Jump to content
The Education Forum

An attempt to bring an end to the JFK Forum


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since this morning the forum web side seems to cause me some problems, I wonder if any of you face similar changes. I did check with other sides I’m using but this one seems the only one. The problems are

A) It says right under the title bar just above the google search “you don’t have  the required right to display this web page” .

B)to go back or forward within the topics, I have to “double-click” and the response seems to be slower than usual.

I would appreciate some answers.

I just want to be sure that it is

1) only my pc causing the problem (so I have to figure out) or

2) in case other members have experienced the same John maybe can check with the server.

Thank you for your cooperation.

George

We have now identified this problem. We had this email this morning:

Hello Andrew Walker,

It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on

the Google ads on your site(s). We have therefore disabled your Google

AdSense account. Please understand that this step was taken in an

effort to protect the interest of the AdWords advertisers.

A publisher's site may not have invalid clicks on any ad(s), including

but not limited to clicks generated by a publisher on his own web

pages, clicks generated through the use of robots, automated clicking

tools, or any other deceptive software.

Practices such as these are in violation of the Google AdSense Terms

and Conditions and programme polices, which can be viewed at:

https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?hl=en_GB

https://www.google.com/adsense/policies?hl=en_GB

Publishers disabled for invalid click activity are not allowed further

participation in AdSense and do not receive any further payment. The

earnings on your account will be properly returned to the affected

advertisers.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

There are several ways of trying to close down a Forum. One way is by mounting a "Denial of Service" attack. See the following for details:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1126

Another is by trying to cut off your revenue stream. This has happened to me before. A few years ago I had a similar contract to the one of AdSense with ValueClick. However, my contract was terminated because one particular user of my website had installed software that constantly clicked on the adverts. ValueClick assumed I must have been involved in the scam. However, as I pointed out, I knew that ValueClick had software that monitored the clicking on adverts (they told you that when you signed up for the scheme). I had clearly been set-up by someone who wanted to stop me receiving advertising payments. I therefore called in the police. Working with ValueClick they traced the offending computer to a chemist shop in Brighton. The owner claimed that the computer had been under the control of a young lad who had set up his website for him. The lad disappeared and the police were unable to question him about his activities.

It was clear that there had been a sophisticated plot to cut off my revenue stream. The same thing has now happened with Google AdSense and the International Education Forum. It is possible this is linked to another matter. See this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4488

If the person responsible for this action is reading this thread I would like to send him a message. Andy and myself are not motivated my money and will fund the Forum out of our own pockets if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner

John, I'm sure I speak for all here when I say how much we appreciate this forum, If another method of helping to finance is needed, such as charging members a fee, I am sure you will find little resistance. This important work must continue. We must be doing something right, to meet this level of obstruction.

Steve..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about some sort of flood gate specific to the ads? DOS for the DOSers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chief suspects are likely right-wing BUSH SUPPORTERS like LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS and SWIFT BOAT VETERANS who use automated email to shut down websites which discuss 911, Apollo moon hoax, and JFK. I suspect these are funded by the CIA, NASA and Republican extremists. In the past they have shut down Rich DellaRosa's JFKresearch forum because of my 911 and Apollo discussions till Rich installed a "flood control" software, which prohibits rapid consecutive postings, and required a small membership fee for members. He was able to trace the shutdowns twice. One shutdown was traced to a site in Holland whose identity was known and who was pushing a specific JFK commercial agenda.

Any site criticising Bush can become a target.

Does this site have "flood control"???

Jack B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I'm sure I speak for all here when I say how much we appreciate this forum, If another method of helping to finance is needed, such as charging members a fee, I am sure you will find little resistance. This important work must continue. We must be doing something right, to meet this level of obstruction.

Thank you for your offer but it goes against our principles to charge for this service. Andy and I can afford to pay for this service. It will take a bit more than this to persuade us to bring the Forum to an end.

It is a real shame people do things like that  B)  When will the ad-sense banner at the top be removed it seems to be causing a few problems in Internet Explorer?

At the moment we are trying to convince Google AdSense to reconnect us. Hopefully, you will not be too inconvienced by the ads not appearing. The main problem concerns the back button. If you click it five time it will work. If not, click any of the headings above the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a real shame people do things like that  B)  When will the ad-sense banner at the top be removed it seems to be causing a few problems in Internet Explorer?

At the moment we are trying to convince Google AdSense to reconnect us. Hopefully, you will not be too inconvienced by the ads not appearing. The main problem concerns the back button. If you click it five time it will work. If not, click any of the headings above the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the study of the JFK assassination is filled with unexplained coincidences, it seems quite ironic that yet another one seems to have occurred on this very forum. A certain controversial member disappears for about a week...and shortly after his return, these attacks on the forum begin. And precisely at the time when discussions of "dirty tricks' from another era, and this member's participation/lack of participation in them, is being researched and discussed.

Was there possibly a weeklong seminar on "dirty tricks" that the person in question might have attended during his absence from the forum...or is this yet another coincidence?

I'm not putting forth another conspiracy theory...not yet, anyway. But the timing does seem to be quite convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you are as ridiculous as usual.

If I wanted to end the Forum, I would simply sue (and there are other living persons who could also do so).

