>> Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-02 1705 +Pot Head

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-02 1705 +Pot Head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4d2WfjGMqU&google_comment_id=z132vz1jwvjwjbdn322btpawetqovbbhd04
https://pastebin.com/8eRDtGQB
__


+Pot Head __ The denial is strong with you. Are you expecting an outright confession? Is that what you need to hear? I will address both of your responses. I expect you to read over what I write and give a sensible reply. If you cannot then I am going to block you because you are a troublemaker.

This will be a moderately long reply for the benefit of anyone else reading. I don't expect you to read this or understand it.

__
I am also looping +Terran Downvale in because I want him to be a WITNESS to your RESPONSE to this message. You are EXPECTED to answer the following question.

I do apologise that this is a Lesta-sized message but everything I need to say on this issue is contained within this message. This covers practically everything with regard to the two slips that I have pointed out and the twit's auto-denial of them.

I apologise for any inevitable errors - I am typing very quickly and will go through this after I have sent it and have some spare time. Thanks in advance to all who end up reading this. This message is for the silent reader and not so much for the twit who is in auto-denial that I am replying to.

HERE GOES:

__

*I am going to ask one thing from you though. How you answer it will determine whether I block you or not.*

____

YOU are REQUIRED to answer the following YES or NO question:

Q) *IF they are LYING about being aboard the "ISS" then do you ACKNOWLEDGE that these WOULD INDEED be SLIPS?*

Yes or no?


__
If you are an honest person then the answer is of course YES. If you refuse to answer or you respond with "no" then you have revealed your hand as a biased time-waster.



__________
The segment that follows is an explanation for that question I have asked. After I have explained the reason for the question I will then address the two points you have mentioned.
____


First of all - it is the easiest thing in the world to DENY something. It takes no skill or intellect to DENY something. Anyone can do it. YOU can even do it.

But here's the thing: *We have all at one time or another known of pathological liars who even when they have been caught RED HANDED with something will still DENY any wrong doing.*

_They will deny deny deny._


__

When it comes to those slips I have pointed out there can be only two possibilities:


1. They are innocent and unfortunate slips made by honest people who were really aboard the alleged "ISS" at the time of saying them.


2. They were catastrophic slips made by dishonest people who at the time of speaking were lying about being aboard the "ISS".


____

The answer is ONE of these two options. *It is no surprise that a retard like you will go with option #1 every single time.*


____


But I don't blame you for doing so. It is not just because you are in denial but more because you are *"belief controlled".*


Being belief controlled simply means that if you believe something is real then ANYTHING which suggests otherwise MUST be wrong or mistaken.


That simply means: *even if we got a confession from these people that they were not aboard the "ISS" (which would never happen) someone who is belief controlled like yourself would STILL deny it.*


You would find a way to deny it. You might say, _"It was just an April Fool's joke"._


If it wasn't April 1st then you'd say, _"It was an early/late Apriil Fool's joke"._


You will deny deny deny. Because you are in DENIAL and because you are BELIEF CONTROLLED.


__


When it comes to a belief controlled individual: *If you believe it is real then ALL evidence suggesting otherwise MUST be wrong.*
__



So the question is: How can we TEST whether your denial is justified or whether it is AUTO-DENIAL.


If your denial is because you are belief controlled then you are not qualified to evaluate the slip. You are not capable of being objective.


Since we are not getting a direct confession (what we see with those slips are INDIRECT confessions IF they were not really aboard the alleged "ISS") then it comes down to a SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.


As far as subjective interpretations go you can either AGREE that it is a SLIP and therefore they are not aboard the alleged "ISS" or you can REJECT that it is a slip.


But to have a VALID opinion you MUST NOT be biased or BELIEF CONTROLLED.


If you are belief controlled then you are ONLY ABLE to DENY something.


That is why I asked you: Do you acknowledge that IF they were not really aboard the alleged "ISS" then they would be actual SLIPS.


