post-template-default single single-post postid-3932 single-format-standard

Anti-Palestinian Infiltration of Wikipedia

Alex Constantine - April 26, 2008

1259397122 5bf7688749 - Anti-Palestinian Infiltration of WikipediaPicked up at: The Underground Radicals

A group calling itself CAMERA,Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, has been outed as mounting a large scale campaign to rewrite Palestinian history on popular reference site Wikipedia.

Until its exposure the group was very secretive, not allowing wikipedia administrators know of its existence. The group wished for some of its members to ascend to prominent editorial positions in wikipedia to ensure that the groups efforts would not be subject to backlash.

The group communicated through email, giving each other suggestions on how to pass of propaganda as fact. One tip from user Gilead Ini reads
So, for example, imagine that you get rid of or modify a problematic sentence in an article alleging that ‘Palestinian [sic] become suicide bombers to respond to Israel’s oppressive policies.’ You should, in parallel leave a comment on that article’s discussion page (either after or before making the change). Avoid defending the edit by arguing that ‘Israel’s policies aren’t ‘oppression,’ they are defensive. And anyway Palestinians obviously become suicide bombers for other reasons for example hate education!’ Instead, describe how this sentence violates Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. One of the core principles is that assertions should adhere to a Neutral Point of View, usually abbreviated NPOV. (The opposite of NPOV is POV, or Point of View, which is basically another way of saying subjective statement, or opinion.) So it would be best to note on the discussion page that ‘This sentence violates Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, since the description of Israel’s policies as ‘oppressive’ is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society.

The story was broken by the website ‘Electronic Intifada’ after it secured many of the groups emails. The user accounts of several group members have been suspended from Wikipedia as a result.

This is another reason why Wikipedia can not be trusted as a source on anything other than celebrities, sports results and trivia.

This story reminds me of an article hosted on Daniel Brandt’s Wikipedia watch website which goes into detail over a Wikipedia editor named Linda Mack, Wiki alias ’slimvirgin’. Mack has close links to British intelligence MI5.
EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia

The Electronic Intifada
21 April 2008

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia.

A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history.

With over two million articles in English on every topic imaginable, Wikipedia has become a primary reference source for Internet users around the world and a model for collaboratively produced projects. Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia's core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective. The CAMERA plan detailed in the e-mails obtained by EI appears intended to circumvent these controls.

In the past, CAMERA has gained notoriety for its tactic of accusing virtually anyone who does not toe a right-wing pro-Israel line of bias. The group has even accused editors and reporters of the Israeli daily Haaretz of being "extreme" and participating in "radical anti-Israel activity." Jeffrey Dvorkin, the former ombudsman of National Public Radio (NPR), frequently criticized by CAMERA for an alleged pro-Palestinian bias, wrote on the web publication Salon in February 2008 that "as a consequence of its campaign against NPR, CAMERA acted as the enabler for some seriously disturbed people," citing persistent telephone threats he received in the wake of CAMERA campaigns.

Need for stealth and secrecy

Download CAMERA's emails [PDF - 2.7 MB] Throughout the documents EI obtained, CAMERA operatives stress the need for stealth and secrecy. In his initial action alert, Ini requests that recipients "not forward it to members of the news media." In a 17 March follow-up email sent to volunteers, Ini explains that he wants to make the orchestrated effort appear to be the work of unaffiliated individuals. Thus he advises that "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions."

Anticipating possible objections to CAMERA's scheme, Ini conjectures that "Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal (the same one that controls the banks and Hollywood?) is trying to hijack Wikipedia."

But stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success. Ini suggests that after volunteers sign up as editors for Wikipedia they should "avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time." This strategy is intended to "avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors," thus attracting unwanted attention.

Ini counsels that volunteers "might also want to avoid, for obvious reasons, picking a user name that marks you as pro-Israel, or that lets people know your real name." To further conceal the identity of CAMERA-organized editors, Ini warns, "don't forget to always log in before making [edits]. If you make changes while not logged in, Wikipedia will record your computer's IP address" -- a number that allows identification of the location of a computer connected to the Internet.

A veteran Wikipedia editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived [sic] as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia [sic] that is for sure." One st
rategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "[h]e is very loyal to the wikipedia [sic] system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.

"Uninvolved administrators"

The emphasis on secrecy is apparently not only to aid the undetected editing of articles, but also to facilitate CAMERA's takeover of key administrator positions in Wikipedia.

For Zeq a key goal is to have CAMERA operatives elected as administrators -- senior editors who can override the decisions of others when controversies arise. When disputes arise about hotly contested topics, such as Israel and Palestine, often only an "uninvolved administrator" -- one who is considered neutral because he or she has not edited or written articles on the topic -- can arbitrate.

