Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Brietta]

no one is saying....they have ulterior motives ....

just they could have assumed things that wasn't there....very easily done ...

statements are not always concrete evidence of something ....are they...doesn't always mean they have to be right ...only there recollection of things .....they think they saw ...or what actually happened...

He asserts that Madeleine "vanished" on the Sunday or the Monday after her arrival.  How is it possible to deny her physical presence as confirmed by witnesses?

[G-Unit]

He asserts that Madeleine "vanished" on the Sunday or the Monday after her arrival.  How is it possible to deny her physical presence as confirmed by witnesses?

Even those who knew her well got it wrong. Rachael said the last time she saw her was playing mini tennis on Thursday.

[xtina]

So instead you say she is dead.   

If Sara Payne's son hadn't seen the white van,  there wouldn't have been any evidence Sarah Payne had been abducted,  apart from the fact that she was missing and there was no body.   The same with Ben Needham.

how ever you look at it ...maddie was robbed of a innocent life .......unless you think it is ok to be with peodos ...as the mccans said she had been abducted by .....as for me ...say she is dead ...as you put it .

[Alice Purjorick]

how ever you look at it ...maddie was robbed of a innocent life .......unless you think it is ok to be with peodos ...as the mccans said she had been abducted by .....as for me ...say she is dead ...as you put it .

That is probably the best way to look at it. The trouble is expressing that view usually starts a flame war about empathy and hope and such.

Food for thought:

So was it a good thing that Pandora trapped hope in her box/jar after the evils escaped ? Or is hope just the worst of the evils as when it runs out all that is left is despair ?

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men."


I know where my vote goes.

[blonk]

With regard to the statistics you quote may I ask:-

Does a 'view' lasting only a few minutes count as 'a view' ?    

If so then surely the statistics you quote cannot be purported as being representative of the number of people who have actually watched his videos in their entirety. What if a person 'views' the same video in its entirety by making several repeat visits to it  - does every new visit count as another 'view' ?

Could you (or anyone else) enlighten me please?

Yes.

Both your assumptions are perfectly correct.

A 'view' could be anything from say half a minute and then decoding not to bother, to watching the whole of one of Hall's 4-hour Madeleine's films at one sitting.   

You asked: "What if a person 'views' the same video in its entirety by making several repeat visits to it  - does every new visit count as another 'view'?"

ANSWER: Yes, I am almost certain that it does count as another view each time. 

But I've nowhere claimed that the stats were of viewings of the whole film.

It's just that they are significant viewing figures, even allowing for the fact that some 'views' may be quite short.

Given that not that many people are interested in the minutiae of the Madeleine McCann case, to have well over a million views (including those viewed elsewhere than YouTube, that is) in 18 months, with another 2,400 or more 'clocking on' every single day to view more of his films, is enough to raise eyebrows in some quarters.

It is certainly what motivated independent journalist Jenny Kleeman to travel up to Nottingham and try to film Hall at one of his meetings last year             

[Mr Gray]

Yes.

Both your assumptions are perfectly correct.

A 'view' could be anything from say half a minute and then decoding not to bother, to watching the whole of one of Hall's 4-hour Madeleine's films at one sitting.   

You asked: "What if a person 'views' the same video in its entirety by making several repeat visits to it  - does every new visit count as another 'view'?"

ANSWER: Yes, I am almost certain that it does count as another view each time. 

But I've nowhere claimed that the stats were of viewings of the whole film.

It's just that they are significant viewing figures, even allowing for the fact that some 'views' may be quite short.

Given that not that many people are interested in the minutiae of the Madeleine McCann case, to have well over a million views (including those viewed elsewhere than YouTube, that is) in 18 months, with another 2,400 or more 'clocking on' every single day to view more of his films, is enough to raise eyebrows in some quarters.

