters though. But...as I said, nothing worth substance.  
Today, I inserted a reference to Anita Langley's support (located at Conspiracy Planet) only because Langley has inserted herself as Riconosciuto's cousin, as his primary contact, and as his avid supporter.  
Although the citation is to an unacceptable and lower standard than Wikipedia usually permits, I do not have a problem with allowing supporters to present their position.  In the same vain, I do not have a problem with allowing Virginia McCullough's writings on Riconosciuto's background to be presented.  
On October 6, 2008, a great number of critics attacked this article primary because one voice in the wilderness had a conflict with McCullough.  At that time, I let the criticism ride because truthfully McCullough's website is a disorganized jumble of news and commentary which is slanted heavily in one direction.  This really is not much different than mainstream newspapers (magazines etc.) and their editorial positions.  
When the critics attacked this article, I had my say.  I have not changed now from that position.  The only loss being realized here is the biography of Michael Riconosciuto.  
The writer McCullough has been involved with Riconosciuto both personally and professionally for over 15 years, and maintains the only archive of valuable, chronological information that I have been able to find.  With regard to the reliability of her reporting, I have yet to find it inaccurate.  Her critics have attacked her personally.  Which is unacceptable.  If they wish to dispute her reporting, then they should present factual material that disputes her facts, not her personality. (The same could be said about Kate Dixon, though Dixon has absolutely nothing to do with anything Riconosciuto.) Hag2 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hag, you may be interested in looking at Dixon's disbarment- http://desertfae.com/dixon.htm. Perhaps it'll let you know the "legal backup" VM supposedly has and what types of things that "attorney" has done in the past. Better check which side you're on. desertfae (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, Dixie.  I'm not too sure I understand what you are doing here.  I've taken a hard look at your current editorial additions.  The structural changes suggest that you intend to develop material around Cloer, Delahanty, electrostatic heat transfer, Wackenhut, etcetera.  But, until, something is "written" about those areas, I do not believe that it is necessary to have their subheadings included in the main article.  Also, I wonder if the details about Cloer and Delahanty are going to lead to controversy?  We need to balance all writing of information carefully and according to the basic principles of Wikipedia.  Originally, your material on Cloer and Delahanty suggested "unsupported innuendo". From the sound of what you have written above, your approach to this article may be too aggressive.  Anne Teedham (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riconosciuto is a "political prisoner".... 

message: Dixie, User:SlimVirgin removed your subheadings, but I don't think that the removal is all that important.  I have a fair idea of where you're heading with these things.  I was glad to see the headings though because it gave me areas to concentrate upon for background info.  With regard to the overall structure: I did not like what Slim did with the subheadings so I altered them according to a chronological adjustment, and labeled them that way.  My reasoning goes like this: the use of the word "biography" is silly; the whole article is his biography.  Basically the dates are only incidental guide posts. After the article takes greater shape the actual subheadings will develop worthy titles of their own.  I see no need at the moment to title something such as Biography, or Allegations, or Prison until all that becomes apparent.  For example, in Prison we could shuffle the information about his first prison sentences into the same subsection with the third conviction but a shuffle like that would destroy the overall chronological development.  I prefer to see the article developed chronologically first.  Then if it is important to reorganize everything (say into subsections such as writings, inventions, crimes...) then we might consider that.  Until then, though, chronology seems to be the way to go. ThsQ (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: Several areas of malicious tampering have occurred.  Insertion of homicide accusations have been removed.  References to a book, a paid work contracted by John P. Nichols, the subject of homicide investigations of which this individual was a party to, have been removed.  Reference to expunged legal issues have been removed, the records have been expunged and references do not belong here, even if reported in error by media sources.  References to mental illness cannot be countered without publishing personal documents and since there was no competency hearing during trial, the facts of competency were never put into evidence.  Allegations of incompetence due to claims of intelligence matters are clearly overridden as the subject has provided ample FOIA documents with B1 exemptions, exemptions by Executive order and B3 exemptions, National Security redactions.  http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/foia/Winksatfriend (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires a major overhaul 

message: I can't find a citation for this, I checked to see the inmate finder didn't find him, it was used previousely but he is not showing now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a strong up to date citation to support such a statement that he is in jail, I would say considering the length of sentence and the dates that me is likely not in jail any more, if no one comes forward with a citation to support him at this time being in jail it clearly should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have any problem finding where he was located.  Using the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Locator, you have two choices: Riconosciuto's Inmate No. 21309-086, or his full name Michael James Riconosciuto.  Both searches produce the previously stated fact that Riconosciuto is incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island (San Pedro, California) until his release date 06-03-2017.  You can't find a stronger citation then that.  Riconosciuto was sentenced in 1992 to 30 years.  2017 probably accounts for his "early release date" if applicable.24.170.225.180 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison 

message: ===Cabazon===
Documents from Riconosciuto archives have been the subject of recently reopened cold case homicide investigations. 
The comment is very vague and I am left asking, so? why? what happened? when? 
The citations are also weakly associated to the subject and the comment. The first one is what looks like a photocopy of some original document that is on a blind site and therefore untrustable, the third citation does no mention the subject at all and the second citation has these comments about the subject....
Computer programmer Michael Riconosciuto wrote in an affadavit that major modifications to the program were made in Indio.
"The parties that were involved in the distribution of this software were involved in covert operations. They were involved in Nicaragua and Central America. And they were involved in operation in the Middle East," said Riconosciuto in an 1993 interview.
I don't think this comment is worthy of inclusion under these circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have a deadline here, lets take our time and allow other comments, feel free to ask me for any guidance you need, we have tomorrow and the day after...and the day after if we like, regards, till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague statements 

message: Documents from Riconosciuto archives have been the subject of recently reopened cold case homicide investigations. 
The comment is very vague and I am left asking, so? why? what happened? when? 
The citations are also weakly associated to the subject and the comment. The first one is what looks like a photocopy of some original document that is on a blind site and therefore untrustable, the third citation does no mention the subject at all and the second citation has these comments about the subject....
Computer programmer Michael Riconosciuto wrote in an affadavit that major modifications to the program were made in Indio.
"The parties that were involved in the distribution of this software were involved in covert operations. They were involved in Nicaragua and Central America. And they were involved in operation in the Middle East," said Riconosciuto in an 1993 interview.
I don't think this comment is worthy of inclusion under these circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have a deadline here, lets take our time and allow other comments, feel free to ask me for any guidance you need, we have tomorrow and the day after...and the day after if we like, regards, till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabazon

message: Berlet, Chip. "Big Stories, Spooky Sources." Columbia Journalism Review, May-June 1993. -Location (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: For future reference

message: It is unclear to me whether or not we should include the Bua report's critique of Riconosciuto in the lede.
See this discussion on the Mueller report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_264#Mueller_Report
I think the raw report should be moved from the lede. -- Hunan201p (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Bua report in the lede? 

message: being invited to Stanford, and being offered Navy college scholarship. did he take them up? did he study engineering at one point so as to work as an "engineer for a mine" ? who is Hercules company and how is it related to rhe article? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistencies