John Simkin Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 What happens when you go to other search engines that are not powered by Google when you type in “Assassination of John F. Kennedy”? MSN (Spartacus 1, McAdams 2, BBC 3, Wikipedia 4, National Archives 5) Ask (McAdams 1, White House 2, Sixth Floor Museum 3, Spartacus 7) All the Web (Ralph Schuster 1, McAdams 2, Wikipedia 3, Spartacus 9) Lycos (Wikipedia 1, McAdams 2, Wikipedia 3, Spartacus 4) From my research it seems that MSN is the least politically biased of all the search-engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) Hi John, "My page on Bernardo de Torres is in all the databases except for MSN Search. As one could expect, this Microsoft search-engine is completely under the control of the CIA. " - April 2005 (Wikipedia and Op Mock- I think) So is MSN politically unbiased and under the control of the CSA. Oxymoron?? The control of the web re: Operation Mockingbird and outside agencies in general, has been one of the many topics that I have given serious consideration to since beginning lurking on these forums some time ago. I can only thank you for the breadth of knowledge you impart in your posts specifically and sites in general. On a personal note - can you list your top 5 books for a beginner on the general JFK assasination and environment in which it occured. I've read Summers, Smith (2nd plot) and Lane on the subject and have noted Peter Dale Scott as must read. Many Thanks Gary Edited October 18, 2006 by Gary Loughran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share Posted October 19, 2006 The control of the web re: Operation Mockingbird and outside agencies in general, has been one of the many topics that I have given serious consideration to since beginning lurking on these forums some time ago.I can only thank you for the breadth of knowledge you impart in your posts specifically and sites in general. On a personal note - can you list your top 5 books for a beginner on the general JFK assasination and environment in which it occured. I've read Summers, Smith (2nd plot) and Lane on the subject and have noted Peter Dale Scott as must read. I have answered your question here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8260 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. William King Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) I wouldn't put too much faith in Google's ranking system. It can be manipulated. Google "miserable failure" (in fact, simply "failure") and "waffles", and see what you come up with. JWK Edited October 19, 2006 by J. William King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I believe Wikipedia is more dangerous than the McAdams website. It pretends to be objective and is likely to fool many people. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 (edited) I believe Wikipedia is more dangerous than the McAdams website. It pretends to be objective and is likely to fool many people. Well said. _________________________________________ John, You can challenge and potentially change the information on any given Wikipedia page by simply registering as a Wikipedia member and then arguing your case (with appropriate documentation/citations) on the "discussion" page... [Of course, if one thinks that "the powers that be" at Wikipedia work for or are controlled by the CIA, etc., then, well, it's all for naught, isn't it?....] FWIW --Thomas __________________________________________ Edited October 20, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 You can challenge and potentially change the information on any given Wikipedia page by simply registering as a Wikipedia member and then arguing your case (with appropriate documentation/citations) on the "discussion" page...[Of course, if one thinks that "the powers that be" at Wikipedia work for or are controlled by the CIA, etc., then, well, it's all for naught, isn't it?....] Have you tried doing this? Were you successful? I have added my website to the Wikipedia entry on the Assassination of JFK. It will be interesting to see how long it stays there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 (edited) You can challenge and potentially change the information on any given Wikipedia page by simply registering as a Wikipedia member and then arguing your case (with appropriate documentation/citations) on the "discussion" page... [Of course, if one thinks that "the powers that be" at Wikipedia work for or are controlled by the CIA, etc., then, well, it's all for naught, isn't it?....] Have you tried doing this? Were you successful? I have added my website to the Wikipedia entry on the Assassination of JFK. It will be interesting to see how long it stays there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination _____________________________________________ John, So far I have only made minor corrections in grammar, syntax, spelling etc. I'm too lazy and too technically-challanged to make any big "corrections" or to submit any articles myself. The editors insist that you follow certain procedures and formats in making big corrections or in submitting an article in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at understanding and following these kinds of procedures, but I can say that whenever I click on the "discussion" tab on any controversial Wikipedia article or entry, I see that lots of people, including the editors, are participating on the "discussion page," trying to "improve" the entry (or keep it the same, for that matter). --Thomas _____________________________________________ Edited October 30, 2006 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA Steele also sounds off on 9/11 doubts Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 27 2006 A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is "in bed with" the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11. Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story. While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration. "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated." "There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition." Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying, "There's no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this whole thing." Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings. "You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/octob...06googlecia.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Did people see this article on google manipulation for campaign purposes called "google bombing"? http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102706G.shtml Of course the CIA can make a powerfull bomb smaller than a pack of cigarettes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now