I could probably also fashion a RICO suit which would compel the court to put an immediate freeze on all of John's assets and which if successful would result in triple damages. Moreover, the suit could be brought in any federal court I chose (let's try the most conservative federal court I could find).

This is not a threat. I am just telling you how simple it would be for me to end some of the nonsense posts if I really wanted to. I am sure John understands that as well.

Let me also assure you had I wanted to use computer tricks to shut down the Forum I would have found a way to actually shut it down. You seem to think I am an incompetent conspiratorialist. I assure you I am not a conspiratorialist but I can also assure you if I was I would be successful.

But there are many intelligent posts on the Forum, and not only in the assassinations section. Strange as it may seem, I even enjoy reading Robert's jabs at me. I enjoy intelligent discourse and I learn from it. Believe me there are plenty of right-wing web-sites I could spend my time on if I just wanted to converse with like-minded individuals.

I consider it worthwhile for me to be "thick-skinned" and disregard the puerile insults so I can enjoy and learn from (not in any order) John Simkin, Charles Black, Larry Hancock, Pat Speer, Robin Unger, John Dolva, Ron Ecker, Lee Forman, Dixie Dea, Steve Thomas, Robert Charles-Dunne, Allan Eaglesham, etc. (and I know I am leaving out several people whose posts I enjoy so I want to assure all that the omission is non-intentional). (I am also leaving out contributors to other sections of the Education Forum.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, I have a suggestion.

I never asked Shanet to withdraw from the Forum, just to retract his baseless charge.

I suspect John will be able to track down where the attacks came from. I understand there were previous attacks that were tracked down and I think John even had an idea for the motive behind those attacks.

When John has demonstrated the falseness of your ridiculous (and illogical) suggestion, I do hope you are so embarrassed that you quit posting. You are a phenomenal waste of time.

In my opinion, one of the most important posts made here in the last week was my link to the Pfeiffer Report (although I am quite sure that Steve had previously posted it). Somehow it would not surprise me if you have not yet read it.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I've re-read my post, and your name never came up. Not once.

I simply stated that this is yet another occurrence that we can chalk up as a strange coincidence...just one among many that researchers into the JFK assassination have encountered over the years.

In fact, I believe that over the past couple of days even YOU have cited some coincidences you found. And I contend that coincidences are never sinister unless or until they can be proven to be so.

As such, there is no way I'll ever be embarrassed by the content of my previous post on this thread...as I was merely pointing out yet another coincidence. Hey, stranger things have happened in this world.

Get over yourself, Tim...you're just not that important in this life, at least not moreso than any other individual here. And if you were truly interested in advancing discussion, you'd have ignored my post on this thread the way you've ignored the posts elsewhere on this forum asking you to produce your "evidence" about Castro's connection to the alleged NYC bombing plot...the information you said that, four months ago, you had in hand and were preparing to post.

You can certainly work yourself into a bluster, but I'm still waiting for you to produce some substance that you promised [threatened] to post quite some time ago. Let's see you produce what you promised, and then we'll let your competence or lack thereof speak for itself.

And if you choose to reply, might I suggest that you try to contain your arguments in a single post, rather than the three, four, five, or more consecutive posts as you commonly do. While it may indeed raise the number of posts you can claim, it seldom raises the level of the discussion. For example, you declared me "a phenomenal waste of time"...and took two posts to reach that conclusion.

To me, that suggest that someone else might be "a phenomenal waste of time"...or else, perhaps he just enjoys looking at his own picture in each separate post. Or maybe that's just another coincidence as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

Tim, I've re-read my post, and your name never came up. Not once.

Mark, at the risk of engaging in personal criticism, that remark demonstrates either that you are a fool or that you think most of the other members of the Forum are. Unless you were just engaging in semantic obfuscations in which case you should re-examine your ethics.

I will let anyone who is willing post that he or she did not know who your remarks were directed at even though you did not use my name.

Or you post straight and to the point that your remarks were not directed at me. I don't think you would do that because (if your ethics permitted you to do so) everyone here would know you were lyin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over yourself, Tim...you're just not that important in this life, at least not moreso than any other individual here.  And if you were truly interested in advancing discussion, you'd have ignored my post on this thread the way you've ignored the posts elsewhere on this forum asking you to produce your "evidence" about Castro's connection to the alleged NYC bombing plot...the information you said that, four months ago, you had in hand and were preparing to post.

You can add to this Tim's new claim that it was Raul Castro who ordered the assassination of JFK. I have asked him to supply the evidence but so far he has not done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, my statement was no more than what I submit is a reasonable inference from my scenario that there was Cuban involvement in the assassination.

The logic is that IF there was Cuban involvement, as I (and others) think the evidence suggests, it is quite logical to assume that Raul knew even if it is possible that his brother did not personally authorize the assassination.

It is possible Cuban intelligence organized the assassination without the express approval of the ultimate beneficiary but I doubt any member of Cuban intelligence would have done such an act without the approval of Raul. In other words, I think Cuban intelligence was more closely controlled than the CIA apparently was. (The degree of Robert Kennedy's involvement with all of the CIA's anti-Castro activities and specifically with the Cubela matter is, of course, hotly debated.)

I certainly do not think it is an unwarranted inference that if Cuba was involved in the assassination, Raul knew and it was not a "rogue" element of the DGI acting on its own.

All I was doing was suggesting that not all the suspects are in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...