CIA, Google and Wikipedia

[John Simkin]

In the past I have written extensively about Operation Mockingbird, the successful attempt by the CIA to control the mass media.

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

The internet provides a serious threat to the success of Mockingbird. A growing number of people now get their news and information from the web. Of course, the major corporations that are under the control of the intelligence services still play an important role on the web in providing disinformation. However, as I have discovered with my website, it is possible for those who are willing to question the truth of state propaganda to become major players in the distribution of information in the modern world.

If I was running Operation Mockingbird today I would develop a strategy that would enable the secret state to regain control of the distribution of information on the web. The first thing that is important to do is to get control of the search-engines. It is via the search-engines that people obtain the information they are looking for. Over the last few years, Google has obtained an unhealthy dominance in search-engine technology. The main reason for this is that Google is trusted to provide accurate and reliable searches for information. When they first started this seemed to be the case and I was an early promoter of Google that seemed far superior to other search-engines at the time.

However, is this still true? Let us take the example of someone researching the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is claimed that since the arrival of Google search-engines can be trusted to rank websites in the order of relevance to the query. This is based on Google’s decision to place great emphasis on the number of websites linked to individual sites. Google class this as “peer-group” approval. This is a sensible approach, for example, people with an interest in the Kennedy assassination, are likely to give links to other websites that they have found useful in researching the subject.

Therefore, what happens if you type the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” into the Google search-engine. We are told there are 73,200 relevant websites. Ranked first is Wikipedia.

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

Second is John McAdams’ website. It is of course one of the few assassination websites that believes the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

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

3rd is my own website:

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

In 4th place is a Wikipedia clone, Answers:

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy-assassination

One would therefore assume that this ranking reflects the number of links these websites have. There is in fact a website that allows you to check how many websites are linked to individual pages.

http://www.marketleap.com/publinkpop/default.htm

The results are fascinating. According to Google, the following sites have these links:

Wikipedia (108)

John McAdams (286)

Spartacus (0)

Answers (57)

Therefore, according to Google, no website is linked to mine. This of course is untrue. Look for example what MSN says about the links to the respective sites:

Wikipedia (1,621)

John McAdams (3,473)

Spartacus (4,230)

Answers (3)

It is clear that Google is clearly fiddling the search-results in terms of the Assassination of JFK. The same is true for other figures involved in the assassination. For example, if you do a search of individuals involved in the investigation into the assassination you are likely to find Google takes you to John McAdams’ website.

If you type in “David Lifton” you discover that there are 22,900 relevant web pages on this subject. Ranked first is a page from John McAdams’ website. This is in fact an article by Lifton with the title: “Is Jim Garrison Out of His Mind?” This page is linked to others on McAdams website that of course an attempt to undermine Lifton’s theories on the assassination. My much more sympathetic account of Lifton’s theories is only ranked 4th.

(1) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton1.htm

(4) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlifton.htm

One would therefore assume that there are more links to McAdams page on Lifton than mine. If you go to MarketLeap you find this is not the case.

In fact this website shows that Google does not show any links to either page. Therefore, Google must be taken something else into account. Maybe it is the links to the home page of the respective websites.

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

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

This is not the case. McAdams has according to Google got 264 websites linked to his home page whereas I have 6,750. This situation is reflected in other search-engines: AltaVista (744/30,601), Hotbot (0/17,433), MSN (0/17,321), etc.

Then you have the case of Wikipedia which is in first position. Why should it be ranked in this way? As we have already discovered, it has nothing to do with links to the relevant pages.

Maybe Google has a way of deciding what and what is not a credible resource of information? One problem is that there is no way of knowing if Wikipedia falls into that category. It is impossible to discover who wrote this page? Nor do we know who has been responsible for editing this section. John McAdams and Wikipedia are clearly getting help from someone at Google. I wonder who that could be?

[Terry Mauro]

In the past I have written extensively about Operation Mockingbird, the successful attempt by the CIA to control the mass media.

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

The internet provides a serious threat to the success of Mockingbird. A growing number of people now get their news and information from the web. Of course, the major corporations that are under the control of the intelligence services still play an important role on the web in providing disinformation. However, as I have discovered with my website, it is possible for those who are willing to question the truth of state propaganda to become major players in the distribution of information in the modern world.

If I was running Operation Mockingbird today I would develop a strategy that would enable the secret state to regain control of the distribution of information on the web. The first thing that is important to do is to get control of the search-engines. It is via the search-engines that people obtain the information they are looking for. Over the last few years, Google has obtained an unhealthy dominance in search-engine technology. The main reason for this is that Google is trusted to provide accurate and reliable searches for information. When they first started this seemed to be the case and I was an early promoter of Google that seemed far superior to other search-engines at the time.

However, is this still true? Let us take the example of someone researching the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is claimed that since the arrival of Google search-engines can be trusted to rank websites in the order of relevance to the query. This is based on Google’s decision to place great emphasis on the number of websites linked to individual sites. Google class this as “peer-group” approval. This is a sensible approach, for example, people with an interest in the Kennedy assassination, are likely to give links to other websites that they have found useful in researching the subject.

Therefore, what happens if you type the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” into the Google search-engine. We are told there are 73,200 relevant websites. Ranked first is Wikipedia.

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

Second is John McAdams’ website. It is of course one of the few assassination websites that believes the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

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

3rd is my own website:

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

In 4th place is a Wikipedia clone, Answers:

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy-assassination

One would therefore assume that this ranking reflects the number of links these websites have. There is in fact a website that allows you to check how many websites are linked to individual pages.

http://www.marketleap.com/publinkpop/default.htm

The results are fascinating. According to Google, the following sites have these links:

Wikipedia (108)

John McAdams (286)

Spartacus (0)

Answers (57)

Therefore, according to Google, no website is linked to mine. This of course is untrue. Look for example what MSN says about the links to the respective sites:

Wikipedia (1,621)

John McAdams (3,473)

Spartacus (4,230)

Answers (3)

It is clear that Google is clearly fiddling the search-results in terms of the Assassination of JFK. The same is true for other figures involved in the assassination. For example, if you do a search of individuals involved in the investigation into the assassination you are likely to find Google takes you to John McAdams’ website.

