TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject: Operation Mockingbird - controlling search engines? |
 |
|
| Quote: | 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?
|
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8901
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
