Play video: Amy Turk, Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, for harp
I was just journaling privately about my project, and how to preserve it for the future, if nobody is taking it seriously, now. But this being the end of the year, and the first month of 2019, let's take a look at my website stats, and see what's going on. I'm going to pull it up here, alongside, and paste in the relevant screen shots after I finish typing.
Okay, first of all we are looking at the daily stats for the month, and I generally pay attention to the "Visits" tab, which is, the unique visits. I can't remember how it is set up, but in general, it shows one visitor on one day, not multiple hits or multiple pages. It is still higher than normal, because a producer of spiritual films plugged my film, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America," at the end of three or four of his films, for about a month. That month, my daily stats went up as high as 1,100-something! In other words, real internet numbers, not the 250/day, or 300/day, I normally get. So here, I am still feeling some of the lingering effects of that boost.
This month, we get as high as 637/day; but just yesterday (the stats are a day behind, and at first they only count daytime hours for that day), I am down to 253--my low/normal of years past. A drop of over 50%? One wonders what accounts for these fluctuations.
But if we look at the second graphic, which gives the total hits for the month for the top 30 pages, we learn a bit more. My article on Meher Baba, which I wrote, what, about 14 years ago, now? is accounting for 829 of those hits. This is because the administrator of a Baba group discovered it and asked permission to post it. Now, this article is written precisely in the same style as my two books about my own 19th-century past life. In fact, from the literary point of view, it was the protype for those two books. There is even some muckraking in it--I prove that Bobby McFerrin got his initial idea for the song, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" from Meher Baba. Notice I said "prove."
But when I attempted to present my past-life evidence in that same group, I was shot down, and the administrator concluded I was an awful person, namely, a back-biter. For the same kind of muckraking that appeared in the article, on which she had lavished praise.
Nonetheless, either she still has it posted (in which case it is "preaching to the choir"), or else it has been shared, and is being seen by others. So that effect continues, and I'm glad for it, but this has nothing to do with the popularity of my reincarnation project.
The URL with the next-highest rank is a treatise with salient points about the afterlife, which I mirrored from another website many years ago (like, 15 years or more). I used to link to it, and when that link went down, as I had copied it, I simply mirrored it on my own site (sans internal links). Someone has discovered it, who probably has a rather large website, and it generated 639 hits per month.
Once again, I am happy to promote other people's work. It would be nice if this large website would see fit to also promote my own work, though.
Obviously, these two are from links to internal pages, because they are both considerably larger than the total hits on my home page, for the month. Many years ago, this website was near the top of the second page on Google, and on the first page on Yahoo. Then suddenly--not gradually--it disappeared entirely off Google. Using the same keyword, "reincarnation," I can go to the 10th, or 20th page of Google, and never see this website. Let's not get too conspiratorial, here--I don't know the cause. There may be 50 times the number of reincarnation websites out there, now, than there were 15 years ago (though I still see many of the same ones at the top that I always used to see--like "Crystalinks," whose information isn't as accurate as mine is). I don't "optimize" this website, because the techniques for doing so are dishonest and manipulative. I refuse to use dishonest methods of self-promotion. So that puts me at a competitive disadvantage with everybody else who compromises their ethics to do so.
We won't talk about each of the 30 pages, here. "Continuing Love" is my article about how soul-mates can continue their relationship after one member of the couple dies. It continues to get a fairly large number of hits, but nobody ever buys the book, "Loving Abby in Truth and Spirit," which the article was intended to introduce. Is everybody poor as a churchmouse? Does the cover of the book scare them--or does it look too amateurish? Again, I don't use modern marketing techniques, which I find dishonest and manipulative. I figure people know what they want, and can recognize quality and honesty when they see it.
My article about skepticism seems to be enjoying some attention. But nobody buys my books, so perhaps I still am not convincing them. Or, I am convincing them about other people's work, but not my own.
Abby's journal, which has not been publicly linked for about a year, to protect me from potential employers discovering it in a casual search, had 188 hits this month. Many of these are regulars, who presumably visit it multiple times to see whether Abby has posted anything new.