If you type in “David Lifton” you discover that there are 22,900 relevant web pages on this subject. Ranked first is a page from John McAdams’ website. This is in fact an article by Lifton with the title: “Is Jim Garrison Out of His Mind?” This page is linked to others on McAdams website that of course an attempt to undermine Lifton’s theories on the assassination. My much more sympathetic account of Lifton’s theories is only ranked 4th.

(1) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton1.htm

(4) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlifton.htm

One would therefore assume that there are more links to McAdams page on Lifton than mine. If you go to MarketLeap you find this is not the case.

In fact this website shows that Google does not show any links to either page. Therefore, Google must be taken something else into account. Maybe it is the links to the home page of the respective websites.

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

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

This is not the case. McAdams has according to Google got 264 websites linked to his home page whereas I have 6,750. This situation is reflected in other search-engines: AltaVista (744/30,601), Hotbot (0/17,433), MSN (0/17,321), etc.

Then you have the case of Wikipedia which is in first position. Why should it be ranked in this way? As we have already discovered, it has nothing to do with links to the relevant pages.

Maybe Google has a way of deciding what and what is not a credible resource of information? One problem is that there is no way of knowing if Wikipedia falls into that category. It is impossible to discover who wrote this page? Nor do we know who has been responsible for editing this section. John McAdams and Wikipedia are clearly getting help from someone at Google. I wonder who that could be?

***************************************************

FWIW. Since its inception, Steve Gaal and I have looked upon google.com from a more skeptical P.O.V. Especially with regard to how quickly they seemed to have appeared on the scene sporting such a massive database. Therefore, we took to nicknaming it, "gov.'le.com," from the very start, for our own amusement and enjoyment. A private joke, like telling someone to "go to gov.'le," or to "go gov.'le it," if you wanted to research something. Never suspecting, at the time, how they would eventually end up monopolizing all flow of information, let alone be allowed to set the standards on how it should be ranked, linked, classified, and distributed according to their system of checks and balances.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[David Collins]

I think it'll be difficult to get a clear picture of why Wikipedia is so overrated despite its flaws. I agree that mcadams is of course put on top by giving his site an artificial rating. Then again your site still scores very high as well, so Mockingbird clearly isn't perfected yet in the Western world (google.cn makes it clear that they do have the technology for full censorship)

Wikipedia is of course perfect for the Intelligence Community because they need a semi open system which can be controlled and which is a form of bureaucracy with matching corruption. In a way Wikipedia is a perfect example of a micro cosmos of this world were you have your semi-secret societies, backdoor channels for communications, cliques, coverup of critism and persecution of critics with even a rogue police forces and corrupt judges. If you ever want to know why society is so screwed up then you just need to look at Wikipedia were you have all elements on a microscale and real problems like Vandalism are not dealt with because the system is completely incapable to change itself (Notice that vandalism on your biography stayed online for 18 hours! and that is pretty the norm nowadays)

As far as mockingbird goes it is definitely inefficient however that doesn't matter, because on some conspiracy forums you have dozens of operatives active 20 hours a day/ every day in the year for years now. So spending millions on debunking conspiracy theorists is simply part of the budget (and hey, it is mainly outsourced nowadays and probably derived from drug dealing, so who cares). The funny thing is that English wiki isn't just covered by the US and UK alphabet agencies, but I also notice that Spanish, Saudi and German scandals also have people constantly guarding the integrity of their scandals.

So the only thing which is yet unexplained why google wants wikipedia especially after today's announcement that Jimbo thinks that he can make a better search engine (despite the fact that his own doesn't even function properly) Google would be better off with wikipedia links somewhere at the middle or below the page, because the quality is often substandard, and good articles tend to become mediocre as soon as editors have given up watching and cleaning the page over and over again. And good editors tend to have because of excessive vandalism and excessive amounts of flame fights.

I think that google still mainly depends on the size of the overall site/pages for the ranking, because content spammers for ad revenue like lyrics sites and wikipedia clones have a far too high rating as well despite having no original content whatsoever.

[John Simkin]

I am also a member of a forum that keeps a close look at what happens at Wikipedia. I posted details of my CIA-Google-Wikipedia conspiracy on this forum:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5615

I rather like this reply from someone from Alice Springs in Australia who goes by the name blissyu2.

I like this theory.

The first search engine that I remember was Gopher, back before there were proper graphical web pages. The government wasn't involved in that. Then there was Yahoo, which structured everything and people had to register to get their web pages listed. Some people hinted there was government involvement, but it seemed pretty silly to take it seriously. Yahoo proved their innocence once and for all when similar search engines like Excite and Lycos turned up and did the same thing. And then came the meta search engines, like Dogpile, which of course were quite free of intervention.

We all felt safe that search engines were safe, and then along came Google.

When Google first appeared on the market, we didn't need Google. We had enough search engines, we could find what we wanted easily. There were specified search engines, there were meta search engines, it was all fine. Nobody asked to have ultra fast search engines. Nobody asked to have caches of old web sites after they'd been deleted. Nobody asked to have image searches. Nobody asked to have things listed without asking. Nobody asked for the laws relating to privacy being violated.

Yet Google appeared, unwanted though it was, and suddenly became extremely popular from the instant it was created. Why? Was it perhaps because it was plastered all over every advertisement on TV and in every newspaper? Was it perhaps because governments were talking about it in official sessions? Was it because Oprah Winfrey and every other talk show host talked about it?

Google had money behind it, lots of it, yet we are led to believe that like Yahoo it started off by two college students. It might have, but these 2 had millions of dollars behind them, and government assistance. Google could not have done what they did without US government assistance, and without millions of dollars to help them. Indeed, my recollection from Oprah's story on it was that they had US military assistance, and it was no secret. But that's just a memory.

Google did something which Yahoo and Gopher never did. While Gopher and Yahoo for a time were the only serious search engines, like Google is today, they didn't ever get the ability to avoid privacy laws. Laws were effectively changed for Google. Nobody petitioned for them to be changed, they just ignored them and got away with it. There was no protest to say "Let Google break the law and get away with it". Nor was any court prepared to take them down over it.

But why would the CIA or the US government want to have a search engine which came up with more meaningless junk than any previous search engine ever had, and invaded people's privacy, with old journal posts or Newsgroup posts appearing years after they were deleted? To spy on people sure, but was that all? It seemed a bit minor, a bit petty.

