28 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-09 2115 +John le Bon

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-09 2115 +John le Bon
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/2k8ytY3Seq7
https://pastebin.com/0YGzuPbK
__

+John le Bon __ Here are some notes - it's somewhat lengthy - so there's no need to reply - _let alone read it_ - unless you wish etc.

__

The problem is that "hoaxtards" will claim that anything and everything is CGI *even when there is no need nor evidence for it* (i.e., the rejected footage *does not* contain video glitches/defects/etc.) and it isn't necessary to be CGI (i.e., we're *not* seeing anything "supernatural" or "impossible").

An example of this was during the alleged "Bataclan [Street Theatre] Shooting" where dishonest characters like "Peekay HIDES Truth" and "[Fake] Truth Media Revolution" *insisted* that the woman hanging from a ledge was entirely CGI.

While that scene may well have been CGI *it did not need to be CGI* and so with the absence of "potential editing points" *and* because no laws of physics were defied (she was simply standing on a ledge) there was no need to think of it as "CGI".

To think of something as being CGI when it does not need to be CGI is a shortcut to psychosis/delusion/insanity.

The simple guiding rule I go by is that if something *does not* contain "potential editing points" (i.e., the footage is free from glitches, cuts, edits and pans) and what we see *does not* require CGI (i.e., it's all "real world" physics - it's "reality based") then unless there's some other good reason reject it (such as it's a prank video) I will accept it as "sufficient proof" for a claim (provided the footage qualifies as *necessarily proving* the event or claim).

__

Quickly - with regard to the alleged "TransAsia" plane crash. If that incident was a "viral video followed by a rescue drill" then it *did* need to be CGI. *Upon scrutiny there were tell-tale signs of CGI/digital manipulation with the dashcam videos*.

That does not mean the "TransAsia" plane crash was CGI *but there were enough indications that it could have been* and so we are justified in examining that possibility (and look for other reasons to reject the event - *of which there were many*).

Ultimately that event - like all others - came down to trust. At the time of it happening I did not trust the lie system and so called it fake because I saw evidence for it being fake. With the benefit of hindsight I can see that I was stuck in the "planned dichotomy" of "real versus fake" and instead of passing judgment I should have instead pointed out: _"You cannot *know* if it happened or not based on what you have been *presented* with"_. (Which is the approach I now take.)

__

Given that it is not possible to be correct and accurate 100% of the time the "CGI guideline/rule" above helps us to be right "more often than not". It is unreasonable to expect we will never be deceived (i.e., we may sometimes mistake CGI as reality) and so it's better to accept being wrong "some of the time" than to be wrong potentially *all of the time* (by calling *everything* "CGI" when it isn't and doesn't need to be).

__

As for realtards - they will accept *everything* as genuine. It doesn't matter what it is.

There was an alleged "stingray incident" in Australia about a year ago (somewhere in Brisbane I think) and realtards accepted it as genuine even though it was revealed to be the shadow of a kite and the incident was entirely a prank. Up until it was declared a "prank" it was accepted as real. Realtards accepted it as real *because they trust the people telling the story* ("it was on the news and experts talked about it") _and have trained themselves to suppress doubts_.

To be more specific: *HONEST* realtards trust the lie system and because they have (from birth) trained themselves to suppress doubt as it arises (e.g., tacitly ignoring video defects) they accept everything as genuine until the same trusted story tellers tell them otherwise.

(The lie system is a "voodoo system" that works on the audience trusting the story teller.)

On the other hand *DISHONEST* realtards (e.g., "Jeff C" when he asserts a *doubtable event* as *categorically real*) will intentionally ignore these "doubtable moments" and invent wild "plausible explanations" for them.

The hypocrisy of "Jeff C" shines through when he calls an event "fake" by relying on the same reasons he has dismissed for another event in order to call it "real". For example - an airport bombing in Brussels is far too difficult for a team of professionals to have staged but the alleged "Bostom Marathon Bombing" and "Sandy Hook" were definitely staged.

We can ignore dishonest realtards and dishonest hoaxtards because they are not here for the right reasons and will never play fair.

The only people who matter are the honest realtards/hoaxtards who are here for the right reasons (they are seeking the truth but are often under the influence of dishonest realtards/hoaxtards). Those people need to be shown how the "voodoo" works so they can rise above the "planned dichotomy".

Everyone starts out as a "realtard" and then some go on to become "hoaxtards". Some of those hoaxtards will bounce back to being "realtards" (people like "BzTruetalk") but most will remain as hoaxtards who become increasingly paranoid and delusional.

However - genuine skeptics who seek true things for true reasons can rise above that planned dichotomy - _avoid the psychosis trap_ - and become genuine dissidents in the lie system. On that note - the most "violent" act we can perform as "lie system dissidents" is to ruin the magician's trick by explaining how it's done to the audience.

