Mary Pinchot Meyer, the CIA and Google

[John Simkin]

There is evidence that the CIA is concerned about my web page on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

When I produce a page on any aspect of history, within a few days it is ranked in the first five at Google and other second-generation search-engines (this is because of the large number of websites - 136,000 - that link to my website).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

This is also true of most of the characters I have written about concerning political conspiracies. For example, this list of people linked to the assassination of JFK that appear near the top of searches (the vast majority being ranked in the top 3): David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, Richard Bissell, E. Howard Hunt, Gerry Hemming, William Seymour, Bobby Baker, J. Edgar Hoover, Fred Black, Tracy Barnes, Lucien Conein, Roy Hargraves, William Harvey, Richard Helms, Howard K. Davis, Eugenio Martinez, John Martino, Roland Masferrer, Clint Murchison, Gordon Novel, William (Rip) Robertson, Johnny Roselli, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Manuel Artime, Ted Shackley, George Smathers, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Eladio del Valle, Santo Trafficante, Antonio Veciana, Malcolm (Mac) Wallace, Mitchell WerBell, Jake Esterline, Dennis Harber, Loran Hall, Charles Willoughby, Dave Yarras, Chauncey Holt, Tony Varona, Virgilio Gonzalez, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Charles Harrelson, James Files, Tony Cuesta, Billie Sol Estes, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Loy Factor, Rolando Cubela, Clifton Carter, Bernard L. Barker and Desmond FitzGerald.

However, over the years I have discovered that certain people are protected. For example, Bernardo De Torres was ranked number one at Google. Then it disappeared from the Google database. After making a fuss about it (including contacting several journalists) the page was returned to the Google database.

My entry on Mary Pinchot Meyer is another that has be removed from the Google database. (It is ranked number 1 at Google UK and appears in the top three of virtually every other search-engine). I wonder what bit of information they don't like on that page? After all it is not that I have said that Bernardo de Torres murdered Mary.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerM.htm

[Tim Gratz]

John, today Mark will post here a rather remarkable article he wrote for "Solares Hill" on what happens when you use the Google feature to print maps to certain locations. Not absolutely relevant except it may show the web-masters doing strange things on other subjects as well. Should be posted within twelve hours.

This also involved Google as I recall ("Amgoogle"?).

Edited May 21, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Shanet Clark]

Mary Pinchot Meyer holds the key.

It was her behavior which caused JFK to lose his security clearance and risk sanction. Her connections to CIA and MOCKINGBIRD and Timothy Leary make her a victim of Orwellian truth squads and historical erasure by authorities.

[John Simkin]

Mary Pinchot Meyer holds the key.

It was her behavior which caused JFK to lose his security clearance and risk sanction. Her connections to CIA and MOCKINGBIRD and Timothy Leary make her a victim of Orwellian truth squads and historical erasure by authorities.

I think you are right. I hear that in the near future an article will appear in a major newspaper providing some important information about why Mary Pinchot Meyer holds the key to understanding the assassination of JFK. I also now know why the CIA are so keen to stop my page on Mary appearing in the Google database.

[John Simkin]

I am pleased to announce that my campaign against the blocking of my page on Operation Mockingbird at Google has been successful. It has been restored to the Google database. (It now appears at 3rd in the ranking). So also has my page on Frank Wisner, the man who established Mockingbird. Another person blocked, Mary Pinchot Meyer, is also back in (although John McAdams’ CIA disinformation page is still ranked at number 1).

As I expected, the publicity being generated by this was causing Google more problems than it was worth. Especially my journalist friends who took up my case with Google.

What is important in all this is that the CIA thought it necessary to pressurize Google into removing these pages from its database. I am obviously on the right track in my research.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwisner.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerM.htm

[John Simkin]

I should have mentioned that Cord Meyer and Phil Graham have also been returned to the database. Both of course were involved in Operation Mockingbird. This seems to be the common factor. Mockingbird is no doubt live and well and is now active in shaping search-engine results. The CIA would not be doing its job if it was not involved in this activity. Bill Gates is the modern day Phil Graham (see my posting yesterday on how Microsoft is working with the Chinese government in controlling web blogs).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4062

[Tim Gratz]

John, please make it easy on us to find your post about Bill Gates, the Chinese and web-blogs.

Thanks!

[John Simkin]

John, please make it easy on us to find your post about Bill Gates, the Chinese and web-blogs.

Thanks!

I did that. I added a link in the posting. Here it is again:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4062

[Daniel Brandt]

John, I'm interested in Google because it has the potential to do what you believe they are already doing. Besides manipulating search rankings, it can also track which people are looking for what on Google. For example, how many readers here realize that Google keeps a cookie on you with a globally-unique ID in it that expires in 2038, and Google records all of your search terms under this ID, along with your IP address, plus the date and time?