The idea that the CIA was using it for something bigger, to then create an information database, a Wikipedia, makes a bit more sense. That CIA made Google so as to prepare the internet to be taken over by Wikipedia.

We know that the CIA uses Wikipedia, that much is obvious (they use Google too). We know that they are in there trying to manipulate articles. But how effective are they? Is Wikipedia complying with this? Or are they just unable to stop it?

What would be stopping the US government from calling Jimbo and demanding for him to cooperate with the CIA, or else he'd be framed as a terrorist? They could easily do it, and he'd have no choice in the matter.

Or is Jimbo doing it a bit more maliciously than that? Is he more than just innocent to what is going on? Is he more than an innocent victim?

We all know that Wikipedia claims that nobody owns any articles, yet people do. How many people have edited articles, and tried to fix huge mistakes, only to be told that they were not allowed to? Every major long-term article is owned by someone or other. How hard would it be for the CIA to get involved in this?

Look at all of the articles that would relate to matters of interest for CIA. All of the major murders and assassinations, political issues, wars and conspiracies. See how woefully inaccurate Wikipedia is compared to any other source on these topics.

We saw what Slim Virgin did to the Lockerbie Bombing article, and we saw what they did to the Port Arthur massacre article and the JFK assassination, to Hitler and to the George W. Bush article. We saw what they did to anything to do with the Iraq war. These are all matters of interest to the CIA. They have a vested interest to keep a certain version of the truth out there.

Disinformation isn't a simple matter of the government telling you something that is a lie. If they simply did that, then we'd all search for the truth, find it, and say "Ha". Nor is disinformation simply a matter of hiding the truth. We are too smart for that.

Disinformation is when the government pushes a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and leads breadcrumbs so that we will slowly start to see it make sense, and ignore everything else to push towards that. Then when we find out that it was wrong, we fall back on the official story, and ignore the actual story, which was neither of them. This is what disinformation is.

It does make a lot of sense.

[Daniel Brandt]

Since June 2006, a top administrator at Wikipedia has kept six sites by Public Information Research on the Wikimedia Foundation's spam blacklist without justification, and has ignored requests by other editors to explain himself. If a domain is on this blacklist, any Wikipedia editor who tries to link to any page on that site has his edit aborted. These six sites are all nonprofit and tax-exempt, and none has ever carried any ads. How do they qualify as spam?

The six websites:

www.namebase.org

www.google-watch.org

www.scroogle.org

www.yahoo-watch.org

www.cia-on-campus.org

www.wikipedia-watch.org

[John Simkin]

Since June 2006, a top administrator at Wikipedia has kept six sites by Public Information Research on the Wikimedia Foundation's spam blacklist without justification, and has ignored requests by other editors to explain himself. If a domain is on this blacklist, any Wikipedia editor who tries to link to any page on that site has his edit aborted. These six sites are all nonprofit and tax-exempt, and none has ever carried any ads. How do they qualify as spam?

The six websites:

www.namebase.org

www.google-watch.org

www.scroogle.org

www.yahoo-watch.org

www.cia-on-campus.org

www.wikipedia-watch.org

Daniel, I wonder if you could give me any insights into this issue with search-engines.

A friend of mine, and a fellow administrator of this forum, was sacked as a result of his union activities. See this thread for more details:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9029

In order to help his campaign to be reinstated, I created a page on Les Albiston, the man who sacked him. After a couple of days, if you typed in “Les Albiston”, my page on him came up first.

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

However, yesterday, I was informed that my page no longer appeared at the top of the list at Google when doing a search on "Les Albiston". When I checked it out I found this to be true. Nor did it seem to be in the database at all. However, on the second page of results, my page where I gave it a link, showed up.

I also have a facility for using Google to search my own website. The page on “Les Albiston” did not appear in that search either. It seemed that the page had been removed from the Google database.

This has happened before with “Bernardo De Torres”. However, he was a CIA agent who is still being protected by the agency. What could the explanation be for the removal of a page on a head teacher in Toulouse? The school is owned by EADS (80%) and BAE Systems (20%), Europe's two largest defence contractors. Could that be the answer?

[John Simkin]

Fake professor in Wikipedia storm

BBC News

3/6/2007

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.

The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.

He has retired from the site and his authority to edit has been cancelled.

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers from around the world.

'Trust and tolerance'

Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors and remove site vandalism.

In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".

His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception.

"At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.

Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the newspaper's note said.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".

"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.

And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site.

"I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm

Published: 2007/03/06 14:39:15 GMT

------------

Wikipedia founder takes on Google

By Matt Wells

BBC News, New York

3/7/2006

Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has helped transform the way people use the net to seek out information and now the founder Jimmy Wales is hoping to do the same in the search field.

The bearded and softly-spoken founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, describes himself as "pathologically optimistic".

Bearing in mind that he recently revealed the development of a new "open source" search engine to compete for eyeballs with the mighty Google, he is going to need every ounce of optimism he can get.

"

Search has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of society," said the 40-year-old, talking to a group of mainly media professionals at a recent event in downtown Manhattan, organised by The Glasshouse, a trans-Atlantic entrepreneurs' support group.

"The way that things are sorted and ranked and presented to us, really does shape our view of the world.

"I think it is important that we say, there really should be an alternative that is completely open and transparent," he added, before going on to criticise the culture of secrecy surrounding the cloistered algorithms of the leading search empires.

There is a paradox surrounding Wales's position in the first-rank of internet movers and shakers, which he freely acknowledges.

The Wiki boss has often said that his free, not-for-profit online encyclopaedia - that now gets seven billion page views each month with in-excess of five million multiple-language entries - was either the "smartest thing, or the dumbest thing that I ever did".

Extraordinary statistic

The total number of Wikipedia employees is five; an extraordinary statistic when you consider that it is the 10th most visited site in the world.

He told a wry anecdote about being offered a recent ride in the Google jet as the online superstars converged on the World Economic Forum in Davos - since at this point, there is no Wiki-jet.

But his cultural-hero status as the man who aims to bundle all the world's knowledge together and give it away free, is formidable.

The new "transparent" search venture is in its early infancy, and also a project that is being shepherded by the very much for-profit sister company of Wikipedia, Wikia.

His idea is to Wiki-fy the process of internet search, so that human beings decide openly how to rank and organise information, not the huge private servers of Google and Yahoo.

In an online message at the end of the year, Wales labelled the project "Search Wikia" and referred to it as an attempt to create "the search engine that changes everything".

