Question for Duke Lane

[Wim Dankbaar]

Duke,

John McAdams presents you as a conspiracy theorist. He even places articles from you on his website.

Are you indeed a "conspiracy theorist"? Are you okay with that label from McAdams?

What is it that you believe about the JFK assassination? I still don't know, since what I found on your website, you seem to leave it in the middle.

If you've seen Oliver Stone's 1992 movie JFK, you may wonder who among a wide array of possible conspirators really killed the 35th President of the United States ... or you may remain convinced that it was the work of a deranged sociopath named Lee Harvey Oswald (or maybe you've seen him with Elvis at a nearby 7-11!).

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

Wim

Edited November 28, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Pamela Brown]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

[Jack White]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam...according to John Simkin, high Google placement can be had for a price.

Jack

[Denis Pointing]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

[Duke Lane]

Duke, John McAdams presents you as a conspiracy theorist. He even places articles from you on his website. Are you indeed a "conspiracy theorist"? Are you okay with that label from McAdams? What is it that you believe about the JFK assassination? I still don't know, since what I found on your website, you seem to leave it in the middle.

If you've seen Oliver Stone's 1992 movie JFK, you may wonder who among a wide array of possible conspirators really killed the 35th President of the United States ... or you may remain convinced that it was the work of a deranged sociopath named Lee Harvey Oswald (or maybe you've seen him with Elvis at a nearby 7-11!).

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

Wow. A thread all of my own! I'm impressed. Seriously! Does this make me "famous?"

Holy moley, Batman! What would Miss Puss have to say?!?

I guess this ranks me up among those who also get threads named after them, like Mack and Perry and White (Jack and Roscoe!) and ...?

Wim, if you or others don't yet have a clue as to my perspective, you probably never will. What more can I say? There are about 1000 posts on this forum alone to give you some insight into my point of view; if you don't have one yet, I really don't know what else to say.

This thread ends here.

[Wim Dankbaar]

What more can I say? There are about 1000 posts on this forum alone to give you some insight into my point of view; if you don't have one yet, I really don't know what else to say.

This thread ends here.

What can you say? Why don't you summarize in two sentences what your take is on the JFK assassination? Saves me a lot of unnecessary digging. What I HAVE read does not give me a clear picture whatsoever.

Wim

[John Simkin]

High placement in Google can only be acheived through good SEO ( Search Engine Optimisation ) or by using one of their advertising methods such as Google Adwords. How high you appear on a page using the Adwords programme depends on the amount of money you are prepared to pay for a keyword, ie if you have the highest bid, you will appear in a higher position.

There is no other way to get your page placements higher in a Google search page. Where any website page shows in a Google search page all depends on a number of factors such as content, keywords and description. There is nothing sinister about Mcadams placings for searches in Google. Those who think something sinister is going on know nothing about how to optimise a site for Google.

Duncan MacRae

There are a great many factors involved in appearing high in search-engine rankings. This includes the page title, the words that appear in the URL, the number of times the keyword appears on the page, the number of internal and external links that you have, the age of the page, the number of photographs that appear on the page, the size of the file, etc.

However, the most important factor is the number and quality of websites that link to your page. This was the main innovation introduced by Google and is now copied by all search-engines. High quality websites are judged by the search-engines to be the ones that themselves have a lot of sites linked to them. For example, the BBC or PBS websites.

One of the drawbacks to this system is that it is extremely difficult for new websites to gain high-ranking in searches. One way to do this is to pay websites that have a high-ranking to give them a link.

[Pamela Brown]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Denis Pointing]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or

published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Wim Dankbaar]

Mr. Pointing,

You seem to jump the gun with prejudiced statements. My question only seeks to find where Duke Lane stands on the JFK assassination in terms of a conspiracy versus the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald. So far I don't have an answer.

Wim

[Duke Lane]

... My question only seeks to find where Duke Lane stands on the JFK assassination in terms of a conspiracy versus the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald. So far I don't have an answer.

Right. But you could have if you'd used the time you've been waiting for one more constructively by reading any of my posts. If you don't want to, you don't have to, but that's where your answer lies.

[Pamela Brown]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or

published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis.