But right now I feel that this threat is mostly a potential threat. It's enough of a threat so that I spend as much time following Google now as I do indexing for NameBase. One more 9/11-type incident is all that it would take to turn Google into the government's secret lapdog.

I've had a lot of trouble with Google when it comes to their coverage of NameBase. Yahoo is worse than Google, and Microsoft is barely interested in NameBase at all. But I'm not yet willing to say that this is because of the material in NameBase (although I'm starting to wonder about Microsoft). My rankings go up and down, but so do everyone else's rankings.

NameBase had the number one slot in Google for W. Mark Felt up until the day that he was revealed to be Deep Throat. Within a few days, the big boys like CNN and MSNBC pushed my link down to page four. I'm not happy about this, but am realistic that this is the way the world works. I do not believe that some dark figure noticed that NameBase was on top, and picked up the phone to take care of the situation.

Now it's two weeks later, and yesterday for the first time I noticed that this same page has floated back up a bit, to the bottom of page one. My guess is that a lot of blogs have moved their mention of Mark Felt to an archived page that had less "Google juice" associated with it, which made my page more competitive once again. These sort of gyrations happen around the clock on Google.

The variations I've seen in the engines for the five years I've been studying them are often unpredictable. The churn on the engines is a lot faster than it used to be. Until April 2003 (that was when Google broke and they had to use backup files), once a page had a ranking it would be fairly stable until the next update one month later. That was the old Google. Today they no longer update monthly, but rather continuously. The bloggers and the news aggregators have pressured the engines to keep current in order to stay competitive.

Search engine rankings are generally not a conspiracy -- not yet, anyway. The one exception in my case is that I believe Google deliberately neutralized my Google bomb that had their own corporate executives page coming up as number one for "out-of-touch executives." It got mentioned in the New York Times in June 2004, and it went from number one to nowhere all of a sudden last July in Google, but it is still number one in Yahoo and Microsoft. This is the only time that I think someone at Google responded directly to something I did. Well, they blocked www.scroogle.org about 18 months ago, so I guess that makes it two times. I moved Scroogle to a different server and they couldn't find me, so I was only down for a few hours. Since then Scroogle has been doing fine. These two times were not political issues that might interest anyone in Washington. They were issues that interested Google because they embarrassed Google.

I commend you on your website, and I encourage you to keep studying the search engines. I don't believe that they're doing what you believe they're doing. But they have the potential to do it, and it may only be a matter of time before it starts happening.

[John Simkin]

I commend you on your website, and I encourage you to keep studying the search engines. I don't believe that they're doing what you believe they're doing. But they have the potential to do it, and it may only be a matter of time before it starts happening.

Welcome to the Forum. I have been a long-term admirer of your Namebase website. It is an invaluable research site for those interested in controversial subjects such as the assassination of JFK and Watergate.

I am convinced that Google is already doing what you fear it will do in the future. I have over 6,000 web pages on my website. I keep a close watch on their search-engine ranking. As a result of the large number of websites linked to mine (I have been going since September, 1997), within 3 days of producing a page, it invariably enters the top five in all the major search-engines (MSN is the only one that seems prejudiced against me).

The first time I had trouble with Google was with my page on Bernardo de Torres. There are only two pages on the web that are devoted to this man. Mine and yours. We were one and two in the ranking. However, there was a period of about six months when both these pages left the main Google database. I complained to Google but they refused to reply. I then contacted several journalists who began making their own enquiries. This did the trick and we are now back in places one and two.

This cannot be a coincidence. Bernardo de Torres is a long-time CIA asset. He played an important role in the cover-up of the JFK assassination (or should I say clean-up operation). I believe he is currently living in the US embassy in Chile. It is clear that he was being protected by the CIA.

As I have said, I recently had the same problem with figures like Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer, Mary Pinchot Meyer and Phil Graham. All these were associated in some way with Operation Mockingbird. My page on this was also being blocked. Not only by Google but all those search-engines that use Google’s database. The pattern was the same as with Bernardo de Torres. Google ignored my complaints. However, when the press became involved, they gave in.

It is no surprise that Operation Mockingbird is being targeted. As this CIA activity was about controlling the media, it is the most important of all its covert operations. If the operation is still active, it is bound now to target search-engines. However, this is one covert operation that will not succeed. It is one thing to control newspapers and television. The web is a different matter. If we remain vigilant, we can keep the CIA from controlling the free flow of information. Without this, you do not live in a democracy.