If you are not biased and if you are NOT belief controlled THEN you would have NO PROBLEM accepting that "if they are lying then yes - that would constitute a slip".


____


And so if you cannot accept that if they are lying then it would be a slip then you are admitting you are biased and belief controlled. That means you are DISQUALIFIED from having an opinion.


If you are not a very bright person (as I suspect) then an easy way for someone like you to think of it would be: suppose you are at the Olympic games and the sport is DIVING which gets a SUBJECTIVE result. Each judge rates the diver.


I think you would agree that if all of the judges were from the same country as the diver then we cannot expect the judges to give an objective and fair evaluation. They would necessarily be biased. To have judges for a subjective event all coming from the same country as the athlete is problematic.


I am sure that even a functional retard such as yourself can see the problem with having judges all from the same country.


____


And so if you are someone who is INCAPABLE of admitting that IF they are lying THEN it would be a slip then you are simply biased and unable to give an objective assessment.


____


Thus - we can ONLY proceed if you are NOT biased and belief controlled (but you are so I am writing this for the benefit of everyone else).


____


If you are going to AUTO-DENY something then your opinion can have no worth - no value. *Because even if UNDENIABLE PROOF were to arise you would still deny it.*


Just like the pathological liar who has been caught red handed you will deny deny deny.


There is NO POINT in talking to you if you are an auto-denier. (As I say, I am writing this for the benefit of everyone else since I already know you are belief controlled.)


____


To discuss these issues you MUST at some point be willing to challenge and reassess your beliefs. *If you cannot do that or you're unwilling to do that then a conversation with you is not possible.*


If you cannot or will not suspend judgment and allow yourself to explore the possibility your deeply FELT belief COULD be incorrect then I don't know what you're doing here. I don't think you're an agent against truth because you're just not bright enough. If you were an actual agent against truth then your "arguments" would be better.


I have talked to a lot of people over the past year and you are really down at the bottom end of those who have demonstrated intellect. I am not convinced you aren't a "chat bot". That is how worthless your thinking is to me.


____



Although I cannot expect someone like you to ever admit that it could be fake (despite a million of these things pointed out to you) but I should be able to get agreement from you that IF they are lying then what I have pointed out WOULD be slips.


If you cannot agree to this just go away - you are a dummy.


PLEASE CONFIRM:


*IF they are LYING then these WOULD be actual slips. Do you acknowledge and accept that? YES or NO?*


____


NOW I WILL GO ON TO DISPENSE WITH YOUR TWO WORTHLESS "OBJECTIONS".


____

OBJECTION #1 - "Chris Hadfield" gesturing UPWARDS to the CLOUDS ABOVE when he is literally supposed to be HUNDREDS of kilometres ABOVE the highest cloud.


Do you know who "Chris Hadfield" is? At the time he was the "commander" of the alleged "ISS".

We are told he has spent *over* A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS in space. This is a guy we are told took HUNDREDS of photos of the Earth BELOW him.

Not only that but "Chris Hadfield" - the commander of the alleged "ISS" who has spent over 150 days aboard the "ISS" *HAD ONLY JUST A MINUTE EARLIER TOLD EVERYONE THAT THE EARTH IS BELOW AND THE UNIVERSE IS ABOVE.*

Read over the above sentence/paragraph several times you DUM DUM. We are talking about the COMMANDER of the alleged "ISS". The guy who is in CHARGE. The guy who makes the DECISIONS. The guy who DEALS with any emergency as they arise.

We are talking about a guy who spent over a hundred and fifty days in space. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for MONTHS and MONTHS and MONTHS of alleged ZERO GRAVITY.

He has JUST LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW. He has JUST LOOKED DOWN AT THE EARTH.

Now with ALL OF THAT in mind you are suggesting it was an innocent gesture to go with a "figure of speech"?!

Okay, so answer this: when you last said to someone "when the clouds clear" did you gesture upwards?

