Jump to content
The Education Forum

Google and the Assassination of JFK


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have argued elsewhere that William C. Sullivan is a key figure in the JFK assassination and his death in 1977 was vitally important.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3694

What happens therefore when you type in “William C. Sullivan” into Google?

Number 1 is John McAdams’ attack on Jim Marrs theory that Sullivan’s death is suspicious.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sullivan.htm

Number 2 is Wikipedia’s biography of Sullivan. It is fairly brief and does not include the important fact that Sullivan was involved in the FBI investigation of the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. Nor does it mention he was writing his memoirs at the time and was about to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Nor does the author regard Sullivan’s death as suspicious or report that he had doubts about whether Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan were lone gunmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Sullivan

Number 3 is my page on Sullivan, which is clearly the most detailed account of him on the web.

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

Number 4 is from Daniel Brandt’s excellent Namebase site.

http://www.namebase.org/main4/William-C-Sullivan.html

Why should this ranking occur? We know that Google places a great deal of emphasis on links from other websites. The Market Leap website allows you to check out these links. Here is the links that these four websites have:

Wikipedia: 2,843,963

Spartacus: 74,121

Namebase: 7,049

John McAdams: 677

The other main factor concerns the number of internal and external links each page has. Wikipedia, Spartacus and Namebase pages all provide plenty of these. However, McAdams has no external links. The only link is the one that takes you back to McAdams’ home page.

The only answer to this state of affairs is that John McAdams has some powerful friends. It also raises questions about the reliability of Google.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens when you use other search-engines?

Ask (Spartacus 2, Namebase 5, McAdams not on the first few pages)

Excite (Spartacus 2, Namebase 5, McAdams not on the first few pages)

MSN (Spartacus 1, McAdams not in the first few pages)

Lycos (Spartacus 1, McAdams not in the first few pages)

All the Web (Spartacus 1, McAdams 2)

Dogpile (Spartacus 2, Namebase 3, McAdams 7)

Yahoo (Spartacus 3, McAdams 5)

AOL (exactly the same as Google)

Netscape (exactly the same as Google)

Now look at the latest analysis of search-engine use:

Google: 60.2%

Yahoo: 22.5%

MSN: 11.8%

Ask: 3.3%

AOL: 1.0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens when you use other search-engines?

Ask (Spartacus 2, Namebase 5, McAdams not on the first few pages)

Excite (Spartacus 2, Namebase 5, McAdams not on the first few pages)

MSN (Spartacus 1, McAdams not in the first few pages)

Lycos (Spartacus 1, McAdams not in the first few pages)

All the Web (Spartacus 1, McAdams 2)

Dogpile (Spartacus 2, Namebase 3, McAdams 7)

Yahoo (Spartacus 3, McAdams 5)

AOL (exactly the same as Google)

Netscape (exactly the same as Google)

Now look at the latest analysis of search-engine use:

Google: 60.2%

Yahoo: 22.5%

MSN: 11.8%

Ask: 3.3%

AOL: 1.0%

John, are there no other factors involved, like how many hits the site receives daily? My girlflriend's web page shows up on google, and it has no attached links whatsover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the rating system take into account not only the number of links but also the volume of each link?

e.g. if one link is a website with a huge amount of fraffic, it could get way more readers to a site than could 3,000 links with obscure sites.

THIS IS ONE REASON I TRY TO ATTRACT NEW VIEWERS TO THIS SITE BY POSTING EXCERPTS ON MAJOR US DAILIES. IF CONNECTIONS ARE MADE WELL TO CURRENT EVENTS MUCH OF THE INFORMATION CAN BE VALUABLE IN INFORMING CURRENT POLITICAL DEBATE.

THIS SITE SHOULD BE USED BY MANY MORE WITHIN THE U.S.

What are you doing about it?

Im sorry, but in the context of current U.S. total lack of discussion of CIA history, I feel the need to evangelically shout from the rooftops.

Remember: You as a 47 year old know what Operation Condor was. There are millions of 28 year olds who came of age post 9/11 who know absolutely nothing about it. Please get them here. I'll give you a quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ferretsoft.com/download.htm - searches the search engines (freebie download)*

http://kartoo.com/ - this is quite a nice one, visual mapping...*

...but wait, there's more...so much more...

http://www.isol.cc/isot/htdocs/library/boo...rch_engines.htm

*this one places spartacus #1

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ferretsoft.com/download.htm - searches the search engines (freebie download)*

http://kartoo.com/ - this is quite a nice one, visual mapping...*

...but wait, there's more...so much more...

http://www.isol.cc/isot/htdocs/library/boo...rch_engines.htm

*this one places spartacus #1

Interesting...

AltaVista has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams as #3

HotBot has Spartacus at #1, McCIAdams not to be found on the first few pages...