'People powered'

He went on to ask for volunteers to step forward in the name of "people-powered" search, to help move the project forward. There was no mention of any possible profit-sharing.

Far from seeking to confront Google in conventional business terms, Wales - ever the optimist - believes that there may be ways of working with what he calls the "second tier search players" on the web.

"(Google) have hired all the geniuses... they're saying, 'gee, if this alternative could succeed, and make good quality search results a commodity, then we can compete on other things... on vertical search, on brand, on user-interface'."

His philosophical approach to challenging Google, has drawn some criticism inside the blogosphere.

The web veteran Dave Taylor, who writes The Intuitive Life Business Blog, wrote a sceptical post, questioning Wales's ability to influence the search market on any level.

"My belief - based on talking to thousands of internet users - is that the only time someone switches search engines is when their current system begins to fail them," he wrote.

"Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of succeeding."

Wales describes his politics as "libertarian with a small l" and having become used to travelling the world to meet Wikipedia's amateur army of administrators and contributors, he says he no longer cares who wins the next presidential election in the US.

'Open societies'

"Within the broad framework of open societies, of liberal democracies, things aren't so horrible, right?"

He added: "There are horrible places in the world - these are much more important - corruption in Africa, and things like that."

Wikipedia's idealism, that some would argue is essentially flawed in that verifiability and not "objective" truthfulness is the standard by which entries are judged, has been heavily lampooned on American television in the last few months, by the satirist Stephen Colbert.

In his persona as a polemical and bombastic news anchorman, Colbert lampooned the idea of allowing enthusiasts to form a consensus amongst themselves on what is fact, or not, coining the word "Wikiality".

It has become a running joke, and the site's administrators have intervened to stop some of the show's fans from altering entries.

Unphased

Wales himself is unfazed by how easy it is for unregistered readers to make instant changes on Wikipedia - sometimes for the good, but often out of mischief.

Constant upheaval and occasional "vandalism" of the site, is a price worth paying, he believes.

"If you have a web environment where the software assumes everyone's going to do something bad, and where the community isn't given the tools to make corrections... you actually encourage hostile behaviours."

He is convinced that Wikipedia's success is down to simple software and mutual respect, combined with the minimum amount of censorship and policing possible.

Ultimately however, some wonder whether the collectivist world of Wiki, might not become more and more untrustworthy and cultish as the web expands. It is a danger that Wales himself seems to be aware of.

Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania in June last year, he reportedly said that Wikipedia should not be used by college students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to blame.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6335793.stm

Published: 2007/02/07 02:38:42 GMT

[Terry Mauro]

Fake professor in Wikipedia storm

BBC News

3/6/2007

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.

The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.

He has retired from the site and his authority to edit has been cancelled.

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers from around the world.

'Trust and tolerance'

Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors and remove site vandalism.

In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".

His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception.

"At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.

Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the newspaper's note said.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".

"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.

And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site.

"I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm

Published: 2007/03/06 14:39:15 GMT

------------

Wikipedia founder takes on Google

By Matt Wells

BBC News, New York

3/7/2006

Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has helped transform the way people use the net to seek out information and now the founder Jimmy Wales is hoping to do the same in the search field.

The bearded and softly-spoken founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, describes himself as "pathologically optimistic".

Bearing in mind that he recently revealed the development of a new "open source" search engine to compete for eyeballs with the mighty Google, he is going to need every ounce of optimism he can get.

"

Search has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of society," said the 40-year-old, talking to a group of mainly media professionals at a recent event in downtown Manhattan, organised by The Glasshouse, a trans-Atlantic entrepreneurs' support group.

"The way that things are sorted and ranked and presented to us, really does shape our view of the world.

"I think it is important that we say, there really should be an alternative that is completely open and transparent," he added, before going on to criticise the culture of secrecy surrounding the cloistered algorithms of the leading search empires.

There is a paradox surrounding Wales's position in the first-rank of internet movers and shakers, which he freely acknowledges.

The Wiki boss has often said that his free, not-for-profit online encyclopaedia - that now gets seven billion page views each month with in-excess of five million multiple-language entries - was either the "smartest thing, or the dumbest thing that I ever did".

Extraordinary statistic

The total number of Wikipedia employees is five; an extraordinary statistic when you consider that it is the 10th most visited site in the world.

He told a wry anecdote about being offered a recent ride in the Google jet as the online superstars converged on the World Economic Forum in Davos - since at this point, there is no Wiki-jet.

But his cultural-hero status as the man who aims to bundle all the world's knowledge together and give it away free, is formidable.

The new "transparent" search venture is in its early infancy, and also a project that is being shepherded by the very much for-profit sister company of Wikipedia, Wikia.

His idea is to Wiki-fy the process of internet search, so that human beings decide openly how to rank and organise information, not the huge private servers of Google and Yahoo.

In an online message at the end of the year, Wales labelled the project "Search Wikia" and referred to it as an attempt to create "the search engine that changes everything".

'People powered'

He went on to ask for volunteers to step forward in the name of "people-powered" search, to help move the project forward. There was no mention of any possible profit-sharing.

Far from seeking to confront Google in conventional business terms, Wales - ever the optimist - believes that there may be ways of working with what he calls the "second tier search players" on the web.

"(Google) have hired all the geniuses... they're saying, 'gee, if this alternative could succeed, and make good quality search results a commodity, then we can compete on other things... on vertical search, on brand, on user-interface'."

His philosophical approach to challenging Google, has drawn some criticism inside the blogosphere.

The web veteran Dave Taylor, who writes The Intuitive Life Business Blog, wrote a sceptical post, questioning Wales's ability to influence the search market on any level.

"My belief - based on talking to thousands of internet users - is that the only time someone switches search engines is when their current system begins to fail them," he wrote.

"Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of succeeding."

Wales describes his politics as "libertarian with a small l" and having become used to travelling the world to meet Wikipedia's amateur army of administrators and contributors, he says he no longer cares who wins the next presidential election in the US.

'Open societies'

"Within the broad framework of open societies, of liberal democracies, things aren't so horrible, right?"

He added: "There are horrible places in the world - these are much more important - corruption in Africa, and things like that."

Wikipedia's idealism, that some would argue is essentially flawed in that verifiability and not "objective" truthfulness is the standard by which entries are judged, has been heavily lampooned on American television in the last few months, by the satirist Stephen Colbert.

