28 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-09-04 0940 +Brian Hill

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-09-04 0940 +Brian Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VYGRa4q9ds&lc=z223vbi5su2gsjev4acdp43bfyptkibtk2mhfqstimlw03c010c
https://pastebin.com/D7QXFbwD
__

+Brian Hill __ Ah, Mr Hill. Your tireless and unrelenting ability to misunderstand even the simplest of things I point out has become legendary.

The source of your misunderstanding on this matter is easy enough to identify. Tell me - what is it about the following four points that you object to (or has you so puzzled)?

__

ONE) If an "astronaut" is *holding onto* a small object *and is not in a weightless environment* then he or she _cannot_ let go of that object _without_ it then falling under the influence of gravity.

If the claim at the time of holding the object is that the "astronaut" is in a weightless environment then if the object were to be let go the charade would be over.

Any demonstration of gravity on the "ISS" (that wasn't due to some prank) would mean the "astronaut" isn't really on the "ISS". On the other hand - letting go of the object in a weightless environment would become instant proof of being in a weightless environment because the object would float in the air instead of falling down.

*Summary of point one:* The "astronaut" cannot let go of the object if he is not in a weightless environment else it would fall under the influence of gravity and everyone (i.e., "normal people") would understand and recognise it is a deceit.

__

TWO) If an "astronaut" is supposed to be in a weightless environment *but at no point lets go of the object* (which would demonstrate weightlessness) then whoever is watching the "astronaut" on a television screen (e.g., the young daughter of the "astronaut" in this presentation) becomes forced to trust (however appropriately) that the "astronaut" is indeed in a weightless environment.

Keep in mind that _"forced to trust"_ (or "must trust") does not mean "forced" as in a gun is being held to your head or some other kind of standover threat. Rather - it simply means that without (and until) a demonstration of weightlessness the weightlessness _must be assumed._

A neutral example to help you understand would be for me to tell you that I am typing this reply to you on a tablet device. My telling you that _"forces you to trust"_ that I really am writing this reply on a tablet. It means that without (and until) you are shown something that necessarily proves my claim (which would then eliminate the need to trust my word) you "must trust" that I really am typing this reply to you on a tablet device.

Relying on trust in this way is extremely common in our day to day life and happens habitually and tacitly. I.e., it isn't often felt or spoken - you don't even notice that you are trusting. If it weren't this way every conversation you had would be like a court trial presenting evidence and calling witnesses. This is avoided in our day to day life by simply "assuming what we are told is true" (which is why we are "forced to trust" but it isn't in a standover way).

The only reason you would _accept_ I am writing this on a tablet device is *if you believe it is possible* for me to be doing that _and_ if you trust that I *would not lie about it.*

Of course - if you don't believe it is possible for me to be writing this reply on a tablet or if you don't trust me to not lie about it then your mind will become inclined to imagine some other possibility; such as I'm writing this on a phone or at a desktop or perhaps one of my "shill buddies" (e.g., NPS or Terran) is writing this on my behalf etc.

(I mention the following in passing and only for the sake of completeness: By rejecting my claim as possible or by refusing to trust my word about a claim [e.g., that I'm typing this on a tablet device] when there is no proof or good reason to think I am lying [or mistaken] about the claim, you become a fantasist whose alternative possibilities to what I have claimed are limited only by your imagination, paranoia and concept of reality. This is categorically the case if my claim happens to be true and possibly the case if it is not [though it becomes likely when you aren't in possession of all the pertinent facts]. I do not expect you to understand this paragraph - please do not dwell on it - it is not crucial to the four points I'm outlining and we can discuss this aside another time if you wish.)

*Summary of point two:* Without (and until) a demonstration of weightlessness you are *forced to trust* that the "astronaut" really is in a weightless environment.

__

THREE) Although an "astronaut" is under no obligation to release and float small objects they are holding in front of the camera it is common for "astronauts" to demonstrate the novelty of weightlessness to young children by letting go of such objects. For example: microphones, food, water and other small trinkets/props are routinely held then released to show children the "coolness" of their weightless environment.