Webcrawler has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams at #5

MetaCrawler has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams at #4

McAfee Site Advisor (which I recommend as a tool to protect your browser) shows McCIAdam's site has having "Some Users" (i.e. moderate traffic)

Spartacus, on the other hand, shows has having "Many Users" (i.e. heavy traffic). (there is only one rating higher than "many users" which is "lots of users" -- yahoo, for example, scores this rating.)

Google has, for quite some time, sacrificed credibility for profit. The fact that businesses can pay to have "sponsored links" indicates right from the start that Google is far from impartial (the sponsored links are rarely the best link to follow, by the way, for almost anything). Based on similar issues in the past, it would not surprise me in the least if Google had sold out to "other" interests -- interests that may wish to control the global flow of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA has been known to keep a lookout for :ph34r: PROMISing software, if it might be used to mobilize world populations in the service of truth and democracy.

______________________________________

Interesting thread, this.

--Thomas

______________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also interesting to type in Lee Harvey Oswald into Google. The result is:

1. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

2. John McAdams: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm

3. Famous Texans: http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm

4. PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/

5. Ratical: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

6. Spartacus: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoswald.htm

Only the first two on the list argues that Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. The author of the Wikipedia entry includes several references to John McAdams site and the reading list contains books by Michael Eddowes (funded by Haroldson Hunt and now completely discredited) and Priscilla Johnson (funded by the CIA). It is not known who the author is but it is definitely a supporter of John McAdams. See this thread on the contributors to Wikipedia.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8247

It is interesting that Wikipedia scores highly at Google but is not listed in some of the other search-engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as can be seen there are numerous alternatives to google. Some of those ARE google under another name. Comparing results shows.

For example the swedish http://www.eniro.se/ which I used to use a lot, 'suddenly' started to deliver the same results as google. Yahoo still seems relatively independent. Google is low on my list of 'use'. Web ferret will often deliver results when none of the others do. Kartoo is very interesting, one can get lost there studying the interconnections under different categories.

Different search engines use the advanced features differently, so getting the right keywords is often the first big obstacle.

There are some good online translators which will make looking at other languaes more useful. For example with the contras a lot of the info is in spanish.

The search engines cached side will often have what you want rather than the current one.

And a few browsers installed will make seeing all the results possible.

Now even with yahoo it depends on which countrys yahoo you use. It's possible to get more results where yahoo US produces few by using, say, yahoo india or italy etc. etc. etc.

When using a suspect one like google I tend to scrub the cache before and after. (which I do before and after any web session anyway) plus the regular spy, ad, virus etc updates, scans of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Hi John,

I performed a search using "William Sullivan" as the search term and Spartacus is number 1 in both full web and UK pages on Google.

Again on Google, using "William C Sullivan" as search term; it is only the US i.e. full web search which rates McAdams higher than Spartacus. UK pages still rate Spartacus top.

Despite 1st class honours in Computer science the algorithms used to rate sites are a mystery to me. However, it does seem odd that the "C" would make a ranking difference. Perhaps this might help you or someone on the boards in your investigations.

Hope this helps

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought Sullivan was murdered. Wish I could get my hands on the article Harvey Yazijian wrote shortly after. Harv can't even get it.

As for McAdams: so damn clearly CIA, or Gov. in some capacity. Powerful friends indeed.

Dawn

Edited by Dawn Meredith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I performed a search using "William Sullivan" as the search term and Spartacus is number 1 in both full web and UK pages on Google.

Again on Google, using "William C Sullivan" as search term; it is only the US i.e. full web search which rates McAdams higher than Spartacus. UK pages still rate Spartacus top.

I usually rank even higher than the BBC on Google UK. One of the problems of Google is that it usually ranks US sites above those in Europe (imperialism at work).

In the case of William Sullivan the C does put McAdams at the top. Like most US webmasters, McAdams always uses the initial of the middle name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens when you go to other search engines that are not powered by Google on Lee Harvey Oswald:

MSN (Spartacus 1, Wikipedia 3, JFK Lancer 6, McAdams 11)

Ask (McAdams 2, Wikipedia 5, Spartacus not on the first few pages unless you add biography to the search)

All the Web (Wikipedia 1, McAdams 2, Spartacus 8)

Lycos (McAdams 1, Wikipedia 2, Spartacus not in the first few pages)

As one can see, McAdams dominates the web with his page on Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key question is what happens when you type in “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” at Google? It results in 2,270,000 pages listed in the following order:

1. McAdams: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

2. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

3. Ralph Schuster: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/

4. Spartacus: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

5. JFK Net: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/

6. BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2451143.stm

It is my belief that John McAdams is the author of the Wikipedia entry. He gives himself a link yet has removed the link that I placed on the page. I will add it again later on today. It will be interesting how long it remains on the site.

I believe Wikipedia is more dangerous than the McAdams website. It pretends to be objective and is likely to fool many people.

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...