__

When it comes to the alleged "ISS" the observation I am making is as follows: *In more than 15 years* - _with hundreds to thousands of hours of "ISS" footage_ - *there does not exist more than 10 minutes of live internal footage which upon scrutiny remains free from glitches, cuts, edits and pans*.

(Certainly - where such footage *could* exist it becomes the "exception to the rule" - *first impressions* are what count. There are reasons for this which I cannot go into here and now.)

That does not mean there ISN'T a real and manned "ISS" - but what it does mean is twofold:

1. If the "ISS" is real then of course there would exist hours of live footage that's glitch-free but we're not being shown it (which suggests it is being intentionally censored).

2. If the "ISS" is not real then of course there could exist hours of live footage that's glitch-free because if the lie system can fake five minutes of glitch-free footage then it can conceivably produce 10 minutes and 20 minutes and 2 hours etc.

But whether real or fake we are relentlessly seeing the glitches for a reason. The primary reason is because the instant a glitch is shown the audience's imagination must fill in the blanks and suppress the doubt (this is the lie system's method).

The secondary reason is that the audience becomes accustomed to seeing *only* footage that contains potential editing points. *Which means if a "Mars mission" were ever to be faked it can be presented to the audience as genuine (in the same way as the "ISS") and be accepted as such*.

(If a realtard accepts the "ISS" as real given the way it is presented then the realtard will also accept the "Mars mission" as real if it's presented in the same way. To embrace one but not the other would be internally inconsistent.)

And that gets to the heart of how the lie system works. The lie system works by intentionally and systematically censoring "sufficient proof" for its events and claims. It has to do this for EVERYTHING. It must do this for what's fake (because sufficient proof for fake things cannot exist) and it must do this for what's genuine (so that the audience has no expectation of seeing sufficient proof and has trained its imagination to fill in the blanks).

The lie system's methodology means that for *constant* things like the "ISS" (and "Stephen Hawking") [these things are here for a long time] *we can expect* [in a lie system] *to see only crippled footage* (making what we see *doubtable to intelligent people* yet always accepted without serious question by trusting realtards).

__

With "Stephen Hawking" we never see him compose a single sentence by twitching his cheek muscle. We are told that's how he does it - _but we are forced to trust it's really so_.

How a *severely disabled* gentleman like "Stephen Hawking" can stay on top of his field *and lead it* (he's often cited as an "expert") defies belief. It is something only a trusting realtard could believe.

Is "cosmology" the only field of science that does not require pens, paper and the reading of books? How exactly does "Stephen Hawking" stay on top of his field without doing these fundamental things? This is a question that realtards cannot answer.

If anyone could benefit from having a "ghost writer" it would be "Stephen Hawking" and nothing I have heard him say couldn't have been written for him (by a university student). Yet realtards become enraged at the suggestion of a "ghost writer" because apparently "Stephen Hawking" is "too intelligent" for anyone else to write for him.

But really - if the general population can immediately understand what "Stephen Hawking" is saying then a "high IQ" is not required.

The point is that we never see "Stephen Hawking" compose a single sentence. *We only get the appearances of it happening* - but we never see it.

_It could be that he does - but we must trust that he does_.

That's what this "lie system voodoo" is all about.

When we trust one claim presented to us in this special way from the lie system we become inclined to trust every other claim presented to us in this same special way. Real claims become accepted along with false claims.

When truth is routinely presented in the same form that a lie would need to take the population becomes unable to recognise when lies are presented in this same special way.

Those who lose trust in the lie system (as is the case with honest "hoaxtards") become inclined to reject *every* claim made by the lie system - no matter how real and genuine.

__

Routinely censoring "sufficient proof" is a *simple propaganda technique* that's used by intelligent people/groups to ensure that lying is successful (enough) whenever it is required or desired.

_How it can be that more people haven't caught on to this remains baffling to me!_

__

Each audience member becomes trained to "fill in the blanks" with his/her imagination thereby convincing himself/herself of each claim/event *which is the most effective form of persuasion*.

I.e., the most effective way to convince someone of something is to have that person come up with the idea/thought/belief for themselves. That's precisely what happens when imagination is used to fill in the blanks.

As I say - the consequence is that when a person trusts the lie system he or she will believe/accept *every* "reality based" claim that's made. Everything is accepted as "sufficient proof" _even though it's just proof's appearances_.

And when someone has lost trust in the lie system he or she becomes inclined to reject every "reality based" claim - _including all those that happen to be genuine_.

People are driven progressively more paranoid and insane when they reject genuine claims (the lie system does a real number on all who lose trust in it).

While this is all simple stuff there are still only a disfigured handful of people who can actually grasp it.

I could go on and on (and usually I do) but I suppose I'll leave it there.

__
This may also be of interest to:
+nationalparksign ., +Terran Downvale


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.