JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[James DiEugenio]

I think I've solved the mystery. His full name is double-barrelled: Steve Roe-Consulting. He just goes by Steve Roe for convenience. That's my theory, and until someone shows otherwise, I'm sticking with it.

 

LOL, Nice one Jeremy

[Bob Ness]

On 3/29/2022 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But any reputable business would at least spend a few dollars to buy its own domain name, unlike Mr Roe-Consulting. Using Wix's free service is fine for amateurs (that's its purpose), but for a business it wouldn't give a good impression. 

What? And then have to transfer it to Wix? That's probably ten dollars hahaha!! Kinda tops Steve Roe up and out I suspect! Hahaha!

Nerd continued:

Wix has some pretty good tools and stock images and so on. You should make a free account and try it. It's pretty good these days actually. The thing I like about it is I don't have to fix em. It's their problem. For small businesses that's a big advantage.

WP has a really good plugin call Yoast SEO tools and a couple others that would be nice to have elsewhere but it's not required.

[James DiEugenio]

Whoever was behind the movement to flag Abby Martin's interview with Oliver succeeded.

She was easily headed toward 200,000 views.  She should have hit that at the latest two days ago.

She is stuck at 192 K as a result of that preposterous flagging.

Between You Tube and Wikipedia, its like The NY Times and Life Magazine on the JFK case.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Whoever was behind the movement to flag Abby Martin's interview with Oliver succeeded.

She was easily headed toward 200,000 views.  She should have hit that at the latest two days ago.

She is stuck at 192 K as a result of that preposterous flagging.

Between You Tube and Wikipedia, its like The NY Times and Life Magazine on the JFK case.

Oliver ought to stick with the film. Shoemakers should make shoes, not barrels. They're not very good at those.

[James DiEugenio]

But Bob:

Oliver had to do all of these interviews with alternative outlets.

Because he knew the MSM was not going to acknowledge the film at all, or if they did it would be in a disdainful way e.g. Max Boot, and Tim Weiner.

You Tube is becoming very problematic in this regard.  Just who is the You Tube Community? Does this mean if Dave Reitzes gets together with Steve Roe and complains to them that this somehow means the content is inappropriate?  That is really kind of sick.  Oliver did not say anything inappropriate in that interview..

But this is why people are going to Rumble and Bitchute.

[Bob Ness]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But Bob:

Oliver had to do all of these interviews with alternative outlets.

Because he knew the MSM was not going to acknowledge the film at all, or if they did it would be in a disdainful way e.g. Max Boot, and Tim Weiner.

You Tube is becoming very problematic in this regard.  Just who is the You Tube Community? Does this mean if Dave Reitzes gets together with Steve Roe and complains to them that this somehow means the content is inappropriate?  That is really kind of sick.  Oliver did not say anything inappropriate in that interview..

But this is why people are going to Rumble and Bitchute.

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe they wandered off into Putinlandia just before it became obvious that he was invading. It made the interview look like an invasion promo and has zip to do with JFKA without doing super complicated metal calculous to tie it in. The tie in by Martin was so contrived it came off as product placement. Up to that point it was a very good interview with Oliver's game much improved.

I shut the interview off immediately after they crossed into that territory and I'm a sympathetic part of the audience when it comes to the film. When it comes to Stone's apparent cheerleading the intentional slaughter and displacement of thousands of innocent people the message gets lost, whether it was intentional or not. 

Frankly, it may be better to take it down or at least edit it. But like I say, I didn't really listen to that end part because I get the feeling Stone isn't a neutral observer of that part of the world. He's heavily invested in a viewpoint that's impossible to support and difficult to back away from IMO.

[James DiEugenio]

 Nice catch Bob.

I went back and rewatched it.  That might have been the reason.

[Sandy Larsen]

I also quit watching the interview when it turned to Putin. At that point I thought Stone lost all credibility.

With what is happening in Ukraine, nobody could have picked a worst time to show support for Putin.

I know that Russia has historically had to deal with a super power that is anti-USSR, with its propaganda and CIA dirty tricks. But that doesn't give Putin the right to make up for it by taking Ukraine, particularly given that Russia has had its own propaganda machine and KGB/FSB dirty tricks.

Russia has a history of annexing and invading countries, and the rest of the world has the right to fight Putin in his apparent quest to rebuild the USSR.

It's just too bad that Stone chooses to bring this up. His interview to that point was excellent IMO.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Bob Ness]

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Nice catch Bob.

I went back and rewatched it.  That might have been the reason.

I don't know why you don't do your own channel on YouTube. It's the second largest search engine and would be a nice tie-in with your site. It would probably juice your traffic some also.

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 3/12/2022 at 12:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Oliver did another interview.  This one has 50,000 views in one day. And look at the comments.

 

I wasn't going to bring this into this thread, but now that Bob has. You recommended this Jim. At first I liked Stone talking about his early journey. I talked about this in much more detail in the other thread.