In his persona as a polemical and bombastic news anchorman, Colbert lampooned the idea of allowing enthusiasts to form a consensus amongst themselves on what is fact, or not, coining the word "Wikiality".

It has become a running joke, and the site's administrators have intervened to stop some of the show's fans from altering entries.

Unphased

Wales himself is unfazed by how easy it is for unregistered readers to make instant changes on Wikipedia - sometimes for the good, but often out of mischief.

Constant upheaval and occasional "vandalism" of the site, is a price worth paying, he believes.

"If you have a web environment where the software assumes everyone's going to do something bad, and where the community isn't given the tools to make corrections... you actually encourage hostile behaviours."

He is convinced that Wikipedia's success is down to simple software and mutual respect, combined with the minimum amount of censorship and policing possible.

Ultimately however, some wonder whether the collectivist world of Wiki, might not become more and more untrustworthy and cultish as the web expands. It is a danger that Wales himself seems to be aware of.

Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania in June last year, he reportedly said that Wikipedia should not be used by college students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to blame.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6335793.stm

Published: 2007/02/07 02:38:42 GMT

**********************************************************

And, that's just another reason why I refer to it as, "Fakepedia."

From Len Osanic:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307...enation/1172344

But what was even more interesting, after clicking on the link and scrolling down to the bottom of the page to the MOST VIEWED section, was the Wikipedia article quoted from The Christian Science Monitor:

Opinion

Wikipedia's sticky wicket

The Monitor's View Fri Mar 9, 3:00 AM ET

Students in history classes at Middlebury College this spring may have to change the way they do research for papers or tests. Although they can consult the online encyclopedia Wikipedia for background, they are not allowed to cite it as a source.

Professors who drafted the new policy at the Vermont college praise the free website as a "wonderful innovation." They note the more than 1.6 million entries, the up-to-date bibliographies, and the links to relevant, often more reliable sites. But they caution that its open-editing system, which allows anyone to write or edit entries anonymously, carries a risk of error.

Just this month a dark cloud fell over Wikipedia's credibility after it was revealed that a trusted contributor who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion was actually a 24-year-old college dropout. He was also one of the appointed "arbiters" who settled disputes between contributors.

For the many "wiki"-type sites – ones that compile knowledge with volunteers – such an ethical misstep would be a test of their ability for internal correction. But it also reinforces educators' warnings to students to be "informationally literate" in how to use the six-year-old Wikipedia and to rely more on the thousands of more-scholarly databases online.

Wikipedia not only challenges the concept of what an encyclopedia is; it also raises an intriguing question: What qualifies as intellectual authority in an age of information overload, when society relies increasingly on the Internet?

Some critics are troubled by what they regard as a tendency on the Web to value anonymous, collective thought over individual intellect. Some claim Wikipedia devalues traditional scholarship. Supporters counter that the online encyclopedia's constant and easy revision of articles only strengthens their credibility. Fans also praise Wikipedia for "democratizing" knowledge, pitting pedigreed academics against amateur scholars.

Globalization and technology are creating other sociocultural changes that challenge old notions of expertise. When people can now more easily, say, sell a house, write a will, or file a complex tax return, they defer less to authorities, among them lawyers, clergy, teachers, and other professionals.

The Internet's ability to empower individuals with an illusion of infinite knowledge challenges even notions of reality. Like Pontius Pilate's question – What is truth? – supporters of Wikipedia are asking "Whose truth?"

Is information on the site absolute fact or simply a matter of group consensus? Is any information accurate only by agreement of those with extensive credentials using peer review, or do the masses have a voice?

If other schools follow Middlebury's lead, the collective effect could encourage Wikipedia to raise its standards. Scholars, too, might benefit from using "wiki" practices, such as open access and wider input.

Middlebury's policy serves as a reminder about the need to carefully sift any information on the Internet. Over time, users will force sites like Wikipedia to build up the same trust and reputations now granted to established institutions such as universities or old-style encyclopedias. Truth, like truthfulness, must be demonstrated.

And, as far as I can surmise, Operation Mockingbird is still alive and well, and as influential and manipulative as ever.

[Guest Tom Scully]

(As far as I can determine, the only verifiable details about this man, reported in 1991 as age 47, is that he is incarcerated and is extremely intelligent and persuasive. How many others, including those directed and funded by government or corporations, have inserted as much unverifiable info into wikipedia articles, and other internet centered, disinfo campaigns?)

Here is an example of what one determined, persuasive, intelligent, conniving individual can accomplish, starting with no appreciable funds, and while incarcerated in a Texas state prison, the entire time. Compare these details to the potential of media corporation executives and government funded intelligence and military agencies to shape and distribute information.:

Iron Thunderhorse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Thunderhorse

Iron Thunderhorse, Biwabiko Paddaquahas, is CEO and Legal Sovereign of ACQTC, Inc., and Hereditary Grand Sachem and Powwamanitomp (Shaman) of the Quinnipiac Thunder Clan.

Thunderhorse is a convicted felon who has been incarcerated with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice since 1978. Thunderhorse is currently held in the Estelle Corectional Facility, inmate number 00624391. His projected release date is 4-24-2022...

....Ancestry and childhood

Iron Thunderhorse was born in New Haven, Connecticut on January 29, 1950, as William L. Coppola. In 1989, he legally changed his name to Iron Thunderhorse (Biwabiko Paddaquahas in Quinnipiac), citing cultural, religious, and traditional reasons.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac

This article is about the Native American nation.

....Population and whereabouts today

The Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council (ACQTC), the primary representative of the Quinnipiac people and heritage, has three forms of membership: full, confederate, and honorary....

References....

...and Iron Thunderhorse, “Setting the Record Straight: A Linguistic-Ethnographic Study of the True Identity of the Quinnipiac/Quiripi/Renapi Nation Structure.” 2007 [1]

^ Kathleen J. Bragdon, Native People of Southern New England, 1500-1650, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1996 and "The Sachemship and its Defenders", paper submitted at the American Historical Association, Washington, DC, 1987. Also see Iron Thunderhorse, We the People Called Quinnipiac, 2006 http://acqtc.com/Culture/History

^ see map at http://acqtc.com/Culture/WtpcqTrailHeartaches

^ Iron Thunderhorse, “An Ancient American Indian Stone Calendar in Connecticut,” Ancient American, Volume 5, Issue Number 36, December 2000, pp. 2-4.