*Summary of point three:* "Astronauts" very often float small objects in front of the camera to demonstrate weightlessness and while the "astronaut" in the presentation was under no obligation to do so there is a lingering expectation from the audience - _however mild_ - that it would happen. That it didn't happen _stood out_ and at the very least can be thought of as a "missed opportunity" by a father with a rare opportunity to create a magical and lasting memory for his young daughter.

__

FOUR) To assert that the "astronaut" did not let go of the object to create a magical and lasting memory for his young daughter because he was not really in a weightless environment would be to commit the "fallacy of the conspiracy theorist" (as defined in the presentation and elsewhere).

I.e., the "astronaut" could have easily demonstrated weightlessness but intentionally chose not to because he was not really in a weightless environment would be to commit the fallacy.

It is a fallacy because there are other possibilities for not having released the object. For example - he may have simply forgotten to do so. It may be that he knows something about the psychology of young minds and not releasing it was to protect his daughter in some way. *It may be that he did what he did to lure open-minded people into committing the fallacy of the conspiracy theorist and concluding he wasn't really in a weightless environment.*

(Whatever the case may be - if the "astronaut" wasn't in a weightless environment when he carefully held the doll then it had to be presented in the way it was because letting go of the doll would have resulted in it falling under the influence of gravity instead of floating. If that's the point you are seeking to nit-pick then you are a joker who is out of control. Things fall when dropped in gravity - they just do - and if you think I'm assuming too much with that then you are insane and cannot be reasoned with.)

__

That *you* would fail to understand and accept these four simple things is not a surprise to me. Before you ignore what I've taken considerable time to write (and shift the goalposts as you are inclined to do) tell me if you agree with these four points/observations or whether you dispute some or all of them.

If you dispute any start with one and address it by number. If you need any of the four points explained in more detail also say so.

Ignoring what I've taken considerable time to write and any effort to shift the goalposts will result in you being temporarily banned.




__________
2017-09-04 1030

+Brian Hill __ ::sigh:: *If you agree with the four points above then what in crikey's good name is your objection?* What is it? You *incorrectly* stated that I had committed the _"fallacy of the conspiracy theorist"_ by asserting I had not acknowledged *any other* reason for him to have not floated the doll. But if you had read _and_ agreed with the four points I outlined above then you would know I listed *several possible reasons* for him not floating the doll.

At 3m:10s of the presentation I focused on one possibility whereby "NASA" was inviting those who have lost trust in them to commit the fallacy of the conspiracy theorist. Thereby luring open-minded people to assert as a fact about reality that the "ISS" is fake and to potentially believe that the Earth might be flat.

You need to think a little longer about what it is you are actually objecting to because once again it is apparent you are objecting to me for the sake of objecting to me. You seem to be on a personal mission to expose Lesta as a "liar" and a "shill" who employs "lie system techniques" to mess with the minds of people.

Your paranoia is out of control. Try again or go away.





__________
2017-09-04 1155

+Brian Hill __ ::sigh:: It is so obvious that your *personal mission* to characterise Lesta as a "liar", a "shill" and someone using "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others is causing you to have *enormous difficulty* with a _profoundly simple concept._

Allow me to reduce what I am pointing out to an _even more basic_ level just for you and anyone else who may be struggling (it wouldn't surprise me if cabadejo were having a similar difficulty). This is where you put down your beer and pay close attention. Read over the following as often as you need _until at last it sinks in:_

*We know that "astronauts" often float objects in front of the camera to demonstrate the "coolness" of weightlessness to children. (Here it comes, Mr Hill - put on that thinking cap!) And so - whether the "astronaut" _held onto the object_ or _let go of the object_ - it was intentional.*

If the "astronaut" released the object - it was intentional. If the "astronaut" held onto the object - it was intentional. *The footage shows us that he _chose_ to hold onto the object rather than let it go.*

Or perhaps your paranoia has you thinking he is an unthinking robot who just *RANDOMLY* holds onto and releases objects while in front of a camera in supposed weightlessness?! LOL!