Hence, Zeq advises in a 21 March email that "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."

Once these CAMERA operatives have successfully infiltrated as "neutral" editors, they could then exercise their privileges to assert their own political agenda.

In addition, Zeq suggests making deliberately provocative edits to Palestine-related articles. He hopes that editors he assumes are Palestinian will delete these changes, and then CAMERA operatives could report them to administrators so they could be sanctioned and have their editing privileges suspended.

Passing propaganda as fact

Gilead Ini's 17 March email provides specific advice on how to pass off pro-Israel propaganda or opinion as fact meeting Wikipedia's strict guidelines:

"So, for example, imagine that you get rid of or modify a problematic sentence in an article alleging that 'Palestinian [sic] become suicide bombers to respond to Israel's oppressive policies.' You should, in parallel leave a comment on that article's discussion page (either after or before making the change). Avoid defending the edit by arguing that 'Israel's policies aren't 'oppression,' they are defensive. And anyway Palestinians obviously become suicide bombers for other reasons for example hate education!' Instead, describe how this sentence violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. One of the core principles is that assertions should adhere to a Neutral Point of View, usually abbreviated NPOV. (The opposite of NPOV is POV, or Point of View, which is basically another way of saying subjective statement, or opinion.) So it would be best to note on the discussion page that 'This sentence violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, since the description of Israel's policies as 'oppressive' is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society ...'"

In fact, there have been numerous studies debunking claims about Palestinian "hate education," or "glorification of martyrdom" causing suicide bombings (such as Dying to Win by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape) though this claim remains a favorite canard of pro-Israel activists seeking to distract attention from the effects of Israel's occupation and other well-documented and systematic human rights abuses in fueling violence.

Zeq specifically names articles targeted for this kind of treatment including those on the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Hamas, Hizballah, Arab citizens of Israel, anti-Zionism, al-Nakba, the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian right of return.

Interestingly the CAMERA editors also target the article on the early Islamic period concept of Dhimmi, a protected status for non-Muslims which historically allowed Jews to thrive in Muslim-ruled lands while other Jews were being persecuted in Christian Europe. Pro-Israel activists have often tried to portray the concept of Dhimmi as akin to the Nuremberg laws in order to denigrate Muslim culture and justify ahistorical Zionist claims that Jews could never live safely in majority Muslim countries.

Also among the emails is a discussion about how to alter the article on the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the village of Deir Yassin by Zionist militiamen on 9 April 1948. Unable to debunk the facts of the massacre outright, the CAMERA activists hunt for quotes from "reputable historians" who can cast doubt on it. Their strategy is not dissimilar from those who attempt to present evolution, or global climate change as "controversial" regardless of the weight of the scientific evidence, simply because the facts do not accord with their belief system.

Zeq has already made extensive edits to the Wikipedia article on Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist murdered by an Israeli soldier in the occupied Gaza Strip on 16 March 2003. As a result of these and other edits Zeq has himself been a controversial figure among Wikipedia editors, suggesting his own stealth tactics may not be working.

"We will go to war"

Zeq, however, counsels CAMERA operatives to be patient and lie low until they build up their strength. "We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it trained [sic]," he wrote on 9 April. "So please if you want to win this war help us build ou[r] army. let's not just rush in and achieve nothing, or abit more than nothing [sic]."

Update 22 April 2008

Download additional CAMERA emails [PDF - 1 MB] A plan by the pro-Israel pressure group CAMERA to skew the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in a pro-Israel direction appears to have collapsed after it was exposed by EI.

On 21 April, EI published emails and action alerts posted by CAMERA staff and collaborators on a closed listserv instructing would-be editors how to game the Wikipedia system so they could impose their hard-line pro-Israel agenda undetected.

Following EI's report, Gilead Ini a CAMERA staffer and Wikipedia editor informed members of the group that, "Because member of this group [sic] affiliated with the anti-Israel propaganda cite [sic] Electronic Intifada decided to share the content of our discussions, I will be temporarily or permanently closing access to the group, in hopes that members' personal contact information will not be made public."

Meanwhile, Wikipedia administrators issued a ban on Zeq, the editor who was helping CAMERA to groom new editors to subvert Wikipedia's quality control process. Zeq has been prohibited from editing Israel-Palestine related articles and administrators were debating further action. Based on the evidence in the emails released by EI, Wikipedia administrators accused Zeq of violating fundamental Wikipedia principles and guidelines. In response, Zeq alleged that the accusations were merely the result of a "conspiracy" which he termed "The (e-mail) protocols of the elder of CAMERA [sic]." Zeq even alleged that The EI itself "may have created the story or created the group or spoofed e-mails."