Later he gets into Ukraine, Stone is blaming this horrific Russian invasion on the U.S. Stone is actually doubling down  on Putin's  "denazifying" rhetoric. No protestation as to the brutality and killing of civilians. Rationalizing Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons because he says the U.S. is  pushing him. Biden's part of the neocon warmongering. The U.S. is pushing Russia into regime change, and that's an awful thing! Because we'll get some peace monger who is more pro U.S. like Yeltsin!, who will "cannibalize" Russia, and make Russia go against it's interest, (to the oligarchy?) as if economically they couldn't be a more failed basket case than they presently are.

At one point, he sort of comes unglued  and tries to look cocky with sort of a forced bravado but just comes off very insecure, making fun of the way people look and makes a  lot of guilt by association. 

The Abby Martin interview was such a set up. I always hate it when the host is trying  to impress and reinforce the guest of their solidarity in world view. Some may get great comfort from that. To me, it's always  boring.

Obviously Stone can say whatever he wants, and to some, there will be only be an  eye rolling that "that's Oliver" because they appreciate his film accomplishments.

But you're really giving a cudgel to those who discredit us. The outcome is you're not  going to attract people nearer to the middle who could actually help bring the JKAC toward mainstream credibility, but you attract a lot of the newfound Trump, Q. "perpetual conspiracy crowd" who may sell some books but ultimately will cause the JFKAC to be linked to the "fringies" of this era..

Edited March 31, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

You know Bob, that is a pretty good idea.

And I think I will look into it.

I would have to ask some people for the permission to use certain speeches I did for their functions, but if they agree, I just might do that.  I think it would help our side.

[Bob Ness]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know Bob, that is a pretty good idea.

And I think I will look into it.

I would have to ask some people for the permission to use certain speeches I did for their functions, but if they agree, I just might do that.  I think it would help our side.

PM me and maybe I can help. Although you have to be cautious, I would imagine much of what you would produce would be covered under fair use or often is public domain. Everyone tries to claim FU though and it usually isn't the case. You can ask Oliver or Rob Wilson on how to go about rights clearances and so on or who to talk to. I did a pilot a long time ago based on historical stuff because all the material predated 1923 - nobody could make a copyright claim against them because they were PD (Ty Cobb's family could have made a publicity claim though haha).

It's a slam dunk really. Develop a graphics package. Acquire rights-cleared music for stingers, bumpers, opens and closes. Record an intro if you like. Lay it all into a timeline for play back. Rinse, wash, repeat. After four air dates you'll have the coffee pot timer set to go off it'll be so automatic.

Each segment has it's own description with relevant key terms and tags. Save to YouTube after the live show complete with links to the guest's and other sites of interest (yours of course). The guests backlink to yours (very important).

I have a feeling you could set up a show in the form of a Q&A 60 or 90 minute long web cast that would be interesting. The expense is minimal and online access to just about anyone is available with your credentials. Email questions from the audience, maybe a few call ins or whatever, could be fun. IP addys can get you good demographic information.

Sometimes I just want to be a passive audience and although I enjoy reading your writing as well as others, a show such as this would be appealing. IE you could probably do a month worth of shows on the Secret Service with Vince if he were so inclined.

Kind of like Len does now but you could also do visuals. I've seen very successful shows done online with no more than a web cam and an email address and web site. Really successful. I created a channel and a video for one client that returned $90k in four days after posting on a brand new channel.

It can get crazy if you're lucky or just hit the right cord.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Wow Bob, I did not know you could do that much on You Tube.

Really interesting.

[Micah Mileto]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:15 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Micah:

Miller's meeting with Perry was alone.  And that is what Perry told him. 

What is in The Parkland Doctors, that happened years before Moore encountered Jim.

So now you have four independent witnesses : The Parkland Doctors witness, McClelland; the nurse who talked to Perry the next day;  Steadman's notes which came from Perry himself; and then Miller much later.

As far as I can see, none of those four had anything to do with Moore.

I mean really, how many independent witnesses do you need? 

Perry changed his story.  And he did so under pressure. Period.

And it looks like Steve Roe has donned disguises in  order to create a disinfo machine.  Has anyone been able to find any kind of legitimate enterprise for steveroeconsulting?  Is it architecture? Is it accounting?  Is it commercial real estate?  It is financing stock purchases?  

 Everyone search for what it is.  Because I have found nothing but JFK stuff.  And look at Quora, that Andrew Jackson alias sure looks like roe.

Sockpuppetry.

 

As for Perry's interaction with the person after the press conference, this seems to be a myth, unless I'm missing something. I can't find where either James Gochenaur or Dr. David Miller claimed that Perry was "intimidated" on the first day. It sounds to me like Dr. McClelland misremembered something from JFK and the Unspeakable, even though McClelland was apparently present for the later 12/11/1963 interactions with Elmer Moore, which officially involved no coercion, although we've all seen cop shows where the cheapest interrogation tactics can be used without it being legally called coercion.

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

Well, I would have to reply that neither Jim G nor Donald Miller was there.