posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:06 AM
Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Actually they did, sort of...
Have been doing some digging and found out quite a bit of info on the whole Cointelpro issues.
I believe that a conversation was had by if not the amigo's themselves then certainly senior members of staff, about how to stop ATS being ranked top
in Google for being cointelpro.
Image how undesirable it would be for potential members if they searched for ATS and what they saw was ATS is cointelpro.
When I started this thread I had absolutely no idea what a Pandora’s Box I was opening.
While I was searching for more info on this subject, I found a thread on another forum which may or may not be true, but interesting none the less.
I'm not sure if I am allowed to post a link to that forum here so I will just put an extract.
Is Abovetopsecret.com a COINTELPRO site?
There is a fascinating debate on some more of the wacko sites about this issue.
This is quite complicated. Initially Catherder (a poster who seemed to come and go unanounced) created a thread that posited that a A Boeing did hit
the Pentagon. on Abovetopsecret.com.... He outlined his 'facts' and as usual people debated the topic. So much so that it has to date 2585
replies with 521,228 views.
Skepticoverlord, the Admin behind ATS has a relative who saw the plane go overhead and hit the Pentagon. Therefore he had some pretty strong views on
Another website Sig******* has been basing its popularity on an article on their site which they say shows the opposite of catherders, that a Boeing
did NOT hit the pentagon.
Sig****** has had over 600 million views on the page, and it serves to sell their book as well.
Lots of ego, respectability, and money are tied up in this theory by Sig******.
Inevitably the two divergent views met. Sig******** posted an article rubbishing www.abovetopsecret.com...'s article.
The article also took potshots at Skepticoverlord and Springer, claiming that they were trying to maipulate the discussion and push it in the
direction that the Boing existed.
Naturally The ATS Admin were pretty pissed off at this and followed with a series of emails asking for the slur on their names to be removed.
These emails were posted on Laura Knight Jadczyk blog way down the page on the 7th January with the title COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret
Springer wrote ... I am disgusted by your accusation that AboveTopSecret.com, LLP is a "Government funded damage control outlet" I ask that you
retract that lie.
(part of his email).
Following this acidic exchange, sig...*******.org decided that www.abovetopsecret.com... were infact a government fronted website used to
vacuum up debate on the net and guide it into pro government directions, in short www.abovetopsecret.com... is a Government COINTELPRO
Hillariously an old April fools joke where the admin admitted www.abovetopsecret.com... WAS a government backed site, has been used as evidence by
Signs of the Times as proof of its actual involvement.
Now as that debate gathered steam on Laura Knight Jadczyk's blog with many anonymous and disgruntled members putting their sticks in, it seems to
have created a dilemma for www.abovetopsecret.com...'s admin.
How do we avoid getting labelled as a cointelpro site in the search engines? Presumably went the backroom discussion. Such a reputation on the net
could cripple a website like www.abovetopsecret.com..., and deplete its membership. Who wants to talk about such topics if they thought it was
going straight to the Government?
The answer was to capture the top places in Google for the words abovetopsecret.com and cointelpro using a "google bomb". A google bomb apparently
is a thread, in this case, containing the key words that makes it rank highly in Google.
By creating a thread that contained those posts and in that thread try and show that you are not a cointelpro website would reassure the members and
google searchers that its all bunk.
Now in google at present there is pushing and shoving for the first place entries for the terms Abovetopsecret.com cointelpro click on the link and
see that they have been somewhat successful with their thread now holding 3rd and 4th position.
What is my take on this debate?
Firstly knowing the admin from quite a few years, there is no way that this site is a government backed operation. They really are just ordinary guys.
The originator Simon Gray, is just your nice average British computer geek, with an interest in conspiracies who's website under the magic of Bill
(Skepticoverlord) has blossomed far beyond its original goal.
Bill is an advertising executive in New York, with an impressive combination of programming and advertising who rebuilt the site from a stock xmb
board like this one to the megalith seen today. Under his work and guidance the site has reached the massive membership and structure you see
The third admin, Mark (springer) is just your ordinary unemployed ex-insurance salesman.
None of them work for the government. Really
For me I am more than content that even if ATS were Cointelpro it would be counter counter intel for any would be recipient within a powers that be
The reason I think this is that there are simply too many threads with so many points of view, a single thread no matter how biased always has a
thread with the exact opposite view.
I am sure that there are Agents of the wider govt. here on ATS or Monitor ATS, but does that really affect what ATS is or stands for???
I don't think so.
I will continue to dig...
Just came across this
Would be interesting to correlate the highs and lows of ATS against certain threads that appeared around times of ups and downs in page impressions.
All the best,
[edit on 11-12-2006 by Neon Haze]