...............

^ Ruth Mahweeyeuh Thunderhorse, Following the Footprints of a Stone Giant, InfinityPublishing.com, 2007, p. 17.

Background:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3D10391083849&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Throwing the books at them

Prison law libraries turn inmates into barristers -- sometimes good ones

Author: Mark McDonald Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News THE

Publish Date: May 21, 1990

HUNTSVILLE -- The front of his white jumpsuit, the patch over the pocket, reads COPPOLA, W., 283650.

That's how the Texas prison system officially knows him, as William Coppola, convicted felon, Inmate No. 283650 at the Wynne State Farm.

But the state also knows Mr. Coppola as one of the most formidable legal opponents it has ever encountered, a jailhouse Clarence Darrow, a self-taught prison lawyer of incomparable skill and persistence.

He's so skilled and persistent, in fact, that working from the Wynne law library he overturned his two life sentences for attempted murder, a 99-year sentence for kidnapping and a 20-year term for robbery. "I can sit in this room with just some paper and a pencil and draft any type of motion, lawsuit ....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1991_821489/search-continues-for-escaped-prisoner.html

Search continues for escaped prisoner

Staff and wire reports

SUN 11/10/1991 HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 20, 3 STAR Edition

Authorities nationwide searched Saturday for a paroled rapist and robber who walked out of a Houston hospital after refusing surgery for a gunshot wound.

Iron Thunderhorse, 47, who changed his name from William Coppola while in prison, has threatened to kill his wife and a victims' rights activist who turned him in for violating parole.

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the wife said she faces possible criminal charges for shooting Thunderhorse, whom she claims terrorized her during their short marriage.

Thunderhorse slipped away from authorities about 8 p.m. Thursday at Ben Taub Hospital, where he had been taken for surgery on a gunshot wound to his shoulder.

After a deputy left him with attendants, Thunderhorse refused the procedure. He was returned to his room and escaped before the deputy returned, said Harris County Sheriff's Dept. Capt. John Mendenhall.

He said Thunderhorse -- described as white,, 5 foot 9, 170 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes -- may still be in the Houston area.

Karen Zellars, an attorney for Thunderhorse's wife, said her client became acquainted with Thunderhorse a year ago through a publication about native American culture.

Though he was in prison for a 1977 conviction of aggravated robbery and aggravated rape, they courted through letters and were married by proxy last May, Zellars said.

When Thunderhorse was paroled in late June, his new wife went to pick him up from prison, the attorney said.

"She knew within 15 minutes this man was a terror and not the man she thought he was," Zellars said. "Within three weeks, she went from being an independent, self-sufficient executive to . . . she looked like she was under mind control: unkempt, glazed eyes," Zellars said.

An Amoco employee for 13 years, the woman was forced to quit her job. Her phone calls were monitored and her friends were told not to call anymore, Zellars said.

Last month, Thunderhorse left for California, and his wife filed for a divorce and changed the locks on her home. When he called her, she told him not to come back, Zellars said.

Instead, he came back with a vengeance, the lawyer said, meeting her in the driveway and putting a gun to her head, demanding to be let into the house.

Once inside, he raped her, tied her with a telephone cord and told her if she did not agree to go with him to California, he would take her there -- tied up in a blanket, Zellars said.

The next morning, as he loaded their belongings into a truck, the wife grabbed a shotgun. When the gun alone was not enough to keep him away, she shot him, the attorney said.

He was arrested for parole violation Oct. 31 at Ben Taub hospital while he sought treatment for the shoulder wound.

Since his escape, Mendenhall said, Thunderhorse has made threatening calls to his estranged wife and to Michael McMahan, a Houston victims' rights activist.

Zellars said her client could face prosecution for the shooting.

The shooting is expected to be taken before a grand jury soon, she said.

Corporal Charles Gholar of the Harris County sheriff's department said Saturday that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had joined the search for Thunderhorse.

"It's a nationwide broadcast at this point in time for him," Gholar said. "He's considered to be pretty dangerous."

Fast foward...new committed wife, Ruth "Little Owl" Duncan,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AI9EQKTC5S3J3/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp

Ruth Duncan

(REAL NAME)

Location: Huntsville, TX

In My Own Words:

I'm a published writer; an award-winning poet and artist. I pursued my Masters in English, attended Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and have served in Christian ministry for many years. I spent several years as the Director of a mission working with disadvantaged youth. I just finished my first book - a biography of Iron Thunderhorse.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A74ENZYLHE4RT/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp

Ruth Thunderhorse

5.0 out of 5 stars Iron Thunderhorse is an outstanding writer, April 21, 2005

Powwow at East Haven church strengthens community bonds ...

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2011/06/25/news/doc4e065fc9c9891374695231.txt?viewmode=2

Jun 25, 2011 – The New Haven Register, local news, sports and weather serving New .... said Ruth “little Owl” Duncan-Thunderhorse, chief financial officer of ..

Old Stone Church Covenants with the Quinnipiac People

http://www.ctucc.org/news.php?story=1401

by Rev. Karen Johnson

EAST HAVEN (09/23/2011)

Old Stone Church in East Haven Covenants with Quinnipiac Peoples ... A week or so after the event, we received an email from Ruth “Little Owl'” Duncan-Thunderhorse, telling us of two deaths in the Quinnipiac community and asking for our prayers. I am touched by this gesture of vulnerability and good faith and trust. Indeed, we pray for the bereaved. ....

....The Rev. Karen Johnson is pastor of the First Congregational Church UCC in East Haven.

...new persona, even a six year reduction in his own age, new crop of faithful followers, all accomplished from the confines of a Texas state prison.:

http://www.google.com/search?q=east+haven+church+thunderhorse&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-nightly

ACQTC, Inc. | NewsEvents / News & Events

acqtc.org/NewsEvents

Mar 2, 2011 – This year, on 25 June 2011, the Old Stone Church Congregation and the ... the Old Stone Church, UCC, East Haven, CT, which provided sanctuary for ... has been working hard to develop his new band called "Thunderhorse".

ACQTC, Inc. | Main / ACQTC.org

acqtc.org/

Nov 30, 2011 – This year, on 25 June 2011, the Old Stone Church Congregation and the ... and lecture will be hosted by the Old Stone Church, UCC, East Haven, CT, ... Please read this new article by Iron Thunderhorse discussing The Great ...