It is certainly what motivated independent journalist Jenny Kleeman to travel up to Nottingham and try to film Hall at one of his meetings last year             

how do you know there are another 2400 clocking on every single day...you have stated it as fact...this is more likely the same people clocking on again imo....when Maddie died part 1 has 11000 views...again that is not 11000 individual people watching it,,,it has 74 likes and about 5 comments in a month,,,that seems to be a more accurate indication of the numbers watching it

[blonk]

How do you know there are another 2400 clocking on every single day...you have stated it as fact...this is more likely the same people clocking on again imo...

Just to make it clear once again, I can only count the number of 'views'.

Every time any one person clicks on a link to a video, Google automatically counts another 'view'.

To take a specific example, this recent upload of 'When Madeleine Died?': 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oo2-Sj7to     

...had had 13,774 views to 11.40pm on Wednesday (23rd March).

Just now when I checked, it had had 14,319 views.

So another 545 views in less than 2 days.

Of course, no-one can say exactly how many are returning viewers, but I suspect not that many.

And the 545 who viewed the link above on YouTube in the last two days are those who viewed just ONE of at least EIGHTY-THREE separate uploads of all or part of Hall's three films, during the same period.

This one upload of Hall's first Madeleine film:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjPcvmVzUo

...has had well over a quarter of a million views to date...

...a 'view' rate alone of over 440 a day ever since it was first uploaded 19 months ago

[Mr Gray]

Just to make it clear once again, I can only count the number of 'views'.

Every time any one person clicks on a link to a video, Google automatically counts another 'view'.

To take a specific example, this recent upload of 'When Madeleine Died?': 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oo2-Sj7to     

...had had 13,774 views to 11.40pm on Wednesday (23rd March).

Just now when I checked, it had had 14,319 views.

So another 545 views in less than 2 days.

Of course, no-one can say exactly how many are returning viewers, but I suspect not that many.

And the 545 who viewed the link above on YouTube in the last two days are those who viewed just ONE of at least EIGHTY-THREE separate uploads of all or part of Hall's three films, during the same period.

This one upload of Hall's first Madeleine film:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjPcvmVzUo

...has had well over a quarter of a million views to date...

...a 'view' rate alone of over 440 a day ever since it was first uploaded 19 months ago

#so you admit that your claim of"another 2400 clocking on each day"has no basis in fact...but you have claimed it as a fact.../the video with 250,000 views has a mere 1000 likes and very few commnets..

[Eleanor]

So anyone could just click on these videos several times a day for five minutes and they would all count.  Well well, there's a turn up.

[Alice Purjorick]

So anyone could just click on these videos several times a day for five minutes and they would all count.  Well well, there's a turn up.

It comes as no surprise to me that one can. I am astonished that anyone would want to, apart a bunch of adolescents having an adolescent laugh. I attribute that reason to both sides of the argument. I feel uncomfortable with any other reason.

[Benice]

Yes.

Both your assumptions are perfectly correct.

A 'view' could be anything from say half a minute and then decoding not to bother, to watching the whole of one of Hall's 4-hour Madeleine's films at one sitting.   

You asked: "What if a person 'views' the same video in its entirety by making several repeat visits to it  - does every new visit count as another 'view'?"

ANSWER: Yes, I am almost certain that it does count as another view each time. 

But I've nowhere claimed that the stats were of viewings of the whole film.

It's just that they are significant viewing figures, even allowing for the fact that some 'views' may be quite short.

Given that not that many people are interested in the minutiae of the Madeleine McCann case, to have well over a million views (including those viewed elsewhere than YouTube, that is) in 18 months, with another 2,400 or more 'clocking on' every single day to view more of his films, is enough to raise eyebrows in some quarters.

It is certainly what motivated independent journalist Jenny Kleeman to travel up to Nottingham and try to film Hall at one of his meetings last year             

Thankyou for that info. 

So in reality -  you can have no idea from your statistics of how many people have actually watched the McCann videos in their entirety, just as you can have no idea what percentage of people who (having watched part or all of them) - came away thinking .... 'Gosh I believe every word RH says' .....- as opposed to those thinking ...... 'Gosh that's the biggest load of conspiratorial tosh I have ever heard?.....   

