He had his own domain name robertbateman.com.

He had a website.

He had a longish Wikipedia article on himself — which he authored.

Bateman has made other inroads on Wikipedia. He tried to revise the history of No Gun Ri to whitewash it. The revision history for that article shed a good bit of light on that activity. The author (murdoch) of the Wikipedia article on the No Gun Ri incident (Korean War) posted a complaint on 15 July 2005 that someone was continually going into his article online and trying to revise the history of a well-documented event. He found the IP address of the person doing it.

Two days earlier, that same someone created the Wikipedia article on Robert Bateman using the same IP address (see the bottom of the revision history on the Wikipedia article “Robert Bateman [historian]”).

Currently, there are still references to Robert Bateman in the No Gun Ri Wikipedia entry, but they are no longer links to the Wikipedia article about him.

Sean McFate was a Facebook friend of LTC Robert Bateman.

Shortly after I FOIPA’ed his blog transmissions that referred to me out of his Pentagon computer and verified the details already discovered over this page, Bateman’s website disappeared.

I was surprised today to see that Bateman’s Wikipedia entry on himself has been deleted. It was entertaining reading. It introduced me to the wonderful world of “fake veteran hunting” by Army Rangers and others, which as a daughter of the South reminded me so much of the Ku Klux Klan.

So, it would seem that LTC Bateman is being relegated to the obscurity that he deserves. He would make a great targeting exercise for newbie HTS’ers.

NV reintroduces the old “first Infantry woman” theme, something I never asserted at any time anywhere. This is disinformation and is a theme sure to enflame those Infantrymen — that percent who can’t stand the sight of a woman wearing the blue cord by circumstance of her soldierly work – so enflamed that they want to lynch each and every one of those females with their own shoulder ropes. “Integrating Women Into the Infantry,” by Army CPT Adam N. Wojack over http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec02/NovDec02/wojack.pdf must surely make such cult-mongers see Infantry blue.

Most of what NV writes is largely irrelevant mumbo-jumbo and baseless rambling about HTS trainee behaviors, using just enough key words like BAE, OPSEC, and BMI and seeming to explain HTS’ers hiring arrangements to make readers external to HTS think that he/she must know what she/he is talking about. It’s b.s.

Also b.s., as well as specious, is his train of thought that says “Because Dudley-Flores did not press a lawsuit for it that sex harassment must not have happened.” Where is he or she getting his or her info on my legal pursuits? And, anyway, what about the complaints from all the HTAT women about the sexual harassment to various authorities? Ought that not carry as much weight as diagnostic of the deed as complaining to lawyers?

Equally disinformational is his/her “leak” that I was outside the 40% Body Mass Index. I think what NV means to accuse is that I was over it. I was not, in fact. I was well under it as defined by the National Institutes of Health and other authorities – like Army medical screeners. I was particular to make sure that I was. The related disinformational theme that I could not wear my Army gear is also b.s. I was appropriately fitted for my gear and wore it just fine, and there are sworn eyewitness statements to that fact.

But, probably the most sadly disinformational thing that NV writes is that Dudley-Flores violated OPSEC. That stands for “operational security.” Did I? And, what was that and how did I do it? I see a lot of innuendo in NV’s comments about that, but nothing solid that lets me know that NV knows enough to make a solid accusation. I did not, in fact, violate any OPSEC. If I did, I would not just have been fired, I would have been brought up on charges for running afoul of General Orders.

There’s a run in your stocking, NV.

1. HTS personnel undergo copious amounts of training, including that which is required by the DOD to include sexual harassment training. Had actual harassment taken place, Ms. Dudley-Flores would have been perfectly capable of pressing a lawsuit.
2. Because employees are hired by BAE and not HTS, HTS is not able to fire BAE employees. BAE failed to protect Ms. Dudley-Flores. However, instead of investigating the rabbit-hole and getting to the root of management issues and contracting issues, HTS is automatically blamed.
3. HTS trainees are not privy to every decision management makes. This is no different than any other corporation or large business. However, trainees spend much time focusing on rumor-mongering and issue-guessing than paying attention to training, thus potentially resulting in issues down range.
4. Each situation down range is different, so it is impossible to train 100% effectively for each situation while in a classroom. Therefore, rumors, info leaks, and aired dirty laundry wind up creating inflated issues within the training rooms.
5. OPSEC is incredibly important. It is readily apparent that Ms. Dudley-Flores violated OPSEC, which frankly, she should have been fired for. Any correspondence on military computers, networks/internet, and webmail are monitored and those who use these terminals are aware of that fact. It is in their IA training and they sign off on and acknowledge this fact. Therefore, Ms. Dudley-Flores has little leg to stand on regarding the violation of OPSEC. No one should be emailing team info, locations, missions, or dynamics to anyone outside of secured networks or to anyone who will publicly publish this information. Therefore, anyone who “leaked” info to Mr. Stanton, particularly when it violates OPSEC and/or the rules and regulations for internet use as established by BAE are subject to termination or reprimand according to the rules and regulations of BAE and/or the authority or recommendation of the client i.e. the brigade or unit to which that person is assigned.
6. If Ms. Dudley-Flores was reassigned from Baghdad to Bagram according not only to her request and her experience, even though the team was troubled, wouldn’t that show that HTS thought that with her experience and education that she would have been able to assist a “troubled team” and not that HTS was intentionally placing her into a bad situation? Since she is allegedly the first infantry woman?
7. The job description as clearly stated by BAE showed that Ms Dudley-Flores was outside the 40% BMI required by the US Army. Her weight issues and inability to properly put on her equipment would have placed her and her team mates, as well as the military personnel who accompanied her into the field into danger. Why did Ms. D-F think that this was professionally responsible, and why did she not pull herself from training or the program? Why did she think it was acceptable to continue fully knowing she would not be able to reach a 40% BMI goal? Why has no one put the responsibility on her, where it belongs?
8. HTS is under TRADOC, as listed on their announcements. Therefore, as an Army program, they are under the authority of TRADOC command, which is very likely the reason why no comments or statements have been made available. HTS management may not be responsible for this issue at all and Mr. Stanton should know this. TRADOC should be asked for the response to the inquiry.
9. The HTS program is an Army program. Army protocol states no personal email addresses may be used on military hosted websites. Pulling names and emails from their website therefore is not nefarious, but likely an issued order by the Army. Also, the site has not changed in a while, so it may be in flux. Mr. Stanton makes simple issues seem like some covert evil practice on HTS’s behalf, when in fact logical and rational explanations may be reality.
10. Mr Stanton participates in “indymedia” which is not fact checked and is often radically erroneous. Those who choose to view him as a factual and honest “journalist” may be led astray.

http://www.breakthroughpress.com/index2.htm

These testosterone-poisoned little soldier boys need to stop dreaming that every woman needs to look like a Barbie doll for them to play with. We don’t. We are what we are. Deal with it. Your choice, guys, but if you won’t support and defend, screw it, we’ll do it ourselves.

As they say, it’s not over till the fat lady sings.

‘Concur with Garryowen. Bateman is a poser, his books (about the “Garryowen” regimant) are a sham, and I’ve tried to delete this page before but not succeeded.’

Get the feeling that his 15 minutes are about to expire?

The debunker is bunkum!!! Bunkum Bob, Bottlecap Bob… both work for me! But you missed a late entry:

“This article is a self-erected monument. It is insignificant, and it ought to be deleted.”

You also didn’t mention the numerous “possible vandalism” notations on the Bateman Monument. I have a virtual can of spray paint around here somewhere… what do you say we have a tagging party!