I disagree. I think that anyone who is not a blind LNT who chooses to allow an article to be published at McAdams site leaves themselves open to scrutiny as to what they thought doing so would accomplish. Surely they have read McAdams pages and realize that they are disinformation at some times to the point of slander. Why would anyone who is able to think critically want to be aligned with that?

They must also realize how vicious McAdams is to CTs, and what a slanted field he has created at alt.assassination.jfk with the apologist mods, not to mention his grunions such as ex-mod Barb Junkaarinen and Dave Reitzes who attempt to block research and target posters.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Denis Pointing]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or

published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis.

I disagree. I think that anyone who is not a blind LNT who chooses to allow an article to be published at McAdams site leaves themselves open to scrutiny as to what they thought doing so would accomplish. Surely they have read McAdams pages and realize that they are disinformation at some times to the point of slander. Why would anyone who is able to think critically want to be aligned with that?

They must also realize how vicious McAdams is to CTs, and what a slanted field he has created at alt.assassination.jfk with the apologist mods, not to mention his grunions such as ex-mod Barb Junkaarinen and Dave Reitzes who attempt to block research and target posters.

You seem to know a great deal about alt.assassination.jfk dont you Pam...hmm bit suspicious that!! LOL C,mon girl relax, LN are a bit like ghosts, they can only hurt you if you belive in them.

[David G. Healy]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or

published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis.

I disagree. I think that anyone who is not a blind LNT who chooses to allow an article to be published at McAdams site leaves themselves open to scrutiny as to what they thought doing so would accomplish. Surely they have read McAdams pages and realize that they are disinformation at some times to the point of slander. Why would anyone who is able to think critically want to be aligned with that?

They must also realize how vicious McAdams is to CTs, and what a slanted field he has created at alt.assassination.jfk with the apologist mods, not to mention his grunions such as ex-mod Barb Junkaarinen and Dave Reitzes who attempt to block research and target posters.

You seem to know a great deal about alt.assassination.jfk dont you Pam...hmm bit suspicious that!! LOL C,mon girl relax, LN are a bit like ghosts, they can only hurt you if you belive in them.

an you know what about aaj? Not running from the Tippit thread are you, Denis? Things tighten up a bit when there's an attorney in the house, yes? We understand...

[Pamela Brown]

I must say it makes me a bit queasy to hear of anyone not a diehard LNT posting at the McAdams site. There are so many pages of sheer disinfo that it does not make for the best company, even though it does get a high google rating.

Pam, Dankbaar didn't say Duke posted at McAdams, only that his article is posted there. The ED forum is listed there as well. Denis.

If the article is posted there, Duke must have given it to McAdams. If so, it would seem McAdams would have been showing his oh-so-helpful side to Duke to get him to do so. I think of Duke's articles in a much higher light than I do anything McAdams has at his site.

Pam, why must Duke "have given it to McAdams"? Copyright © 1992 by M. Duke Lane

[This text may be reproduced in any form provided only that it is not sold or

published in any fee- or subscription-based publication.]

I really dont think there is any reason to doubt Duke's loyalties here. Its just Dankbaar besmirching yet another good researcher who dares to disagree with him. By the way, SOME of the article's at McAdams are good stuff...dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. Denis.

I disagree. I think that anyone who is not a blind LNT who chooses to allow an article to be published at McAdams site leaves themselves open to scrutiny as to what they thought doing so would accomplish. Surely they have read McAdams pages and realize that they are disinformation at some times to the point of slander. Why would anyone who is able to think critically want to be aligned with that?

They must also realize how vicious McAdams is to CTs, and what a slanted field he has created at alt.assassination.jfk with the apologist mods, not to mention his grunions such as ex-mod Barb Junkaarinen and Dave Reitzes who attempt to block research and target posters.

You seem to know a great deal about alt.assassination.jfk dont you Pam...hmm bit suspicious that!! LOL C,mon girl relax, LN are a bit like ghosts, they can only hurt you if you belive in them.

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. Don't go up to the front lines and by all means don't bump into anyone involved in the ongoing coverup. But then that means you can't take any risks either.

Don't work to bring forward any controversial witnesses, and don't push the envelope. Forget that there is more to this than simple research. And then don't be surprised when the next offering re-touting the WCR is shoved down your throat yet again. Just yawn and go back to your comic books.