"Clips/dedrick.mp3" is the music which opens the home page. Some browsers play it automatically; some give you the option. But this, too, shows that relatively few people are entering by the home page, which is a direct result of falling off of Google.
"Houdini" is another mirrored article. Same MO as the earlier one. It disappeared, I had saved it, so I just posted it on my own site. This author proves that Houdini actually did contact his wife, from the other side, through medium Arthur Ford, whatever the debunkers claimed. I like it--very similar detective work to that which I used in proving my own past life, and past-life literary accomplishments.
Now we see that 154 people looked at my video interviews--but of those 10-12 interviews, even though mine is at the top, only six people watched mine (or some portion thereof). I seem to be inherently uninteresting (or frightening), and when I share the limelight with others, those others get the lions' share of the attention. Or that's the pattern I'm seeing.
Next come the pages which support my two books, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words," and "Loving Abby in Truth and Spirit." This year I have sold one copy of the former, and none of the latter. Multiply 138 by 12, and roughly 1,656 people read this page (or started to read it), but only one person purchased the book. Someone once told me that in sales, you should expect 1,000 views per sale. So this may not be too far from the expected rate. Obviously, I need the kind of numbers one gets when one posts a kitten playing with a dog on YouTube.
But then, proving reincarnation and uncovering a major, hidden literary figure in the 19th-century is not as interesting as the kitten-and-dog.
"Keene.html" is my page about Jeff Keene. Again, I am getting hits supporting someone else's work. And I am happy to do it. Jeff's a great guy--he actually was directly instrumental in my discovering Mathew Franklin Whittier, in the first place.
My "updates"--the publicly linked ones--got 105 hits. I simply use it for announcements, having unlinked this blog from my home page for the same reason I unlinked Abby's journal. (Obviously, if this project supported me even just barely enough to offset my Social Security check, I wouldn't have to do that.) Presently, the public Updates page has the announcement for my recent radio interview. There has been no response from that interview. I am wondering how large an audience "Path 11 Productions" actually has.
There was a radio show host who has had a number of big names on, who had tentatively agreed to have me on his show. He wrote me, some months ago, that his co-host, his wife, whose name indicates she is from India, would shortly contact me about it. She never did. Recently, I wrote him to remind him, giving him the link to my new interview. I haven't heard back. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, saying that I must have "slipped through the cracks." Apparently, I didn't. I'm wondering if she is prejudiced against Meher Baba, having seen him featured in my documentary (which the fellow had requested a link for). Too bad.
Immediately following the official "Updates" page, is this page, or rather the now-unadvertised link to the Archives. That has been seen by 99 people (I'm careful not to hit that link, myself), which means just slightly more than three people per day. I know who two of those people may be--I just don't know the identity of the third one. Perhaps he or she works for some branch of the government. If so, welcome aboard! The surface of Mars is a debris field from an ancient nuclear explosion, there was a technologically advanced, global civilization in pre-history, 9/11 was an inside job, and I have proven the reality of reincarnation beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since Google dropped this website, I don't think I'm much of a threat to anything or anybody. Nor does my work have even the remotest possibility of a military application. But I will say, that it would come as a rude shock to mainstream academia, if my findings were ever taken seriously. Because I have proof.
The rest are mostly other articles, including the "articles" page, itself. These are well-written, since I have retained the professional talents of my 19th-century lifetime (or at least 85% of them, I would say). Nobody, however, upon reading these articles, asks me to be on a radio program. My logic in these articles is every bit as sharp as David Wilcock's, and a whole lot more credible. Yet, due to the magic of hype, he is all over the place, raking in the bucks these days, and I am completely ignored and trying to stretch a poverty income.