Neither can you have any idea of the number of people who have repeatedly clicked on the videos and insodoing  increased the total no. of  'hits' by 1 - each time they did that.  Therefore, while that total is an accurate record of the overall no. of 'hits' made, it is certainly not an accurate record of the no. of people who have viewed the McCann vids..

With respect  Blonk - if your purpose was to plug  Richard Hall and his McCann videos by impressing folk with  'significant viewing figures' - then in the absence of any statistics defining and differentiating between the above alternative scenarios - the stats you quote have virtually no value at all imo -  because they are devoid of any of the information required in order  to make a judgement on the impact - or lack of it - which RH's videos actually makes on the McCann case.

p.s. Is this Richard Hall the same RH who described independent journalist Jenny Kleeman as a puppet?

[Eleanor]

Thankyou for that info. 

So in reality -  you can have no idea from your statistics of how many people have actually watched the McCann videos in their entirety, just as you can have no idea what percentage of people who (having watched part or all of them) - came away thinking .... 'Gosh I believe every word RH says' .....- as opposed to those thinking ...... 'Gosh that's the biggest load of conspiratorial tosh I have ever heard?.....   

Neither can you have any idea of the number of people who have repeatedly clicked on the videos and insodoing  increased the total no. of  'hits' by 1 - each time they did that.  Therefore, while that total is an accurate record of the overall no. of 'hits' made, it is certainly not an accurate record of the no. of people who have viewed the McCann vids..

With respect  Blonk - if your purpose was to plug  Richard Hall and his McCann videos by impressing folk with  'significant viewing figures' - then in the absence of any statistics defining and differentiating between the above alternative scenarios - the stats you quote have virtually no value at all imo -  because they are devoid of any the information required in order  to make a judgement on the impact - or lack of it - which RH's videos actually make on the McCann case.

p.s. Is this Richard Hall the same RH who described independent journalist Jenny Kleeman as a puppet?

Some of us went back for another look because we could hardly believe the utter tosh the first time.

But credit to Blonk for admitting this.

[blonk]

Thankyou for that info. 

So in reality -  you can have no idea from your statistics of how many people have actually watched the McCann videos in their entirety, just as you can have no idea what percentage of people who (having watched part or all of them) - came away thinking .... 'Gosh I believe every word RH says' .....- as opposed to those thinking ...... 'Gosh that's the biggest load of conspiratorial tosh I have ever heard?.....   

Neither can you have any idea of the number of people who have repeatedly clicked on the videos and insodoing  increased the total no. of  'hits' by 1 - each time they did that.  Therefore, while that total is an accurate record of the overall no. of 'hits' made, it is certainly not an accurate record of the no. of people who have viewed the McCann vids..

With respect  Blonk - if your purpose was to plug  Richard Hall and his McCann videos by impressing folk with  'significant viewing figures' - then in the absence of any statistics defining and differentiating between the above alternative scenarios - the stats you quote have virtually no value at all imo -  because they are devoid of any of the information required in order  to make a judgement on the impact - or lack of it - which RH's videos actually makes on the McCann case.

p.s. Is this Richard Hall the same RH who described independent journalist Jenny Kleeman as a puppet?

You wrote: So in reality -  you can have no idea from your statistics of how many people have actually watched the McCann videos in their entirety, just as you can have no idea what percentage of people who (having watched part or all of them) - came away thinking ... 'Gosh I believe every word RH says' .... as opposed to those thinking ...'Gosh that's the biggest load of conspiratorial tosh I have ever heard?.

REPLY: All of what you say is perfectly true. However, were you to click on every single one of the NINETY-ONE uploads of part or all of his three Madeleine films (I discovered eight more uploads today), and read every single comment (several hundred at least), you would see that the overwhelming reaction from commenters is favourable. "Information-rich", is how one commenter described his films. 

You wrote: Neither can you have any idea of the number of people who have repeatedly clicked on the videos and in so doing increased the total no. of  'hits' by 1 - each time they did that.  Therefore, while that total is an accurate record of the overall no. of 'hits' made, it is certainly not an accurate record of the no. of people who have viewed the McCann vids.