Today EI publishes additional emails that further expose the CAMERA plan. These emails also reveal that while Zeq is willing to accuse others of prejudice he may hold some himself. In one email he commends an editor whom he considers to be "anti-Islamic." And, in an echo of the kind of anti-Semitic thinking that CAMERA sees everywhere, Zeq alleges that "the other side" -- an apparent reference to Pale
stinians and Muslims -- "is orgenized well, they control wkipedia [sic]."

Information obtained by EI indicates that while Gilead Ini claimed that more than 50 volunteers had come forward to participate in CAMERA's plan, and the group had set its sights on creating dozens of new editors and administrators over a long period of time, fewer than a dozen were active at the time EI exposed the scheme. Because the effort was apparently in its early stages, only a handful had become active as Wikipedia editors.
Spies in Wikipedia

From Computerra magazine

By Kiwi Bird
26 September 2007
Translated from Russian

In September of this year, the milestone of two million articles on the English-language version of Wikipedia represents an impressive success for the global Internet community. This is a grand and, most importantly, freely-available source of information about almost everything in the world.

However, if Wikipedia reflects the real world as it is, and given that modern society includes a high level of activity on the part of secret agents, it would be surprising if such agents ignored the ever-popular "People's Encyclopedia." And they have not ignored Wikipedia, but have tried to spin articles for particular purposes. This ranges from varnishing the image of political leaders, to the use of disinformation and cover for covert operations.

The interest of special agents and agencies in influencing Wikipedia should not surprise anyone; it is simply a daily part of their official duties. The scale and efficiency of their efforts on Wikipedia are not surprising, but they stun untrained observers. At the same time, they reveal to the mass media how international policy is pursued, and what stands behind the war against global terrorism.

Google and other search engines have given Wikipedia articles high rankings, often placing them at the top of the listings. It should be remembered that the contents of these articles have already influenced those who are not adept at pursuing objectivity.

Identifying SlimVirgin

American professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer is a nuclear physicist by profession, who also researches government abuses of power and human rights issues. He has been interested in the Lockerbie disaster for a long time. Curious details still surface today about the bombing in 1988 of a Boeing 747 over Scotland, which killed 270 people. As more evidence emerged, those who were following the case noticed that the intelligence services of several nations were implicated.

De Braeckeleer also stumbled across something strange while searching the web to prepare an article about Lockerbie. He wanted a source for information about the infiltration of PFLP by the Israeli security agency Shin Bet. (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command was an early suspect in the Lockerbie case.) He consulted Wikipedia, where he knew the Shin Bet connection had once been noted, but there was no longer any trace of that information in Wikipedia. The article itself (on Operation Entebbe) had been blocked from editing. It is not unusual for disputed articles to be protected from editing for certain periods. But normally this still allows access to previous versions of the article, as is the case when vandalism is reverted, for example. However, this time it was impossible to recover the information. [De Braeckeleer reads better in the original English -ed]

For someone seeking the truth as meticulously as De Braeckeleer, this was a red flag signaling that something was not right. The scientist began to analyze Wikipedia and its articles on the Lockerbie case and the tragic flight of Pan Am 103. This included the unjust, to say the least, trial of Libyan Megrahi, who categorically denied his guilt and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Despite Wikipedia's professed "neutral point of view," all of its articles on the subject were clearly biased toward the official viewpoint of the authorities. In trying to determine who could be manipulating the facts, De Braeckeleer came across a Wikipedia editor who used the pseudonym "SlimVirgin."

Many Wikipedia editors and administrators prefer to hide behind screen names, and sometimes it is not difficult to discover their real names. But this was not the case with SlimVirgin. This woman (her gender has not been questioned) first appeared in Wikipedia in the Fall of 2004, and since then has skillfully concealed her identity and whereabouts. But she is not famous for that. She quickly understood the methods of successful Wikipedia combat (learn the formal rules, and loudly accuse opponents of violating the rules, so that an administrator can ban the opponent from the debate). SlimVirgin began vigorously editing articles within the scope of her interests. Among the first, it must be emphasized, were articles about Pan Am 103 and ABC News journalist Pierre Salinger, who had investigated the case. SlimVirgin's editorial work progressed so well, and she observed the rules so perfectly, that she gained the rank of administrator. This gave her the right to remove users from the debate and from editing.

Of course, this created enemies and detractors for SlimVirgin, including those who had been banned by her from participating in the establishment of a "People's Encyclopedia." For example, a poll in the famous forum Wikipedia Review awarded SlimVirgin the dubious title of "most abusive administrator." At the same time, the numbers increased among those who wanted to know the real identity of this cool and mysterious woman who was hiding behind the guise of a "lean virgin."