Did you LOOK UPWARDS when you last said that to someone?

First of all I doubt you EVER looked upwards when saying it. I expect you to LIE and claim that you did.

So okay, I'll give it to you that you may have in the past looked upwards when talking to another person and saying "when the clouds clear".

I don't believe you but I'll grant it to you - because there's one more thing you haven't considered.

"CHRIS HADFIELD CANNOT SEE WHO HE IS TALKING TO".

That changes everything. He gestured upwards when saying "when the clouds clear" but he was not talking to anyone IN PERSON. He was in a little room all by himself.

So let's change the scenario. Let's imagine you are talking to someone ON THE PHONE. And because you're on the phone you cannot SEE the other person.

Now - very often when talking on the phone to people they will NOD yes and SHAKE their head for NO.

I am sure you have done that. We have ALL done that. When talking on the phone we have nodded our head when saying YES and shook our head when saying NO.

Of course we know the other person can't see us. So we never just SHAKE our head or NOD our head. We ALWAYS SPEAK as we do it.

That's for YES and NO.

But when we're talking about the "clouds above" we DO NOT always gesture. We might gesture if we are in person with someone and there are DARK and HEAVY clouds above us. We might look up with the expectation that the person we are talking to will also look up to note the dark and heavy clouds.

But are you going to do that on the phone? No.

But okay, maybe you would do that if you had JUST STARTED a phone call. For some reason I feel generous and I'll grant you that a person might gesture at the start of a phone call - simply because they aren't yet in the swing of talking on the phone (or some silly thing like that just to give you the benefit of the doubt).

But "Chris Hadfield" did his gesture AT THE END of the alleged interview. This was in the final minutes of his alleged call.

The interview went for around 20 minutes. He had around twenty minutes to adapt to talking to people he couldn't SEE.

Now that you remind me of this: I might go and look through the interview and see if he NODS his head when he says "YES" and SHAKES his head when he says "NO". If he doesn't do that then your idea of this being some kind of "gesture to go with a figure of speech" has been sunk. Because people WILL gesture YES and NO when they can't see someone. So if he doesn't do that then it means he has got his gestures under control.

One more thing on that.

He said "WHEN the clouds clear". That kind of implies he is WAITING for the clouds to clear. That he is below (or "above" as you like to imagine it) and is WAITING for the clouds to clear so he can take a photo.

Have you forgotten that the alleged "ISS" is travelling at an alleged 17,500 miles per hour? Have you forgotten that the alleged "ISS" allegedly orbits the Earth some 15 to 16 times a day?

As he did his 20 minute interview he had changed physical location by some 5,833 miles. He might only pass over the spot where his school is ONCE every now and then.

The more you think about what he said the more it falls apart. The more you have to give the benefit of the doubt.

As I say - unless you can admit that it was a slip IF he is lying then there can be no discussion with you. You are simply closed off to any possibility you are wrong.

I have already written ENOUGH on dealing with that aspect and so I will go to the next.


____

Since I have written a lot I will only go into the "here soon" quickly.

Here is the now famous sentence that "Kjell Lindgren" spoke when referring to his family: "I'm looking forward to seeing them HERE soon".

Of course you think he doesn't mean aboard the alleged "ISS". That's because you are in denial, biased and belief controlled.

I have looked into the possibility that he uttered "here soon" as a reference to "time" rather than "physical proximity".

In fact, +Terran Downvale is the one who found the most sample sentences where it appeared "here soon" was being used as a kind of "adjective for TIME" rather than LOCATION.


But you have to really struggle to find a matching sentence. All of the sentences which SEEMED to have that kind of meaning were very different sentences. The "here soon" did not occur at the end of the sentence but rather at the middle.


And on EVERY INSTANCE the "HERE SOON" did REFER to physical location. For example - a product might be available "here soon" but it is being made available WHERE the WRITER is.


Since you are bafflingly and incomprehensibly STUPID I will give you some sample sentences.