Come on, Mr Hill. Are you really going to pretend that you can't understand this? *Give it a rest.* You are not cut out for this.



__________
2017-09-04 2310

+Brian Hill __ *Good grief.* First you ask me *why* I _used_ the word "intentional" and now that I've provided you with a clear explanation you are asking me *why* I _underlined_ it?! Mr Hill - you're just too much!

I wonder - if I hadn't underlined the word "intentional" what would you be nit-picking instead? Really - I wonder what would be upsetting you if I hadn't underlined that word!

*Do you accept that holding onto the doll rather than releasing it was intentional?* I have been answering your questions so it's time for you to answer one of mine.

Asking me why I underlined a word - _especially when I underline *many* words in my presentations_ - is getting desperate and silly. *Obviously I did it to emphasise the word "intentional".* Just like how I bolded that last sentence. To give it emphasis.

How _pathetic_ that I am having to explain to you why words in sentences are sometimes underlined, sometimes in bold and sometimes capitalised. This is why I say you're not cut out for discussing conspiracies and news events. *YOU ARE FOREVER STUCK ON THE BASICS!* (Shall I explain why I bolded and capitalised that sentence or can you figure it out?)

Do you agree that holding the doll rather than releasing it was intentional? I underlined the word "intentional" in the presentation to focus attention on it. Why? Because it's easy for people to not even realise that his holding onto it _was_ intentional.

After all - *you* were puzzled as to why it was intentional and asked me about it. When I made the presentation I could foresee that some might not at first notice or even realise it was intentional.

>> *Like the sleight of hand of a magic trick it can pass too quickly and easily unnoticed. That is why I emphasised the word.* <<

By drawing attention to the word a thoughtful person can pause to think about it and realise it _must have been_ intentional. Though you seem to do no independent thinking of your own. You just keep expecting me to spoon feed the answers - just as you went ahead and asked why I underlined a particular word!

Really - what kind of joker are you? Asking me why I underlined a particular word after having taken time to explain why I used it! *This is yet more evidence in support of the view that you are on a personal mission to characterise Lesta as a "liar", a "shill" and someone who uses "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others.*

You are nit-picking over why I underlined a particular word. As though the act of underlining a word in my presentations is somehow shocking and filled with hidden meaning! This is yet _more_ evidence in a *growing pile of evidence* in support of the view that you are biased against Lesta and have no *intention* of truly understanding what I am saying.

It is yet more evidence that suggests you are someone who asks questions of me in order to nit-pick, find fault and waste time rather than to arrive at the truth of a matter. Despite your claims to the contrary it is increasingly apparent you have no desire to acquire a genuine and unbiased understanding of the things I am pointing out.

Can you really not see how ridiculous you are being, Mr Hill? Oh - I bet you can't. I bet instead you feel like you're "Perry Mason" closing out the case of the century!

I have explained why I used the word "intentional" *and also* why I underlined it (even though such a trollish question from you is just more evidence that your real agenda is to nit-pick and waste time). Now it's your turn to answer something: *Do you understand and accept that holding the doll rather than letting it go was intentional?*

I'm not inviting you to speculate as to _why_ he chose to hold onto it. We cannot know why because that requires speculation. I am asking you just this: Do you acknowledge he intentionally held onto it?

That is a yes or no question and does not require speculation or a lengthy answer. Either you acknowledge it was intentional or you don't.

Resist the temptation to introduce irrelevancies and shift the goalposts as you are so apt to do. I have answered your questions so be a good man and answer this one of mine. I've been repeating it throughout just in case you merely glance at this reply. I.e., you have no excuse for not seeing it and also none for not answering it:

*Do you accept that whatever the reason may have been the "astronaut" intentionally held onto the doll?*

So come on Perry Mason - it's a simple yes or no - what is your answer? Answer it before you shift the goalposts and nit-pick about anything else.




