JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[Chuck Schwartz]

Jim, what is your take on "Coup in Dallas"?

[Steve Roe]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect there are plenty of things I disagree with in the film, and plenty of things I agree with. But I am one of those who've been waiting for the 4-hour version to come out. My TV viewing these days is restricted largely to things I can watch with my wife. She was born on 11-22 and has missed out on many a birthday dinner while I was off at a conference. And she works from home and helps take care of me. So I thought it best to spare her from my obsession for awhile...

As for your assertion the film is a flop in comparison to Stone's and DiEugenio's hopes, and even expectations, you may very well be correct. But I don't know.

So maybe Jim can tell us.

Let's be straight, Jim. What were your expectations for the film? It seems obvious you and Oliver hoped the film would make more of an impact. That's only natural. But it also seems likely you feared it would go unnoticed, both here and abroad. I'm guessing you're both disappointed the film hasn't made more of an impact, and pleased that it's made some impact. Am I right?

If I am, Steve, you can hardly call it a flop. I read an interview the other day in which Francis Ford Coppola said that even though One From the Heart bankrupted his studio, he didn't consider it a failure, or a mistake. People create things for different purposes. Oliver and Jim wanted to update JFK with some of the info released over the last 30 years. Did they accomplish this? Will people watch this film in 30 years? I suspect they will. 

 

Pat, thank you for your efforts. As most people know here, Mr. DiEugenio has me and Tracy on "Ignore". It's not the Ed Forum "Ignore" option, it's him refusing to respond. It's nothing but a Forum Parlor Game, I can see his posts and he sees mine.

Your point about "Flop" is taken, and you made some valid points. I might add, you have some very thought-provoking posts, even if we disagree on the subject. You do take the time to explain your reasoning as a researcher, and I can appreciate that. 

That's an amusing story about your wife's birthday on 11/22. Being married myself, I understand the priorities.  

[Steve Roe]

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Fortunately I actually know what I'm talking about and you have time to edit this stupid comment that will show how ignorant you are. YouTube doesn't count "clicks for a few seconds" as a view and almost any grade schooler knows that even if you don't. I'm embarrassed someone ten years from now may see your post and decide immediately whatever you say is fortified by that level of incomprehension and dismiss it out of hand.

The near ten percent likes to view ratio is stellar and ratio of likes to dislikes beyond that. 863 comments is excellent engagement by any metric.

Talk about phony? You haven't a clue about what you're talking about. "Naturally" you should take up something you don't have to ask your grandson about to get informed. Sorry.

Bob,

YouTube wants to make sure that video views are coming from real people. That's why a YouTube view is only counted when the following two criteria apply:

1. A user intentionally initiates the watching of a video.
2. The user watches it on the platform for at least 30 seconds.

Thank you Bob.........

[Micah Mileto]

More on the harper fragment photos from John Hunt:

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Bob,

YouTube wants to make sure that video views are coming from real people. That's why a YouTube view is only counted when the following two criteria apply:

1. A user intentionally initiates the watching of a video.
2. The user watches it on the platform for at least 30 seconds.

Thank you Bob.........

Glad you looked that up Steve to reiterate how little you know about what you're talking about. You see, Google has little people there who know computer programming and how to turn them on and so forth and they also know how to measure these things because you know, that's how they make TRILLIONS of dollars, see?

I'm glad you can type questions into the Google machine and all but I have to make money from these types of issues (as do others) and that's why I included "engagement" information (I know - lotsa syllables huh?) which pretty easily shows that people who watch are watching most if not all. Those who do watch have enjoyed the interview, as can be seen in NO DISLIKES (even from idiots criticizing the interview in other forums) and the positive comments ratio.

Here's an idea - how bout don't be snide about sh!t you know nothing about?

Try that one.

[James DiEugenio]

9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Jim, I recently watched JFK Revisited and must congratulate you and Oliver Stone on magnificent film. At last somebody has told us what the ARRB really found out. Kudos.

Thanks Ray, that is what we were attempting.  Since there was pretty much a blackout of the ARRB.

Bob, nice one.  How does one measure those kinds of metrics?  And how does anyone on the outside know about it?

[James DiEugenio]

6 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Jim, what is your take on "Coup in Dallas"?

I have not read the book yet Chuck.

 

The Abby Martin interview is now up over 72,000 views.  And it has almost a thousand comments, the big majority are positive.