Remember: "Kjell Lindgren" is a PROFESSIONAL. HE is a WELL EDUCATED gentleman. He is worldly. He is an excellent communicator. I would classify him as a PROFESSIONAL SPEAKER. Obviously he is good enough for "NASA" to have as a spokesman. I am sure they don't let just any old slob speak for "NASA".


What I am saying is that "Kjell Lindgren" is someone who SAYS WHAT HE MEANS and MEANS WHAT HE SAYS.


There are TWO WAYS we can interpret the now famous sentence: "I'm looking forward to seeing them here soon".


1. It can mean he means WITH HIM aboard the "ISS" which would be impossible AND THUS it would be a slip.


2. It can mean he means SOON and NOT aboard the "ISS". In this case the word "HERE" does not refer to location. That means a professional speaker is using the word "here" without meaning in the physical sense.


Now, at the start I got you to CONFIRM that what I have pointed out WOULD BE SLIPS if these people are lying.


I will do that again with this by asking the following question:


Given the SENTENCE: "I'm looking forward to seeing them here soon" do you ACCEPT that there are TWO WAYS to understand the sentence?


One way is to understand him to mean "with him where he is".


The other way is to understand him to mean "soon - but not where he is physically located".


OBVIOUSLY you suggest he means the SECOND possibility.


But do you acknowledge the FIRST possibility as well? Do you acknowledge that it is ONE of TWO ways to interpret his words?


According to you that would be the "incorrect" way to interpret his words. According to you the correct way to interpret his words is to change the meaning of "here" to refer to LOATION and swap that as a kind of "adjective for time".


If you deny there are two possibilities then you are disqualified from having an opinion because you are in denial, biased and belief controlled.


To help you understand that the FIRST interpretation REALLY IS a valid interpretation I am going to write the sentence with three different SCENARIOS.


________


Scenario #1: Imagine you are talking on the phone to a friend who lives in another country. NEITHER of you will be going to visit each other.


Now imagine it is the end of the call and your friend says, "I'm looking forward to seeing you here soon".


*Does that make sense?* NO! CRIKEY NO!


__


Scenario #2: Imagine you are talking on the phone to a friend who lives in another country and *soon* THAT PERSON is going to be visiting YOU.


Now imagine it is the end of the call and your friend says, "I'm looking forward to seeing you here soon".


*Does that make sense?* F_KC NO!

__


Scenario #3: Imagine you are talking on the phone to a friend who lives in another country and soon you are going to be visiting your friend and staying with them.


Now imagine it is the end of the call and your friend says: "I'm looking forward to seeing you here soon".


Does that make sense? *YES, IT DOES!*

__

We must NOT focus ONLY on the "here soon". What leads up to "here soon" is critically important. In fact - the only way you CAN dismiss it as a slip is to disregard that he says "I'm LOOKING FORWARD to SEEING THEM ...".

That's the most important part. In every sentence you find where "here soon" DOES NOT refer strictly to location you will find the person is NOT talking SEEING someone or something.

In order to make "here soon" innocent you need to CHANGE the obvious meaning of the sentence and you need to disregard the REST of the sentence.

*And you may well do that but there's one more thing you are neglecting to mention.*

We CANNOT overlook the FACT that IMMEDIATELY after "Kjell Lindgren" catastrophically f_kced up "Scott Kelly" did INSTANT damage control.

"Scott Kelly" immediately took the microphone and began overcompensating by referring to the "Earth below" and "looking downwards" numerous times IMMEDIATELY AFTER (oh, if only "Chris Hadfield" had thought to do that!).


____

I have written more than enough to address your WEAK response. You were only able to write a few words in support of your denial because that's all it was. You are just a guy who is auto-denying everything.

For this entire thread you have been auto-denying. You are in auto-denial.

You can agree with NOTHING. And because of that I have sought your agreement on two matters. If you cannot even agree to those then you have disqualified yourself from ANY discussion on these matters.