__________
2017-09-05 0425

+Brian Hill __ Who am I talking to? Is it Brian Hill or cabadejo? You're both starting to sound a lot alike!

I am sure that what you have written makes perfect sense to you but alas, I haven't been drinking so I am struggling to make sense of it. I think I understand but am _not quite sure._

I know that you are _always_ on the hunt for "contradictions" in my writing and presentations so that you can claim Lesta is a "liar", a "shill" and uses "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others. So please help me to properly understand the "gotcha" you are focusing on.

Are you trying to say that the definition you found for "intent" applies to one situation (i.e., the "astronaut" holding the doll) but not the other (i.e., the presentation of the astronaut)? Is that your "gotcha" or is it more complicated than that?

Remember how excited you got about the word "intentional" being underlined? You viewed that as important so I hope you will view _the title of this presentation_ - *"THE FALLACY OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST"* - as a tad more important than any particular word I underlined.

(I selected each clip in this presentation in order to explain this common fallacy. I suppose you needed that pointed out!)

If you have indeed found a "contradiction" in Lesta's doctrine (or is it dogma?) then we must promptly call it into question! Be so kind as to simplify what you're trying to say. What exactly is your "gotcha"? Can you phrase it more eloquently?

It will help me - and anyone else who may be reading - to understand your objection.





__________
2017-09-05 0840

+Brian Hill __ Okay so you have no actual objection. Instead of taking the opportunity to phrase your "gotcha" objection more simply for everyone's benefit you just acknowledge I have asked nicely before insulting me. Way to go!

This is yet more evidence that shows you are on a misguided personal mission to call Lesta a "liar", a "shill" and someone using "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others.

*You have no genuine objection - just an erratic flash of paranoid hunches that make sense to you in the moment but make no sense when you take the time to word them clearly.*

You are wasting everyone's time - not least of all your own.




__________
2017-09-05 0950

+Brian Hill __ *Wow - aren't you a piece of work!* You aren't willing or able to explain your "gotcha" objection any more clearly so that I can respond to it appropriately. And somehow that is my fault?!

Like I said - I am sure your "gotcha" objection makes perfect sense to you but I wonder if it makes *any* sense to anyone else. I don't think it does. I suspect it only makes sense in your bitter little mind.

Over the past couple of days I have explained and simplified things perhaps a half-dozen different ways just to help you to understand what it is I am saying. Why? *Because being understood by someone who disagrees with me matters and is important enough to make the effort.*

Yet you are dragging your heels and remain unwilling to do so. You prefer instead to waste more of your time throwing cheap insults my way (insults that are far more descriptive of you than me).

As I say - you are a piece of work. It cannot be more clear that you are on a personal mission to characterise Lesta as a "liar", a "shill" and as someone who uses "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others.

*If you don't actually know what it is you are objecting to then how in crikey's good name am I - _or anyone else_ - supposed to know?*

What is it you're trying to say, Mr Hill? What is your "gotcha" objection? It has something to do with "intent" but what exactly is it?

Perhaps you could ask a friend (cabadejo?) to write down what they believe your "gotcha" objection is. It will be interesting to see if anyone - _beyond yourself_ - actually understands what you're all excited about!

As I say - I don't think anyone else does beyond you.

*I cannot respond appropriately to an objection that doesn't make sense.* That isn't a cop out. It's just the situation. Now make an effort to explain your "gotcha" objection in a clear and simple way or get f_kced you *disingenuous little truther runt.*




__________
2017-09-05 1035

+Brian Hill __ You are too much! I have always given unsolicited explanations to you and others whenever it has become apparent that you and others are experiencing a problem understanding my words. That is because it matters and is important to be understood by those who disagree.

*I am asking you to give me a simple explanation of your "gotcha" explanation and you refuse!* You are happy to waste endless time bickering and throwing insults my way rather than getting to the root of the matter. How does that not make you a truther troll?