"A spectacular miscarriage of justice"

Many found the verdict of the Scottish judges, who decided that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi had intentionally caused the death of 270 people, to be unconvincing and unfair. The international observer appointed by the United Nations, professor Hans Koechler, called the decision a "spectacular miscarriage of justice." He elaborated on the inconsistencies and questionable evidence against Megrahi.

The "Libyan connection" had been questioned from the beginning, and many demanded a new, independent investigation. However, all British prime ministers, including Thatcher, Major, and Blair, spared no effort to block such an investigation. Nevertheless, in 2005 a Scottish appeals court began a procedure for reviewing the case, and so far there is substantial information suggesting that U.S. and British intelligence agencies forged evidence against Libya in order to isolate that country. In particular, one of the key pieces of evidence in the case against Libya — a fragment from a printed circuit board of a timer fuse — was planted by CIA employees, according to the testimony of a Scottish policeman. And engineer Ulrich Lumpert, from the Swiss firm Mebo that produced timers ordered by the Libyan army, recently admitted that he secretly provided a counterfeit board at the request of American intelligence.

But if evidence of Libya's guilt was fabricated, then who blew up the plane? Immediately after the disaster, Pan American Airlines hired the detective firm Interfor, headed by Juval Aviv, a former Israeli-intelligence Mossad operative. Aviv quickly discovered that Pan Am flight 103 from Europe to America regularly carried heroin. This channel for Syrian traffickers was covered up by the CIA in exchange for intelligence on Palestinian militant groups in Syria. On the day of the disaster, everything went wrong: terrorists who knew about the channel replaced the suitcase containing drugs, which avoided security screening, with a suitcase containing explosives. This version of events was confirmed in 1990 by former Defense Intelligence Agency operative Lester Coleman, who described Syrian cooperation with U.S. intell
igence services. After writing his book Trail of the Octopus, Coleman was under severe legal pressure from U.S. security services. He had to go into hiding and request asylum in Sweden, and became the first American political refugee since the Vietnam War.

Next came a massive Internet hunt for bits of information that could shed light on the mystery of SlimVirgin. The key role in her identification was played by American researcher Daniel Brandt, known for his site Wikipedia-Watch.org. He is also known for revelations about misinformation published in Wikipedia about the Kennedy assassination (the Seigenthaler case), as well as the identification of another administrator. This was a professor of theology with two doctorates named Essjay, who turned out to be an ambitious young imposter named Ryan Jordan. The story of the painstaking investigation of the SlimVirgin case would make a good chapter in a spy novel, but we will go to the end because it is more interesting.

The consistency and credibility of the collected evidence leaves no doubt that SlimVirgin is the screen name chosen by Linda Mack, now living in Canada under the name Sarah McEwan. In the 1980s she was a student in the philosophy department at Cambridge University. She participated as a journalist in the investigation of the Lockerbie attack, while playing an active role as an organizer of some close relatives of the victims. Due to a series of events, strong suspicions arose concerning Linda Mack's close links to the British security service MI5, causing her to disappear from sight for a long time. Years later she surfaced in the Canadian province of Alberta under the name Sarah McEwan. Her email address (slimvirgin1@yahoo.com) was the same address that Cambridge showed for Linda Mack in its list of alumni.

The most important evidence was an involuntary confession by SlimVirgin that she was Linda Mack. In the early 1990s, American journalist John K. Cooley worked with Pierre Salinger at the London bureau of ABC News, and was involved with the investigation of Lockerbie. In his email to Brandt, he described how they hired an impressive and energetic Linda Mack, who was eager to investigate the bombing. But after a while it became clear that Linda was trying to push journalists toward the official version of the story that accused Libya. It wasn't long before a special unit of Scotland Yard raided ABC News and seized certain materials. Because only a few people knew about the seized material, Salinger realized that this was the work of Linda Mack, and he locked her out of her office. ABC's efforts to fight the seizure were unsuccessful in court. Daniel Brandt had already announced the identification of SlimVirgin as Linda Mack publicly, and she knew that he was about to ask John Cooley for information. She called Cooley as a former colleague and asked him not to speak to Brandt. But her request was late — an email from Cooley to Brandt had already been sent.

These events occurred in Fall 2006. At that time almost no one was interested in the identification of SlimVirgin, except for regular visitors to the web forum Wikipedia Review. But at the end of July 2007, the above-mentioned professor Ludwig De Braeckeleer published his article "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services" at the South Korean "civic journalism" site OhmyNews. He briefly recapped the key points about the "People's Encyclopedia." This article was picked up by the very popular forum Slashdot. Because of that, the OhmyNews article was read by 50,000 people in three days.