REPLY: You are right - and I have never said otherwise

You wrote: With respect Blonk - if your purpose was to plug Richard Hall and his McCann videos by impressing folk with 'significant viewing figures' - then in the absence of any statistics defining and differentiating between the above alternative scenarios - the stats you quote have virtually no value at all imo -  because they are devoid of any of the information required in order to make a judgement on the impact - or lack of it - which RH's videos actually makes on the McCann case.

REPLY: I entered the thread again because one of the McCann-supporters was saying this thread was 'a disgrace' and should never have been started. I made the simple point that the numbers of views were significant - so much so that they prompted an independent journalist (Kleeman) to pitch an article and a mini-documentary to the editor of the Guardian on why there was increasing opposition on the internet to the McCanns' account of events. She began work on the project but it appears that she may have abandoned it now. 

You wrote: p.s. Is this Richard Hall the same RH who described independent journalist Jenny Kleeman as a puppet?

REPLY: Yes. And it's looking like she may not be. I spoke to her twice and sent her some information on the facts of the case. Maybe she thought better of it. She may have made a very wise decision. 

[sadie]

Just to make it clear once again, I can only count the number of 'views'.

Every time any one person clicks on a link to a video, Google automatically counts another 'view'.

To take a specific example, this recent upload of 'When Madeleine Died?': 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oo2-Sj7to     

...had had 13,774 views to 11.40pm on Wednesday (23rd March).

Just now when I checked, it had had 14,319 views.

So another 545 views in less than 2 days.

Of course, no-one can say exactly how many are returning viewers, but I suspect not that many.

And the 545 who viewed the link above on YouTube in the last two days are those who viewed just ONE of at least EIGHTY-THREE separate uploads of all or part of Hall's three films, during the same period.

This one upload of Hall's first Madeleine film:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjPcvmVzUo

...has had well over a quarter of a million views to date...

...a 'view' rate alone of over 440 a day ever since it was first uploaded 19 months ago

Dear Blonk

I am finding your input into this forum as seriously Contra the Mccanns (how twee that we are not allowed to use the normal word ant* instead of Contre  )


You are using this forum to advertise other sites that seriously demean and cast unproven aspersions against The Mccanns, who let me remind you, are innocent unless proven guilty.  Again, THEY ARE INNOCENT.


In fact there is NO evidence of any sort against The Mccanns of any criminality, or even of neglect as seen by the Law.  The Police, nor the Law is interested in them as the perpetrators.


And this forum is allowing you to abuse them by promoting such.


I remember on this forum, when HI-de-Ho was prevented from doing the same.    It was said then that no one of either side couild use such tactics
BUT ...  later she was snuck in by the back door several times by other "operatives".... and no-one stopped it


John.
Can you please clean the "act" up, as you did under pressure about Hi de Ho (but then let it slip again).   Thank you.

[sadie]

Dear Blonk

I am finding your input into this forum as seriously Contra the Mccanns (how twee that we are not allowed to use the normal word ant* instead of Contre  )


You are using this forum to advertise other sites that seriously demean and cast unproven aspersions against The Mccanns, who let me remind you, are innocent unless proven guilty.  Again, THEY ARE INNOCENT.


In fact there is NO evidence of any sort against The Mccanns of any criminality, or even of neglect as seen by the Law.  The Police, nor the Law is interested in them as the perpetrators.


And this forum is allowing you to abuse them by promoting such.


I remember on this forum, when HI-de-Ho was prevented from doing the same.    It was said then that no one of either side couild use such tactics
BUT ...  later she was snuck in by the back door several times by other "operatives".... and no-one stopped it


John.
Can you please clean the "act" up, as you did under pressure about Hi de Ho (but then let it slip again).   Thank you.

@ blonk

Do you think that Bennett is in league with Richard Hall?   Did he help, or mainly, produce the offensive material?  Cos if so I hope the Courts are noticing.