14 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-08 1320 +Freddie Sparks

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-08 1320 +Freddie Sparks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eRTGfcMn4&lc=z133cfbrjxvwvzxjc04cj1qrwym0idzwjtg0k
https://pastebin.com/6qhveDNc
__

+Freddie Sparks __ If the pranksters needed to edit out *any* of the comments then that would suggest the "public" weren't in on the prank (anyone there who said it looked fake could have ruined the entire prank).

I think we were supposed to easily recognise the "gorillas" as fake so that we would laugh at the "stupid people" for thinking they could be real. I.e., the "real prank" was on the audience watching at home for thinking there were people actually being fooled by it (and not in on the prank).

The costumes were ridiculous and obvious. The "behaviours" were absurd. But had the costumes been "realistic" and the behaviours "normal" then I don't think anyone would have suspected a thing. Why would they? (This is the new genre of "street magic" I am describing.)

Have a quick skim through the following 2-minute video (I'll add the link to g+ as well so you can click on it): watch?v=ZbUBAbMlCHg

Added to this g+ post: https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/CxbR2r3eosd

If *"animal actors"* (people who professionally mimic real animals - which would be a *niche* for little acrobats) wore *those* costumes and behaved like real monkeys behave - then I think it would be thoroughly *convincing*.

Can it really be that such a thing has *never* happened? _That it isn't happening right now?!_

And that's just for monkeys. No one really cares about monkeys! But not so for pandas. For the Chinese government pandas are a big deal and they are a big business. Here's one g+ post drawing attention to that: https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/h6bnYkP3e7d

If we accept that governments are in the *deception* game and here for the long-term then just imagine how much easier it would be for a propaganda department to fake a giant panda than a chimpanzee? (Since all pandas are owned/controlled by the Chinese government it would have to come from elements connected to the Chinese government.)

It would be a great way to guarantee a steady supply of "viral panda videos" which all helps to ensure the survival of China's national animal - the rare and endangered/vulnerable giant panda.



__________
2017-07-11 2125

+Freddie Sparks __ How is it I put it? If you could describe in a sentence or paragraph "how I put it" it would be helpful - just to be sure I am not confusing others who may stumble upon this thread.

In the next hour or two I will have written a g+ post which I'd like your thoughts on. I'll leave a link to it on this thread when it has been posted etc.





__________
2017-07-11 2225

+Freddie Sparks __ Okay, understood. If it were a prank on the audience at home then you would expect to hear some comments like those early on. Such comments help to serve as a misdirection - i.e., implying that the people there can't be in on the prank because they are saying things as though they believe it's real. (It must be real!)

Let's suppose you are right and that not everyone present was in on the prank - that some were genuinely fooled. Then that shows the power of suggestion and reinforces the point I am making.

The point being that - because the context was "real world" - and because (at least initially) no one would have been expecting to be pranked at a zoo (least of all by someone trusted) - the ridiculously fake looking gorilla costumes were still effective in deceiving at least some of the people people for some of the time.

Not unlike how the population does not expect to be shown fake terror events. The population sees a terror event in a "real world" context - and is informed about it by trusted people on the nightly news. The population may be looking at a fake event - at times obviously so - and it will look real to them.

Had the gorilla suits been *genuinely realistic* and had the behaviours performed in them been strictly likely and realistic then I am sure everyone would have been fooled (and there would be no need for the prank to require anyone else involved).

Just as when it comes to a suspected staged terror event we will see "realistic" behaviours - we won't see any of the dead suddenly get up and do a jig for the cameras (the equivalent of the "gorillas" driving off with the vehicle at the end).

When a person has never heard of "fake animals" and is not aware "hyper realistic animal costumes" exist then when that person sees a hyper realistic animal costume - worn by an actor who is skilled at realistically mimicking the behaviour of the animal - he or she will *see* a real animal. They won't see a person in a costume - they will see a real panda or a real gorilla or a real bear etc.

And that experience of a fake animal will enter their mind as real - where it will form and strengthen memories - where it will influence their beliefs and expectations about that animal etc. And as a consequence - making it harder and harder for that person to perceive a fake animal (that is presented as real) as anything other than a real animal.

A lot of people in the so-called "truth community" can look at the legs of "Jeff Bauman" and will instantly "see" that it is fake while the rest of the population "sees" it as completely real. However - if that "truther" thinks deceit only happens on the nightly news and does not suspect the lie system extends into all things (including the presentation of animals) then they will look at a fake animal and see a real animal. Along with the rest of the population.






__________
2017-07-12 0005

Freddie Sparks __ Come on - are you trolling?! I'm not sure how to break it to you but plenty of television is made that way. Or do you suppose "Criss Angel" really walked on water and no one there was in on it? Be one of the 53 million people to have been amazed by his "magic": watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA

Do you suppose "Derren Brown" performs "mentalism" on real people because at the start of each show he says he doesn't use stooges?

Each of these "stunts/tricks/pranks" are performed by entertainers to elicit reactions from home audiences that they will never see. They are not always done to get genuine reactions from people in their presence because those "reactions" are a necessary part of the act.

While it's okay to disagree with me if you have a good point to make - please don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing. That's how some managed to form their unfortunate and debilitating "oppositional defiance disorder".





__________
2017-07-12 0510

+Freddie Sparks __ LOL. That was *excessively* defensive. I have covered *both* possibilities but you seem to think I am insisting on only one.

I pointed out that the prank had a *higher risk of failure* if the people in attendance were not also in on it. When you mentioned that two of the people seemed to be legitimately convinced by the prank I pointed out that it does not necessarily mean anything. If everyone is in on the prank then we can expect remarks like that. That is all.

Perhaps you don't realise that it would only help what I am trying to point out if the prank really was on the people in attendance? I would like that to be the case. After all - if an obviously fake gorilla costume can fool people then just imagine what a hyper realistic one could do? That's my point.

You have not understood my replies and/or have chosen to interpret them as "attacks" which they were not.



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

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

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