Quinnipiac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac

J.H. Trumbull was the first to recognize that the New Haven band of the Quiripi ..... by Iron and Ruth Thunderhorse, QTC Press, 2003, ACQTC, Inc., 201 Church ...

Iron Thunderhorse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Thunderhorse

[edit] Ancestry and childhood. Iron Thunderhorse was born in New Haven, Connecticut on January 29, 1950, as William L. Coppola. In 1989, he legally changed ...

Powwow at East Haven church strengthens community bonds ...

www.nhregister.com/articles/.../news/doc4e065fc9c9891374695231.t...

Jun 25, 2011 – EAST HAVEN — Instead of the usual spiritual hymns, drums and chants filled the air Saturday at the Old Stone Church on Main Street.

Powwow: Historic church celebrates with ... - New Haven Register

nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/.../doc4e039f015916b995502765.txt

Jun 23, 2011 – The Old Stone Church in East Haven is holding a powwow this weekend. ... Council and wife of Quinnipiac Grand Sachem Iron Thunderhorse.

[PDF]

CANAL DOCK: - the City of New Haven Connecticut

www.cityofnewhaven.com/.../Canal_Dock_Planning_Phase_Report.p...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

165 CHURCH STREET, NEW HAVEN, CT 06510. TEL (203) 946- ..... 2 Iron Thunderhorse,”The Quinnipiac of New England,” in Whispering Wind, Vol. 32, No.

Iron Thunderhorse | Facebook

www.facebook.com/pages/Iron-Thunderhorse/144284502255367

Ancestry and childhood. Iron Thunderhorse was born in New Haven, Connecticut on January 29, 1950, as William L. Coppola. In 1989, he legally changed his ...

Quinnipiac « ::Native.Strength::

nativestrength.com/tag/quinnipiac/

Jul 10, 2011 – ... of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council — Iron Thunderhorse @ 3:37 pm ... and friends from the Old Stone Church at East Haven, Connecticut, for a ...

Old Stone Church Covenants with the Quinnipiac People

www.ctucc.org/news.php?story=1401

Old Stone Church in East Haven Covenants with Quinnipiac Peoples ... “Little Owl'” Duncan-Thunderhorse, telling us of two deaths in the Quinnipiac community ...

http://lpdcinc.blogspot.com/2005/07/torture-of-chief-iron-thunderhorse.html

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

THE TORTURE OF CHIEF IRON THUNDERHORSE

by Tom Big Warrior

On June 7th, 2005, ranking officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, Texas, attacked an elderly and legally blind inmate, Iron Thunderhorse, while he was attempting to go to the chowhall. They knocked the glasses and UV shields from his face and sprayed chemical pepper spray directly in his eyes. They proceeded to spray him all over with the chemical irritant, kicking him and wrenching his crippled arm behind his back.

For weeks, Iron had been denied entry into the chowhall, or any food at all, as the TDCJ was attempting to starve him into complying with an order to submit to a haircut, despite the fact that a federal court had recently upheald that his civil rights were being violated. This was the latest outrage in a struggle that has been going on for almost thirty years.

After being railroaded by the FBI's COINTELPRO program, along with many other dissidents and activists around the country, in the early 70s, Iron went to court to assert his rights as a Native American spiritual practicioner. He got off the bus from jail to prison armed with a court order requiring the TDCJ to respect these rights, including his right to wear long hair. He was met by the warden and a "goon squad" of inmate "building tenders" armed with baseball bats and axe handles. ....blah, blah, blah....

Iron Thunderhorse | Native American Encyclopedia

http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/

Dec 6, 2010 by John

Iron Thunderhorse, Biwabiko Paddaquahas, is CEO and Legal Sovereign of ACQTC, Inc., and Hereditary Grand Sachem and Powwamanitomp (Shaman) of the Quinnipiac Thunder Clan. Ancestry and childhood ... In 2003, Thunderhorse, who is now legally blind, filed a Pro Se litigation under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) about the conditions in Texas prisons, because they reportedly did not adequately accommodate disabled prisoners. This led to an ....

[DOC]

Jailhouse Lawyers.doc - ICPA

http://www.icpa.ca/tools/download/920/Jailhouse_Lawyers.doc

File Format: Microsoft Word

Far from Pennsylvania in the Lone Star State sits a 61-year-old legally blind man named Iron Thunderhorse (né Coppola), who still considers himself a jailhouse...

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Thunderbeings-Iron-Thunderhorse/product-reviews/0939680688/ref=pr_all_summary_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Comments from the co-author, February 20, 2008

By

D. LeVie, Jr.

This review is from: Return of the Thunderbeings (Paperback)

I am the co-author of Return of the Thunderbeings, and when I was involved with this project with William Coppola, I had good reason to believe his claims (and those who vouched for him) of having a Native American ancestry were valid. However, subsequent to the release of this book, I have discovered otherwise through various law enforcement agencies, including the Texas Attorney General's office. William Coppola is a charming, highly creative, very intelligent person, but our friendship was based on the assumption of truth and trust, which as I discovered, was later betrayed. Regarding the personal information he provided for this book, much of it is his own fiction. He still claims I am an advocate for him and his friend, though we have not had any contact in more than 18 years.

In the early 1990s, I was contacted by the TV show, America's Most Wanted, because William Coppola had at the time just escaped from protective custody after being shot (with a shotgun) by his ex-wife. He threatened her life, her attorney's life, and the life of the victim's rights advocate, and was on the run. He was captured several weeks later in California before America's Most Wanted filmed the segment on him. Many newspapers throughout Texas featured the story of his escape and subsequent capture. Sadly, he is not all who he says he is or was.

I am saddened by all of this because of his betrayal of the trust we shared. I do hope that one day he will admit to the truth of who he was and what he claims he was, and who is so he can truly realize his potential in a positive light. But until then, he will continue to fool his supporters, and all his future jailhouse brides after they have exhausted their usefulness (I have heard from two of his former wives/women supporters/girlfriends). His lack of credibilty regarding his background and many of his experiences taints the content of the book, therefore, I give it one star (the lowest possible rating). Unfortunately, as co-author, this also reflects on me (guilty by association).