Your excuse for not making any effort to explain and simplify your "gotcha" objection is because you are fearful it won't be understood. *As it stands your initial objection isn't understood.* And so you *need* to do better. You can't just write gibberish and then claim a victory when it isn't understood you disingenuous f_kc.

Though I can see that your fear has some basis. Why? Because I don't think *you* actually know what your "gotcha" objection is. It appears to me that all you have are *flashes of paranoid hunches* that you frantically jot down and then when I don't respond *because I am trying to understand it* you claim some "victory" over me. You are a real piece of work, Mr Hill.

I think that if you were to take the time to *calmly* write down your "gotcha" objection you'd realise that you're in a mental twist because you are determined to claim I am a "liar", a "shill" and someone using "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others.

I can see that *you* don't _actually know_ what it is you're objecting to. Else you *would* be able to rephrase it more simply. _Else you *would* at least try to make the effort._

That is why I asked you to get a friend (e.g., cabadejo) to explain your "gotcha" objection to me. If it is the case that others _also_ cannot understand your "gotcha" objection then perhaps you will realise that you are being *unreasonable* when you expect me to somehow respond appropriately to it.

Take some time out. Take a little time to think about your "gotcha" objection which you described above. Try to write it to me again so that it helps me (and others) to understand it. I will try to understand what you write. I won't just say "gibberish!" - so put aside that fear (unless it really is just more gibberish).

I want to understand your "gotcha" objection because if you are correct then Lesta's doctrine (or is it dogma?!) absolutely needs to be called into question!

*But first you need to have a valid objection - one that can be understood by others.*




__________
2017-09-05 1055

+Brian Hill __ Is it really your strategy to write gibberish that only you can understand and then claim a "victory" over me for not understanding it? To then blame me for not comprehending it? You really are too much.

Why not take a little time to explain your "gotcha" objection more simply and see what happens? You may be surprised to find out that it is only your paranoia that has you thinking I am intentionally not trying to understand.

No one else - _not even cabadejo I dare say_ - understands your "gotcha" objection above so write it out again so they can. If you won't do it for me then do it for everyone else who may be rooting for you but can't get behind you because they don't understand what you're saying.

Don't delay or shift the goalposts. Just make an effort or get lost.



__________
2017-09-05 1325

+Brian Hill __ Your "cleaned up" version is basically a copy and paste of the gibberish you wrote earlier. I have tried to think about things from the perspective of a "literalist" with a low IQ who has no desire to genuinely understand what I am saying and may have figured out your "gotcha" objection:

*Is it your "gotcha" objection that Lesta _must be_ asserting the "astronaut" _intentionally_ held onto the doll _knowing full well_ that by doing so he was _forcing everyone watching to trust_ that he really was in a weightless environment?*





__________
2017-09-05 2300

+Brian Hill __ Did you know that this presentation is titled (and is about) *"THE FALLACY OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST IN THE LIE SYSTEM"?* Are you really complaining that I selected some good examples to illustrate this fallacy? Interesting. How else could I have explained the concept? Or do you think that no one commits the fallacy of the conspiracy theorist and that it isn't even a thing?



__________
2017-09-06 0110

+Brian Hill __ My video appears "loaded" because it is using relevant examples to illustrate the concept. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but a video about sharks is going to feature sharks. Because of that it's going to seem rather "biased" and "loaded" towards sharks! If it didn't it probably wouldn't be about sharks.

Okay, so now you want the existence of the lie system itself proven to you. I have a feeling that nothing I say will be good enough for that! I have a feeling that if I were to succeed you'd only pick up the goalposts and shift them. But I'll give it a go because I'm up for a challenge and if it doesn't help you it might help someone else silently reading along.

Over time it has become apparent to me that some people have enormous difficulty recognising the lie system even when it is painstakingly pointed out and this blindness is not unlike how some people cannot recognise sarcasm in writing.

Either a person can recognise sarcasm in someone's writing or they can't. When a person can't it remains invisible even when it's pointed out and *underlined* for them!