I take it back, I went over like the first 150 comments, there was only ONE that was negative.

Edited February 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

It is up to 75,000 views now.  This will easily break 100,000.

What Roe and Fred Litwin do not want to admit is that IT IS THEY  WHO HAVE FAILED!

They were laying for the film from the very beginning.  And the net effect of all their herniated efforts has been about the equivalent of throwing a half eaten apple at a bus. The best one can say is that Fred is now a beard for Posner and Kirchick.  And Kirchick was really an embarrassment since he did not address one thing in the film. And then on Twitter he blocked me. Consciousness of guilt.

Recall, Roe got a custard pie in the face right off.  He backed Greg Doudna with that nonsense about Todd's initials on CE 399.  OMG moaned Roe, look at what Stone did.

Greg admitted he was wrong.

But Roe doubled down.  He now pulled an obscure document by someone no one had heard of Tammy Long or something.  She said she had verified the chain of custody on CE 399.  What the heck?  How can anyone do that with Wright's testimony to Thompson? Or the work of John Hunt.  Second custard pie.  Which, again, he did not wipe off.

When I read what he did with Sebastian LaTona's WC testimony I finally realized that here was someone as bad as Gus Russo and the late Mike Sullivan of PBS.  A man who had lost his compass in pursuit of the great whale.  I replied to that and explained why it was utterly false and this is why Russo and Sullivan went for the other chimera, the trigger guard myths.  Which Pat Speer and Johnny Cairns have shown to be another deception. Plain and simple LaTona sunk the WC.  And Drain made it all the worse. Strike three Mr. Roe.  Placed on ignore.  Not worth reading let alone replying to.

If you watch Oliver on his interviews and read some of the articles, like Morley's, he is slowly but surely resetting the debate.  Morley's article was titled something like a New Set of Facts.

And Oliver, for example on Joe Rogan, said there is no chain of custody on CE 399.  Which he is correct on.  And he said it with Abby also. Forget any trajectory analysis. That is a very effective argument for throwing CE 399 in the trash can, which is where it should be.  And someone who saw the film said that to me unsolicited.  On another program Oliver did, it was the interviewer who brought up the complete lack of chain of custody after seeing the film. And on Rogan, Oliver also brought up the Stroud document. Discovered in 1999. Which gives Oswald a court room type of alibi.  It was Abby who brought up the two prior plots--when were those talked about before before an audience of 75,000 people?  Soon to be hundred K. And Oliver brought up the Stringer deposition also which would have eliminated the brain photos from any court.

This was my intent.  If you can prove fraud in the prosecution's presentation, and you can also prove they are hiding exculpatory material-the Stroud Document--you can get the case thrown out.  And that would have happened here. Recall what Henry Lee so eloquently and powerfully said in my favorite part of the film.  DId ABC ever say that? Did CBS? Did NBC? Did PBS? No no no and no.  But we did. And we did it with the most illustrious criminalist in America.

Litwin and Roe can spin all they want like used car salesmen. But that is the fundamental, successful case we made. And millions have been exposed to it and there will be many, many more.  We are just getting to part two, the four hour version.  Across seven platforms.

Edited March 1, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob, nice one.  How does one measure those kinds of metrics?  And how does anyone on the outside know about it?

You did read the previous response of mine didn't you? I liked the "edited to find synonym for ignorant" which you have to admit was a nice touch hahaha!

It's just math Jim. How many views? 70,000, Likes? 6,900. Ten percent. Very nice, in fact you probably won't find to many as high on the subject but I haven't looked. I didn't see any dislikes but thought that could be in error (not available to public now? They change these things).

I read nothing but supportive reviews but didn't check them all. Negative reviews don't necessarily penalize you but Google uses AI to sort through that sort of stuff. 863 comments to 70k views is very nice. Nothing to be embarrassed of at all.

Here's a few paras on the subject I grabbed randomly. Remember these numbers vary quite a bit but it gives an idea. PM me if you want to go over some of this stuff. Maybe I can look at KK or something. You don't need access to the back end for these numbers (maybe dislikes now?) but they are some of the factors for search. YouTube is the second largest search engine.