I have since returned to my Christian faith roots and have actually separated myself from this work and no longer list it as a creative work.

I Made Him a Quinnipiac, June 26, 2011

By

RichardGC -

This review is from: Return of the Thunderbeings (Paperback) .....

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2011/06/25/news/doc4e065fc9c9891374695231.txt?viewmode=comments

Richard Carlson wrote on Jun 26, 2011 6:26 PM:

" It’s unfortunate that The Register accepts without journalistic skepticism the accounts of Quinnipiac Indian history and culture presented by the Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council recently in East Haven. The ACQTC was founded in 1989 by Iron Thunderhorse (New Haven-born William L. Coppola), a convicted rapist and kidnapper then and now imprisoned in Texas. After reading an article of mine about the Quinnipiacs in 1987, Coppola wrote me that he had traced his mother‘s ancestry “and as far as I could find it was Indian but I never did find out exactly what band. You may have found it for me.” His ever-changing biography now claims that “Quinnipiac elders” predicted the coming of a child who would rejuvenate their tribe. That child was Thunderhorse, who during his youth allegedly received intensive instruction in traditional Quinnipiac culture and spirituality. He is now CEO and Hereditary Sovereign of ACQTC (headquartered in Indiana). For $15 a year ($20 a family), anyone could become “Quinnipiac” since information about ethnicity is not required on the membership application. No authentic tribe equates native identity with monetary payments. The ACQTC version of local Indian history has taken over Wikipedia and seduced some in Connecticut sympathetic to native rights. As a historian, I recommend the late John Menta’s definitive study, “The Quinnipiac: Cultural Conflict in Southern New England” (Yale University Press), to those seeking accurate information about the tribe. Menta makes no mention of ACQTC. "

Edited February 29, 2012 by Tom Scully

[William Kelly]

Of course Alice Springs is where the CIA and NSA maintain a ultra-secret and security sensitive listening post.

And I am very distressed that Dan Brandt has taken his sites down due to attacks - as he is one of the allies of the Truth, as far as I'm concerned.

BK

JFKcountercoup

I am also a member of a forum that keeps a close look at what happens at Wikipedia. I posted details of my CIA-Google-Wikipedia conspiracy on this forum:

http://wikipediarevi...?showtopic=5615

I rather like this reply from someone from Alice Springs in Australia who goes by the name blissyu2.

I like this theory.

The first search engine that I remember was Gopher, back before there were proper graphical web pages. The government wasn't involved in that. Then there was Yahoo, which structured everything and people had to register to get their web pages listed. Some people hinted there was government involvement, but it seemed pretty silly to take it seriously. Yahoo proved their innocence once and for all when similar search engines like Excite and Lycos turned up and did the same thing. And then came the meta search engines, like Dogpile, which of course were quite free of intervention.

We all felt safe that search engines were safe, and then along came Google.

When Google first appeared on the market, we didn't need Google. We had enough search engines, we could find what we wanted easily. There were specified search engines, there were meta search engines, it was all fine. Nobody asked to have ultra fast search engines. Nobody asked to have caches of old web sites after they'd been deleted. Nobody asked to have image searches. Nobody asked to have things listed without asking. Nobody asked for the laws relating to privacy being violated.

Yet Google appeared, unwanted though it was, and suddenly became extremely popular from the instant it was created. Why? Was it perhaps because it was plastered all over every advertisement on TV and in every newspaper? Was it perhaps because governments were talking about it in official sessions? Was it because Oprah Winfrey and every other talk show host talked about it?

Google had money behind it, lots of it, yet we are led to believe that like Yahoo it started off by two college students. It might have, but these 2 had millions of dollars behind them, and government assistance. Google could not have done what they did without US government assistance, and without millions of dollars to help them. Indeed, my recollection from Oprah's story on it was that they had US military assistance, and it was no secret. But that's just a memory.

Google did something which Yahoo and Gopher never did. While Gopher and Yahoo for a time were the only serious search engines, like Google is today, they didn't ever get the ability to avoid privacy laws. Laws were effectively changed for Google. Nobody petitioned for them to be changed, they just ignored them and got away with it. There was no protest to say "Let Google break the law and get away with it". Nor was any court prepared to take them down over it.

But why would the CIA or the US government want to have a search engine which came up with more meaningless junk than any previous search engine ever had, and invaded people's privacy, with old journal posts or Newsgroup posts appearing years after they were deleted? To spy on people sure, but was that all? It seemed a bit minor, a bit petty.

The idea that the CIA was using it for something bigger, to then create an information database, a Wikipedia, makes a bit more sense. That CIA made Google so as to prepare the internet to be taken over by Wikipedia.

We know that the CIA uses Wikipedia, that much is obvious (they use Google too). We know that they are in there trying to manipulate articles. But how effective are they? Is Wikipedia complying with this? Or are they just unable to stop it?

What would be stopping the US government from calling Jimbo and demanding for him to cooperate with the CIA, or else he'd be framed as a terrorist? They could easily do it, and he'd have no choice in the matter.

Or is Jimbo doing it a bit more maliciously than that? Is he more than just innocent to what is going on? Is he more than an innocent victim?

We all know that Wikipedia claims that nobody owns any articles, yet people do. How many people have edited articles, and tried to fix huge mistakes, only to be told that they were not allowed to? Every major long-term article is owned by someone or other. How hard would it be for the CIA to get involved in this?

Look at all of the articles that would relate to matters of interest for CIA. All of the major murders and assassinations, political issues, wars and conspiracies. See how woefully inaccurate Wikipedia is compared to any other source on these topics.

We saw what Slim Virgin did to the Lockerbie Bombing article, and we saw what they did to the Port Arthur massacre article and the JFK assassination, to Hitler and to the George W. Bush article. We saw what they did to anything to do with the Iraq war. These are all matters of interest to the CIA. They have a vested interest to keep a certain version of the truth out there.

Disinformation isn't a simple matter of the government telling you something that is a lie. If they simply did that, then we'd all search for the truth, find it, and say "Ha". Nor is disinformation simply a matter of hiding the truth. We are too smart for that.

Disinformation is when the government pushes a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and leads breadcrumbs so that we will slowly start to see it make sense, and ignore everything else to push towards that. Then when we find out that it was wrong, we fall back on the official story, and ignore the actual story, which was neither of them. This is what disinformation is.

It does make a lot of sense.