Reaction to leaks

Whenever the work of intelligence services is punctured, the most important information for analysis appears in the first days and hours after the event. Those who know something inadvertently reveal superfluous information, while those who are directly involved are either keeping silent, or refute everything through quick and flagrant misinformation. In the case of Linda Mack, it is impossible to determine who knew what in the upper echelon of Wikipedia, but their reaction fits all the characteristics of espionage leaks.

SlimVirgin slipped into a state of unconsciousness and has not shown any signs of life for thirty hours. This is very unusual, because she is known as an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same SlimVirgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia's editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that SlimVirgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services.

The "god-king" of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, rushed to protect the honor and dignity of SlimVirgin, declaring the article by De Braeckeleer as "really spectacular nonsense." A bit later in a special message to readers of Slashdot, he stated:

"This story is demented and broken on so many levels, it is quite difficult to know where to begin, even. Here we have an excellent Wikipedia administrator who has been victimized by lunatic conspiracy theorists, a private person who has absolutely no relation to the wild stories that this article promulgates. Slashdot, you have been trolled."
But participants in the discussion were able to prove from the records of Wikipedia that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, had completely removed editing evidence. Jimmy Wales had to admit that yes, this is sometimes done, but only to protect the identity of administrators or editors, who are often threatened with physical violence.

Wikipedia and its rules

Like any online community, Wikipedia follows certain rules of conduct. But because Wikipedia is a rather contradictory combination of normal encyclopedia, panel discussions, and role-fantasy games, the rules are intricate and ambiguous. For example, everyone knows the famous motto, "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But in fact, anyone who wants to fix or add something has to be liked by the administrator who is in charge of that topic.

According to basic rules of Wikipedia, the articles should reflect the "neutral point of view." However, some points of view are always more neutral than others. One's point of view (POV) should be supported by sources that are "verifiable" and "reliable" — although "reliable" is a constant subject of fierce disputes. But there is a clear taboo against "original research," which are opinions that are not supported by recognized authority.

Editing and overall policy in Wikipedia is conducted on the basis of "consensus." In practice this means approximately the following: there can be only one successful editor who is able, through flattery or threats, to persuade the others. If someone wants to simply edit the encyclopedia, he or she will quickly come into conflict with more aggressive editors. That will end first with a temporary, and then a total ban on participation.

The highest level of the Wikipedia hierarchy is called The Cabal, or Clique. Becoming a member of the Clique means that one has unprecedented authority, including the right to ignore the rules. But to achieve such power, a person has to sell one's soul to the devil by renouncing one's own views, and accepting the viewpoint of the Clique. According to the head of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, The Cabal represents the power of "some shadowy mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible for newbies." — from a satirical essay

The most curious reaction to the news of SlimVirgin's identity was demonstrated by the English-language media: apart from personal blogs and web forums, not a single word appeared in any of the major media! Previous scandals such
the Seigenthaler case, exposing Essjay, and the WikiScanner program by Virgil Griffith, received wide coverage. But there was silence about SlimVirgin, comparable to the silence on classic themes such as UFOs and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

This year such themes have been completely ignored by major media, even when new light is shed on these twentieth-century mysteries. First the famous E. Howard Hunt, who personally participated in many covert operations during the 1950s and 1960s, admitted before he died that the assassination of President Kennedy was organized by U.S. intelligence, in conjunction with the Mafia and top administration officials, headed by Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Several months later a notarized deathbed confession by Walter Haut was published. In 1947 he was the public relations officer at the 509th Bomb Group based in Roswell, New Mexico. First he composed a press release about the crash of a flying disc, and soon followed with a new release about a weather balloon. For the rest of his life he gave evasive explanations of what was really found, but just before he died he dared to tell the truth. In the document he left behind, Walter Haut states that he not only saw the wrecked spacecraft, but also the bodies of aliens recovered from it. They had unusually large heads, and bodies the size of a ten-year-old child. It is clear that the deathbed confessions of people who participated in these extraordinary events deserve serious attention. But the major media ignored both of them.

Moreover, the sensational confession of E. Howard Hunt did not even get any space in Wikipedia's article on the assassination of John F. Kennedy (at least it is mentioned in the article on E. Howard Hunt). The confession of Walter Haut is reflected in the article about the Roswell incident, but it lacks a direct reference to the document published on the web. Thus, the conclusion: for important Wikipedia articles, the content is gradually approaching the official information available from traditional sources. It is more or less understandable who is behind this. Everyone must decide for himself or herself whether this is acceptable.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *