16 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-09-20 1510 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-09-20 1510 +cabadejo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W64m7rr0sK0&lc=z22myzojyv20vh3av04t1aokglxdr2tt5uf3qetuvcflbk0h00410
https://pastebin.com/9h5qNqiZ
__

+cabadejo __ It is true that flat Earthers have not seen the entirety of the Earth's shape at once (wouldn't that quickly sort out the "shills" promoting nonsense?), but all of them have seen the Earth. Some flat Earthers have seen the Earth from a plane and I suspect many more have seen footage of the Earth from a weather balloon. What flat Earthers - _and the general population_ - have not seen is a *certain view* of the Earth. But it's not _quite_ the same as having never seen an "atom" (or the "dark side of the Moon").

Interestingly, flat Earthers claim all images of the Earth resemble artwork, but they do not say that about the microphones and other props they see during "ISS interviews". Instead, they claim the props are perfectly realistic "computer graphics" (CGI) that each "astronaut" interacts with by way of highly sophisticated "augmented reality" contact lenses.

It is truly impressive stuff and let's suppose they are right. It makes one wonder: If space agencies have the ability to make fake objects appear with astronauts that are indistinguishable from the real thing (until they "glitch" of course) - how can it be that space agencies are not able to provide us with a fake picture of the Earth from space that cannot be dismissed as artwork?

Why not a single convincing picture of the Earth from space which causes a flat Earther to say, "okay, they have perfectly faked it"? Why can't space agencies - who (according to flat Earthers) have amazing augmented reality technology - create realistic images of the Earth (such as like we see of the Moon) rather than the obvious CGI rubbish we see?

Microphones and stuffed toys - they seem to be no problem to properly fake (according to flat Earthers). But a picture of the Earth from space - _impossible to properly fake?_ It's fascinating how flat Earthers want it both ways.

Both you and Mr Hill hunt relentlessly for contradictions in the things I say, but you don't seem able to identify contradictions when they come from flat Earthers. Instead you leave a comment using their flawed and hypocritical "thinking" in an effort to point out some perceived "gotcha" that isn't.

Allow me to direct your attention to 2m:37s of this presentation. Does not the Moon appear to have more "realness" to it than the picture of the Earth? Every flat Earther would say yes, and I would agree. Of course, you did not shoot that Moon footage and so you are having to trust the person who did. I am sure the person who shot the footage has told lies over his lifetime.

Perhaps he is an amoral person who plans on using his fancy new camera to look through people's windows from a great distance. Thankfully, the camera - _which is designed to capture reality at it was_ - works independently of the operator's morals. Without any "potential editing points" *and without it resembling artwork* - we would be arbitrary and whimsical - _unreasonable_ - to dismiss it.

But sure - it still comes down to trust. Funny that in a lie system it would come down to trust. We can choose to trust the "peeping tom" but not "Major Tom". Why? Because we aren't even in a position to trust, yet. Why not? *Because all of the images of Earth from space are either CGI, composites or better resemble artwork.* Even if they are real (it's easy to make a real photo that possesses "realness" to appear like artwork) we are not _unreasonable_ to reject them because of this.

If the images of Earth from space possessed the quality of _realness_ (as, say, the Moon footage) - then we would be arbitrary to reject them. We would only be rejecting them because we did not like or trust "astronauts". But we aren't even in that situation because there are no flat Earth proponents who claim *any* images of the Earth from space possess "realness".

Would you say the footage of the Moon resembles artwork? Or does it have a "realness" to it like the microphone on the "ISS"? I say the Moon in the footage has a quality of "realness" to it and I think every flat Earther would agree. To reject the Moon footage as somehow fake or artwork would be paranoid and whimsical. Such a person would be so sensitive to being duped that he or she would be having to call many things "potentially fake" _that have no need nor reason to ever be suspected of being fake._

Such a person would be paralysed and unable to believe anything he or she saw. *Such a person has no business in this conversation.*

The fact remains that space agencies *could* provide us with an image that possessed "realness" (like the Moon, like the microphone) *but has not.* If people cannot get far enough away from the Earth to take the photo - or if the Earth were flat (it isn't) - then "NASA" could still provide us with an image that possessed "realness" since, according to flat Earthers, "NASA" has some really amazing virtual reality technology.

If the capability exists, but yet remains absent with "Earth from space photos" - then after more than 50 years it becomes reasonable to consider that it might just be *intentional* that we're only being shown CGI, composites and artwork.

You could argue that "NASA" only care about gathering technical data and don't care about taking photos of the Earth from space to showcase its beauty for Instagram. But it's easy to find many stunning images of the Earth from space, but they are all obviously CGI. So "NASA" _does_ care, at least a little. They _do_ want to show off the Earth but they can't seem to do it without making it resemble artwork. _Interesting, huh?_

Perhaps the real view of the Earth from space is disappointing? Perhaps! That could explain why "space tourism" has not happened. First of all - people may be expecting to see an extreme amount of curvature that won't exist at the altitude of the "ISS" (the amount of curvature varies from video to video). And secondly, the view may just be like from a plane only much higher. Who would want to pay good money for a view that's little better than that of a plane? These two possibilities sound more plausible as a reason for the absence of "space tourism" _than the Earth being flat._

Though - there is another reason why all "Earth from space" images are CGI, composites or upon scrutiny resemble artwork. And that reason - amongst several things - brings you up against the lie system's *presentation protocol.* Magical things happen when you present the truth in the same form as a lie would need to take, but you and Mr Hill seem unable to talk about that.



__________
2017-09-20 1705

+cabadejo __ Above I gave you a detailed reply which addressed your comment about how we would know if a picture is artwork or not. Just in case you don't think I did or didn't understand it, let me summarise. With the Earth picture we are not talking about something that _isn't_ artwork (a genuine photo) but something that _resembles artwork_ (CGI, composite, drawing).

No one (at least no flat Earther) is saying, "that picture of Earth from space looks completely real, how can we know it's not artwork?" (though I pointed out that if "NASA" have the technology flat Earthers claim they do then this could be the case). Rather, everyone is saying, "upon scrutiny, that picture of Earth resembles artwork".

(Or do you suggest there _are_ photos of the Earth from space that possess the same kind of "realism" that the Moon footage has?)

We can easily recognise artwork because it lacks the quality of "realness" when we see it. (Keeping in mind that it is very easy to cripple a genuine photo to make it resemble artwork.)

If you flick through old photos of yourself and wonder whether you're looking at drawings then you have lost your mind. If you flick through old drawings you drew and wonder whether you're looking at photos then you have lost your mind. If that is the situation for you then get help - because reasonable and rational conversation is not possible.

But, you may say you have personal experience with pictures and drawings of yourself. Well, I have never seen a three toed sloth though I don't doubt some people have. Personally, I haven't and those who say they have could be lying about it.

I haven't seen the Earth from space *and* I have never seen a three toed sloth. Two things I have never seen and have no direct personal experience with. But, if I am shown a photo of both then _somehow_ I am able to say whether one (or both) possess the quality of "realness".

This is the important part: It is _very easy_ to find _many_ pictures of a three toed sloth (something I have never personally seen) that possess the quality of "realness" *which remains absent from _every_ Earth from space image made available.*




__________
2017-09-21 0905

+cabadejo __ I will bite my tongue and not react to anything you wrote except for the last sentence which is all you needed to write.

In a lie system we can *anticipate* that if the general population _is unable_ to get high enough, then we would be shown pictures of the Earth's shape as dubious and ultimately doubtable (flaky).

Furthermore, in a lie system we can *anticipate* that if the Earth's shape is knowable by way of "technical evidence" (not requiring a photo) then the shape itself won't be *outright* lied about.

And so if the Earth is flat *and* it's possible to figure that out *but not possible* for the general population to be high enough to take a photo, then we would _expect_ in a lie system to be shown *flaky* images of a flat Earth.

(To be shown crisp photos with "realism" under these circumstances would be considered unusual in a lie system, but in an "honest system" it would not be out of place. That right there should be an indicator to the observant that "something devious is going on".)

A photo offers *universal* understanding to a population (everyone who isn't blind can understand a photo; to dispute this is to be needlessly and detrimentally argumentative), whereas "technical evidence" is limited to those in the population who can actually understand the technical evidence.

Many people feel they can understand technical evidence but in actuality cannot (just look at how flat Earth advocates blunder their scrutiny of technical proofs for a round Earth).

Lesta's lie system (I need to qualify it like that because other people, not endorsed by me, use some of the same terms but in a way that deviates from mine) gives us *predictive power.* No other so-called "conspiracy theory" does that.

To say "we will be lied to" isn't a genuinely predictive claim. To say *how* we will be lied to (or *how the truth* will be presented to us) and *under what circumstances* _is_ because it goes far beyond simply saying, "we will be lied to".

It requires intelligence and will to adhere to the lie system's "presentation protocol". That is how we can know the lie system exists even if we cannot say, "you are one of the lie system farmers". If it wasn't intentional there'd be an expectation of seeing "sufficient proof" with lie system claims. It would be the rule and not the exception. By now there'd be clear photos of the Earth from space possessing undeniable "realness". Dubious events in the nightly news would more frequently have "sufficient proof" rather than it being the exception and so forth.

That is to say - over time the odds of it *not* being intentional that we are *not* presented with "sufficient proof" for lie system claims *approaches zero.* I.e., over time this "feature" of claims being absent can be considered _intentional._ I.e., it's a "strategy".

And a consequence of applying this strategy is that by presenting the truth in the same form a lie would need to take the population becomes unable to recognise lies when they are presented as truth in this same special way.

The lie system exists (we approach a zero percent chance it doesn't) and adherence to its "presentation protocol" is what makes all the other "conspiracy theories" seem possible (to those who have lost trust in the lie system).




____________________________________________________________
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.