1. IF they are lying THEN what I have pointed out would be VALID slips.

2. There are TWO ways to interpret "Kjell Lindgren's" sentence and ONE of those ways implies he isn't really aboard the alleged "ISS" at the time of speaking.

If you cannot agree to these things then you are just a time-waster.

I have written a lot because I am confident in what I am saying and because my claims CAN be substantiated with sound reasoning. All you have are a few lines of DENIAL. Anyone can do that. Any functional retard can DENY.

If you want to INSIST they were not slips and were in fact innocent then you are going to need to do better than a few lines of auto-denial.

You would need to find some "known good" examples of people slipping up in the same way.

1) For example - if you had an interview with a PILOT and he gestured UPWARDS when referring to the "clouds above" while flying in a plane ABOVE the clouds - then that would constitute as evidence to support your case.

2) If you had an interview with a celebrity or actor who was overseas doing promotional work and if in an interview he was asked about seeing his family - if that famous person replied "I am looking forward to seeing them here soon" then THAT would constitute as EVIDENCE of "Kjell Lindgren" making an innocent slip.

But you have NONE of these things. All you have is denial. A few lines of DENIAL. When faced with a confession it is all faked you will STILL deny it.

To PROVE your denial means you are now going to have to do some REAL work. You are going to have to FIND EXAMPLES.

I don't think you will find them. None that have occurred PRIOR to when these two gentlemen f_kced up (because the lie system reacts to me it could always have an actor and a pilot make these slips and so that won't count if they occurred AFTER the slips by "Chris Hadfield" and "Kjell Lindgren").

But even having said that - you won't find those slips. You just won't find them. Because normal people DO NOT f_kc up in that way.

Honest people who are telling the truth do not make SLIPS like that.

You will find NOTHING out of the thousands of interviews with celebrities and actors. Yet I can find slips like these with MANY of the alleged "ISS" interviews.

Isn't that interesting? Isn't it interesting that I can limit myself to just "ISS" footage and find PLENTY of slips and sneaky edits. But you cannot find the equivalents in the real world.

You won't find the kind of sneaky edits I have pointed out in the real world.

You won't find the kind of slips I have pointed out in the real world.

Because HONEST PEOPLE don't f_kc up in that way. It's only people who are lying their a$$es off that f_kc up in this way.

To go any further with this you will need to do some real work. I have obliterated your denial. I have explained WHY you are in denial. I have explained WHY you are wrong.

I have pointed out ACTUAL and OBJECTIVE things. I have EXPLAINED WHY it has happened.

You have done NOTHING. And so if you want to continue talking then you are going to have to put in some real effort.

*You have LOST.*

__________________



*IN SUMMARY*

1. *Unless you can admit that these would be ACTUAL slips IF they are LYING then you are disqualified from giving an opinion.* _You are simply in denial, biased and belief controlled._

2. *Each of these SLIPS are PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with someone who is LYING.* If these people were not aboard the alleged "ISS" at the time of speaking then what they have said and done are consistent with so-called "Freudian slips".

__

If they are lying then we are never going to get a confession. If they are lying then obviously "they" don't at this time want us to know. *And so if they are lying then this really is as good as it may get for us.* We may not get anything more revealing than this.

____

To everyone who has actually read all of this message AND ESPECIALLY to those who have understood it and "get where Lesta is coming from" - *THANK YOU.*

I wrote this for the benefit of +Terran Downvale and OTHER PEOPLE. I did NOT write this for the twit I was responding to.

I expect this message to be completely lost on those who are in denial, biased and belief controlled. To be a genuine skeptic means being able to suspend belief and to challenge our own most deeply held beliefs. We live in a world that is filled with stupid farmed animals.

____

Because this was a very long message and because I wrote it very quickly I apologise for any typos, spelling errors, etc. I will go through this message and correct any such errors in a little while. _But first I need a small break!_



__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w