Perhaps one way for you to recognise the lie system is to approach it from a different angle. The problem is that you will never recognise it unless you want to. Kind of like a husband married to a wife who serially cheats. The signs may be right in front of him - _all around him_ - but if he doesn't want to see it or accept what the signs mean then in his mind his wife is faithful and there's no cheating going on.

I'm not convinced you want to understand what I'm saying and I'm not convinced you want to recognise the lie system. I *am* convinced - however - that you'd rather play games all day and twist my words so that you can carry on with your personal mission to characterise Lesta as a "liar", a "shill" and someone using "lie system techniques" to (presumably) mess with the minds of others.

But perhaps I am mistaken about you? Perhaps you're not at all like the myopic husband who can only think of his cheating wife as faithful.

You know that in a nutshell "sufficient proof" is any singular piece of evidence that proves a claim without relying on trust or a subjective assessment. If you need "sufficient proof" more precisely defined just ask but by now I assume you have a good grasp of what it is.

Since many "conspiracy theorists" reject a great many "terror events" as either "hoaxes" or "false flags" (i.e., there is deceit involved in the event) let's focus on those kinds of events. Let's focus on them because they are fairly common and a good way for me to teach you "how to recognise sarcasm in writing" (so to speak).

Here are two questions you are expected to answer:

1) Do you think it's possible that *every* terror event reported on the nightly news could have been real?

2) Would you say that "sufficient proof" is *always* provided with each "terror event" that gets reported on the nightly news?

Go ahead and answer these two simple questions. Here is a sample response so you know how to format your reply and so you can know this isn't some kind of trick:

1) Yes, I think it's possible that every terror event reported on the nightly news could have been real. 2) Yes - I think that "sufficient proof" is always provided with each terror event that's reported on the nightly news.

Your answers may differ from those in my example - I'm sure they will. Just number your two answers so I know which question you are addressing etc.

Once you've replied I'll continue. It's that simple.

If you can't bring yourself to answer these two simple questions then you are not really sincere in wanting to know about the existence of the lie system. If that's the case then you're just playing games and I need to stop wasting any further time on you.

If you won't play nice and give me an opportunity to prove the existence of the lie system then you must not run around saying it doesn't exist. *Else you're no different to someone who runs around claiming the "ISS" doesn't exist because they refuse to look in a f_kcing telescope.*

Respond with your two answers. It won't take you more than a minute. Don't go off on a tangent. Don't introduce irrelevancies. Don't respond with questions. Let me help you to recognise the lie system or this really must be the end of our conversation. Don't f_kc this up.




__________
2017-09-06 1015

+Brian Hill __ Hardly anything from you to me is straightforward or valuable. As usual you are being a wriggly and uncooperative little sh!t worm and it's clear you're just here to nit-pick, shift the goalposts and waste time.

1) You were asked whether it's possible that every terror event reported on the nightly news was real. We're not just talking about an event's reasons or fatalities being exaggerated and misrepresented. You know very well what you are being asked but like an annoying little sh!t worm it's your nature to wriggle uncooperatively about.

You are someone who is a longstanding and active member of the so-called "truth community" and so you know very well what is being asked of you: that if deaths are reported then is it that deaths always happened?

Stop wriggling about you stinky little sh!t worm and answer what you have been asked. Do you believe that people died in every terror event where deaths were reported on the nightly news or do you think it's possible that sometimes deaths did not occur *because the alleged deaths were pretend?*

As a longstanding active member of the so-called "truth community" you know very well that you are not being asked whether deaths and injuries are sometimes exaggerated and misrepresented (of course that can happen) *but whether sometimes those deaths and injuries are entirely pretend?*

You know very well that's what you were being asked but if for some reason you didn't (sh!t worms are often literalists with low IQs) then now you do. So try again: *Do you think it's possible that every terror event reported on the news has been real* - regardless of exaggeration and misrepresentation - *(or is it possible that sometimes a terror event that apparently involved death and injury was _entirely pretend_ where nobody died or got hurt)?*

__

2) Your bizarre answer to the second question further reveals how paranoid and uncooperative you are. As a sh!t worm you want to have your sh!t cake and wriggle about in it too. No wonder you are a confused little sh!t worm who is unable to recognise the lie system.

