Laura Knight Jadczyk :: The Disappeared: SOTT.net and Google’s conspicuous omissions :: January

I’ve been telling people for years that sott is the one site that scares the bejeebies out of the PTB… otherwise, why would they suppress us? And, out of all the alt news sites, ONLY sott?

But nobody was believing me. I got endless lectures about how fair google was, how the algorithms worked, what we should do to maximize google presence and all that.

So, we did a lot of things, made all kinds of changes. And sometimes, after a change, I would catch a sott article as a first return. But then, I would go back a couple hours later, and it was buried. I guess that oughta make us feel real "speshul," to be suppressed by hand! Kinda like how speshul we felt when the Pentagon Strike Flash went wildly viral and flushed out the "anti-conspiracy theory" debunkers in the Washington Post, Popular Mechanics and Scientific American… who talked about everything except sott even though it was said in the WaPo that this little video single-handedly got the 9-11 Truth ball out of the gutter.

At the same time, all kinds of trash - even OLD trash - with no other links to it from anywhere - defaming me and sott, will appear on the first page of google if you search for my name.

Folks, I think we can safely conclude from this that google is, indeed, bought and paid for by the "National Security State" or the CIA or whoever, and they are the main instrument of suppression on the internet.

Google omitting SOTT.net from search results?

A few days ago one of our readers brought this curious detail to our attention. While searching for an article on Google, they discovered a problem with results from SOTT.net being consistently omitted from Google listings.

Our correspondent writes:

"I find just now that if you search any of the text in "quotes" from Henry See’s ‘Provoking Stupidity and Violence’ piece on Hal Turner, Google brings back zero results from SOTT. The same text will be brought up from other sites carrying the story though.

So, say you grab the first few words from it: "Dave Neiwert at Orincus" and search it, according to Google it doesn’t exist on SOTT!

But if you do the same with the title: "Provoking Stupidity and Violence", the article is there!

Other search engines do bring back the SOTT page though. Now how might that happen!?"

How indeed!

Well, our curiosity piqued, we thought it best to go have a look. Was it possible that original articles written by the SOTT team were being ‘disappeared’ by Google, the thread back to the author snipped? Well, lets see…

Agents, Witches and other omissions

First up is the article brought to our attention:

Provoking Stupidity and Violence: Hal Turner outed as Agent Provocateur

Click for larger view.

Sure enough, if you copy the first few words of the article - "Dave Neiwert at Orincus" - as a search term for Google, the above is what you get and no, no sign of SOTT in there. To find SOTT we had to click "repeat the search with the omitted results included" and dig for another five pages to find where the original article lay buried.

Now that might just be some quirk of the system, so to be fair we gave it another shot with this next article written around the same time:

Wars Pestilence and Witches

This time taking the key phrase "triggered by reading Victor Clube", something specific so as not to have results diluted by any possible returns from other articles. The result, one return!

So you’re thinking, well that has to be SOTT right? Wrong! Click below to see the results, on the left is the solitary return from Google, on the right the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" results - where once again we find SOTT and the Laura-Knight-Jadczyk blog.

Well, maybe these articles are ‘too new’ and for some reason not yet picked up by Google as ‘relevant’ enough. Though how a copy of an article on a lone blog in the example above is more ‘relevant’ than the article’s originating page would seem more than a little nonsensical.

So for good measure, here we have some ‘not so new’ examples, to see if time has made any difference (apparently not). As above, initial quoted text search results are on the left, Google’s ‘omitted’ results to the right.

Ultra-terrestrials and 9-11