Oh, let's do one more graphic, here:
This shows the media on my website that's getting viewed or listened to. Thirteen people have watched me give my impressions of standing on the shore near Portland Head Light, in real time. The only way to find this, is deep inside my daily blog entries, through the Archives link, which is no-longer public. So it is getting passed along by word-of-mouth, to the tune of 13 people in a single month. Who are these people? They watch this, but there is no proof in it. The proof is in the two books. If you read the books, and if you therefore know that I can prove the match, itself, then you know that this memory, also, is probably real. But if you have bypassed the books, you can suspend disbelief and watch this video noncommittally, saying, "I'm not convinced, but it's interesting." If you know it's a real case, proven dozens of times over, you can't watch it that way. So people are bypassing the proof, and snatching out just this one little aspect of my study, where they can still suspend disbelief, as they like to do. In other words, if I didn't prove my past-life match, I think I might be a lot more popular.
You can enjoy David Wilcock as entertainment. You can "believe" him via the suspension of disbelief for half an hour, or an hour, and then two hours later, while you're making lunch, you can disbelieve it, again. You can't do that with my presentation, unless you severely cherry-pick it or develop selective amnesia.
Eight people watched my Einstein skit. I shot that in 1990 (almost 30 years ago!), when I was learning video production at a community access TV facility. I didn't know that I had been a humorist in the 19th century, nor did I know that in that century, I was a struggling literary genius. An eerily similar skit, by the way, shows up in "Big Bang Theory." I don't know whether it was simply developed parallel, or whether one of their writers had seen this online. Admittedly, this is poorly-produced. I was still learning, and I only had enough time for two takes of every scene, with only one professional actor, i.e., the "Gloria Decker" character. "Einstein"--a former microphone salesman who, as I recall, was named Mort Leibman or Leiberman--I met at a garage sale, where I bought a small window as a prop for another of my community access shows. This skit is, I believe, linked from my "News and Announcements" page.
Jeff Keene's psychic reading has had seven hits. This is accessible through my "Cases" page. I videotaped this reading in 1998, before anybody, including John Edward, was filming readings except for the Spiritualist churches. It was entirely my idea. I had never seen anybody else do it. She got a strong evidential "hit." It was Candace whom I used to reconnect me with Abby, in 2010, where she also made several strong hits. She also confirmed, in that reading, that I definitely was Mathew Franklin Whittier in the 19th century. In case that means anything to you.
Again, six people watched my interview. I set up the camera and filmed myself for this one, since nobody else was interested in doing it. I was talking to a friend, who at that time had a similar cross-dimensional relationship to mine, with Abby, and hence was uniquely free from prejudice.
The clip of Amy Turk comes from Abby's journal, and I have linked to the clip at the top of this page. Amy reminded me vividly of Abby, who also was a music prodigy, and who also played harp. Abby even looked somewhat like Amy. Can you imagine how fortunate I was to have married such a girl! If the videographer, Ben Turk, is her husband, he knows. But this tells us that people are going through Abby's back entries.
"Consciouszone" and "21st century" are old radio interviews. I see that Dr. Bob Hieronimus is still running "21st Century Radio." Maybe I should write him? Maybe I will... I am a glutton for punishment, you know.
"Gravesite_graves" and "on_church_steps_Dover" are more real-time videos of myself in places connected with my past life. We have three views and six views, respectively. In the Dover clip I reminisce, from past-life impressions, about my and Abby's sex life early in our marriage, so I suppose that's more interesting. But in the gravesite clip, I'm actually visiting my own past-life grave. I did not get any clear impressions, no-less definite cognitive memories, and I reported it honestly as I experienced it. If this were a hoax, I would certainly have come up with something in that situation. In the earliest of these clips, like the one at the Portland Head Light, I had just recently purchased my first-ever cell phone, and I couldn't figure out how to zoom in with it. I left these awkward, embarrassing videos unedited. This is evidence, and I don't tinker with evidence. Not even when it makes me look like an idiot--and not when I prove that I was the real author of "The Raven" in a past life. (Which may either make me look like an even greater idiot, or a genius, depending on how you look at it.)
Someday, somebody is going to figure out that I reported everything, good and bad, with strict and rigorous honesty--and that I proved some amazing things, none of which need any hype.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Video opening this page, "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor," by Johann Sebastian Bach
Played on harp by Amy Turk