Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need help understanding why this is being down voted.
As you asked.. firstly because doesn't speak to the actual idea being put forward, merely implying that they are—at best—incompetent and at worst hypocritical. It then compounds this faux pas with a tender for work which seems a little galling.
http://www.webpagetest.org/result/151027_FV_1ATV/1/details/
I didn't get the idea that grk was pitching consulting services but just to be clear that I have no interest in that market, here are the most obvious things:
1. Enable gzip transfer compression for static assets like Bootstrap
2. Compress the large images more aggressively and perhaps turn on progressive JPEG, although that latter step might be CPU-costly on mobile devices
3. Set cache headers on all static resources so regular users and anyone behind a caching proxy will avoid the full server RTT
4. If you use www.hike.in, optimize the redirect to go directly to get.hike.in instead of having a full RTT to get the intermediate hike.in redirect.
Beyond that, I'd look into a front-end diet – do you need so many images, can you lazy-load images or that 350KB of youtube, etc?