Comments to views ratio: evaluate your audience’s engagement

When talking about comments to visualization, the winning equation is COMMENTS: VIEWS = 0.5%. Assuming that your video earned a total of 1000 views, the ideal comments’ ratio that would prove a high level of engagement is 5 comments. Instead, a video that generates 4000 views should have at least 10 comments.
This rule, thanks to its easy applicability, can be used in any situation to check if the ratio between comments and visits is ideal. Obviously, as in all cases, there are exceptions: it’s not uncommon to find videos with 1000 views and a hundred comments. However, this depends on several factors such as the subject of the video: if the video is a very specific topic that attracts a few but very engaged users, the views will be limited to the target audience which will be ready to discuss the subject in the comment section below.

Likes to views ratio: the popularity of the video

A like on a Youtube video is a lot more than just a simple number: in addition to emphasizing quality, creativity and the hidden idea behind the video, it also means popularity. In this case, the perfect ratio between likes and views is LIKES: VIEWS = 4%. In simpler terms, at least 4 like every 100 views.
Visitors, but especially your channel’s subscribers, by investing their time leaving a like will indirectly say that the video is qualitatively valid, from the point of view of entertainment and originality, to the point that it deserves a nice thumb up. If your video does not reach a satisfactory level of likes, the best thing to do is to change the approach instead of being discouraged, and try different ways to improve the quality of your productions until you find the winning solution.
Someone like the famous vlogger PewDiePie found it for sure. In fact he’s getting almost a 20% likes/views ratio on this video: Haha this is more like your number Jim!!

Likes to dislikes ratio:  approval and disapproval

This is one of the most varying combinations. It shows how big is the approval or the disapproval of a video. The percentage change a lot between old and recent videos as well as between popular and unknown videos. According to the statistics we took anonymously from our wide Youtubers database the typical likes to dislikes ratio is LIKES: DISLIKES = 3%. In other words approximately 4 dislikes every 100 likes when there is an average appreciation. A high dislikes rate can be related to several factors. Often consistency issues like when the content does not match the title. Every case should be analyzed and understood, anyway even if it is negative, is still not related to the engagement. It shows that your video is gaining attention too.
On the contrary there are videos that almost everyone agrees, they just like them. And very few users think differently or have the courage to express their dissent.

[Denny Zartman]

I believe YouTube no longer shows the number of dislikes on any of the videos. I think the number of positive comments vs negative comments, and the number of likes and responses to those comments might be a better metric of how the videos are being received.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Denny Zartman

[Bob Ness]

3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I believe YouTube no longer shows the number of dislikes on any of the videos.

Suspected that but I haven't been optimizing for YT for a bit. Not that big a deal anyway.

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

She said she had verified the chain of custody on CE 399.  What the heck?  How can anyone do that with Wright's testimony to Thompson?

No one can. CE 399 has so many unbelievable things about it, but, in my opinion, this is the easiest to understand and the most convincing. The bullet that was found had a pointed tip. CE 399 has a rounded tip. For anyone rational, the question should end there.

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

No one can. CE 399 has so many unbelievable things about it, but, in my opinion, this is the easiest to understand and the most convincing. The bullet that was found had a pointed tip. CE 399 has a rounded tip. For anyone rational, the question should end there.

I don't know if anybody has posted a single all-encompassing takedown of CE 399 (that includes all known information), but it's more complicated than JFK Revisited makes it look. Tomlinson did say later on that he remembered telling his interviewer that CE 399 "Appeared to be the same" bullet that he remembered, Tomlinson also made contradictory statements about which stretcher he remembered finding the bullet on, and although O.P. Wright did say he remembered the bullet being pointed, Thompson admitted that the Wright at one point said it could have looked like CE 572 (a barely flattened 6.5 Carcano round). But after that, the extra punches mainly come from the conspiracy argument. CE 399 isn't even the worst-documented piece of evidence in the JFK case, it's average compared to the rest of the forensic stuff.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

The FBI lied about Odum.

The FBI lied about Todd.

The FBI lied about when it got there--either that or there was another bullet that got there later.

When you can prove fraud in the presentation of evidence, you can get the case thrown out.

As the film shows, you could do that here and with the brain photos.

You can prove the concealment of exculpatory evidence with the Stroud document.

I won't even mention things like the burning of Humes' notes, plus his first draft autopsy report, plus the stealing of Finck's notes.  You can make a checklist from the film.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

A couple of new articles by Fred:

Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

JFK Supported Ukrainian Independence (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Check out my Fred Litwin JFK Revisited archive:

Fred Litwin's JFK Revisited Archive ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)