If you would reject video footage *that has no good reason to be doubted* then you are being arbitrary and argumentative because to be consistent you would need to reject all footage that has no good reason to be doubted.

And who knows how many times I have explained "sufficient proof" *and what qualifies as it* to you over the years but like a slippery little sh!t worm you're going to pretend that you _still_ don't know what would qualify! _You're really just too much, Mr Hill._

Footage of building 7 collapsing qualifies as "sufficient proof" for the claim that building 7 collapsed. The footage of the building 7 collapse qualifies as "sufficient proof". Are you really going to pretend to be so dumb that you don't know why that would qualify as "sufficient proof"? But muh pixels! Muh holographic pixels!

When a private detective presents you with hours and hours of clear footage of your wife visiting various men and f_kcing them I suppose you wouldn't recognise that as "sufficient proof" of your wife cheating?

I suppose all it would take is for your wife to say: "Don't believe the footage, Brian - remember that all footage is just pixels on a screen and can be faked - you know, like the holographic planes on 9/11" and you would continue to think of your wife as faithful. After all - she has a point you can't intellectually get past, huh?

For an unnecessarily argumentative little sh!t worm like you I'm not surprised you would resort to the ridiculous notion that since any footage could be faked therefore none of it can ever qualify as "sufficient proof". However - that notion needs to ignore the fact that the purpose of a camera is to capture reality as it really happened.

If there is no good reason to doubt the footage as genuine (such as the presence of "potential editing points") then you are being arbitrary and disingenuous to reject otherwise clean footage on the grounds "it's just pixels and pixels can be faked".

At moments like this your opposition defiance disorder could not be more obvious you disgusting little sh!t worm.

__

Because of your answers it's clear you are just a truther troll who as much as possible seeks to nit-pick, shift the goalposts and waste time. At least that's how you are with me you jealous little sh!t worm.

I am not convinced in the slightest that you are genuinely interested in arriving at the truth of the matter even though you keep saying you are.

Either try again with the two questions or get lost you parasitic little sh!t worm. And don't pretend you're going to be the one to end the conversation because I have called you a disgusting parasitic slippery little stinky worthless jealous sh!t worm.

You know very well that with your antics I am being most kind and more than restrained. Try again with the two questions or get lost you dumb little sh!t worm.



__________
2017-09-06 1105

+Brian Hill __ As a courtesy (since you are a dumb little sh!t worm) here are the two questions once again. I have tweaked them slightly so that even a low IQ literalist sh!t worm like you can more easily understand:

1) Is it possible that every "terror event" has been genuine or is it that some were pretend (where nobody died or got hurt)?
2) Is "sufficient proof" provided for every "major terror event" that gets reported on the nightly news?

Before you respond - be sure to read over my lengthy explanation above as to why your initial two responses are just trollish and cannot be accepted. By the way, we are not deviating from what you wanted to talk about in terms of proving the lie system. By answering these two questions you begin the process of being led closer to proving the lie system for yourself. It's you and not me who is getting in the way of that. As usual you are guilty of the things you keep accusing me of.





__________
2017-09-06 1520

+Brian Hill __ Hilarious. Where possible I _always_ prefer progress through cooperation and not competition. I have a history that proves it whereas *you* prove yourself to be a truther troll with just about every interaction! Your cheap and unsubstantiated talk about "misguided assumptions and characterisations" from me is just more projection coming from *you.* ::yawn::

You *still* have not answered the first question! Good grief - and you wonder why I now refer to you as a wriggly little sh!t worm! *PAY ATTENTION:* You are being asked whether it's possible that *EVERY* terror event reported on the nightly news has been real. Not that _some_ may have been real - that's *not* what you are being asked -
 but whether it's possible that *ALL OF THEM* could have been real.

Now answer the first question properly you wretched little sh!t worm.




____________________________________________________________
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.