14 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-04-05 0350 +John le Bon

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-04-05 0405 +John le Bon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dT29UcwW74&lc=UgwPWC8U9onYo8R5qq14AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/HEyV6P1C
__

If you are like me, then you welcome and encourage genuine criticism so that it can bring us all closer to the truth. *A theory is worthless if it has no predictive power.* If you are correct about "synchronicity" and "coincidences" being a tool used by those you refer to as _"The People Who Run The Show"_ ("TPWRTS"), then how come you have not been able to predict anything significant or meaningful?

You ought to be able to examine any current movie, television show, or music album cover - _flip some pictures, rearrange some letters, add up some nutty numbers_ - and reveal an upcoming major event to the public. Or is there nothing on the way?

Why do you suppose you can only show the kind of _seemingly_ "clear connections, coincidences, and synchronicities" that you presented in this video *in hindsight?*

A few years ago I presented a theory of *"event priming"* as an observable propaganda technique used by the lie system. I then pointed out an unambiguous example of it along with a *specific* prediction within a *narrow* time-frame (4 to 6 weeks). Not only did my prediction come to pass it ushered in a genre of "terrorist attack" that has persisted ever since.

I noticed a pattern, I determined it was a genuine pattern, I discerned signal from noise, and I presented my "event priming" theory to the public for scrutiny. I then put my "event priming" theory to the test by staking my name and reputation on a *specific kind of prediction* within a *limited time period.*

On posting that prediction I responded to doubters who were skeptical with explanations. I also took the time to help anyone who was genuinely curious to repeat the procedure for themselves. After the prediction came to pass I also responded to jealous haters who tried to diminish what I had accomplished by dismissing my prediction as a "fluke" and "bound to happen anyway".

I wonder, would you be willing to do the same thing with your theory about "synchronicity"?

*Would you be willing to survey current movies, television, album covers, etc. and publicly predict ahead of time a significant and unambiguous event that will occur within a reasonable period of time that isn't open-ended?* If not, why not? I did it, so why can't you or anyone else who talks about "synchronicity"?

I have never been able to get a proper answer from those who talk about "synchonicity": How exactly are you ruling in or out "synchronicities" as meaningful? Can you explain what is, or is not, a genuine "synchronicity" _ahead_ of time? Or is this something that can only be done in hindsight?

How is "synchronicity" as you describe it any different from superstitious thinking or reading tea leaves?

Also, I am also curious. Whatever may have happened on 9/11 we know that three buildings collapsed in spectacular fashion. Elsewhere in the comments to this video you stated that: _"Nobody died, nobody got hurt. *Period."*_ Does that rhetoric (which was popularised by the charlatan "Dave Johnson" aka "Dave J") include or exclude those who got sick or died as a result of inhaling toxic dust at ground zero?

Or do you deny that anyone got sick as a result of the collapsed buildings? Perhaps you imagine the pulverised dust from the WTC buildings was "harmless"? Did "The People Who Run The Show" ("TPWRTS") _accidentally_ harm those people?! Does that not count as people dying or getting hurt because it wasn't "intentional"?

P.S.  It is a pity you stopped learning from me some time ago and instead have continued to pursue amateur story tellers like "Dave J". You must know that "Dave Johnson" is a liar who misrepresents reality. After all, he continues to assert that "Tony Abbott" is "Tony Blair" despite my having shown him footage of the two gentlemen meeting in parliament during a session open to the public (from multiple camera angles, no less).

I have to wonder why you would be so keen to associate with "Dave J" unless it is to access his intellectually vulnerable and easily exploitable audience.

As I began - I hope you welcome and encourage genuine criticism in order to bring everyone closer to the truth. I hope you won't react negatively or ignore it, like every other dishonest charlatan does.



__________
2018-04-05 0750

+John le Bon __ You and I both know that is not an acceptable answer from someone who has positioned himself on the Internet as a "leading skeptic" who demands money for his "perspective". Rather than misdirecting with the usual nonsense about "happiness", "us versus them", etc. it would have been honest had you replied: _"I tell my subscribers that there are meaningful coincidences and synchronicities but I am at a complete loss as to how to rule any of them out. Therefore, they may all be relevant. End of discussion."_

I genuinely hope that one day you are able to find your way by seeking true things for true reasons and can dedicate your time and talents to helping others do the same rather than exploiting the intellectually vulnerable who trust you for chump change.



__________
2018-04-05 0900

+John le Bon __ No one would rule out a meaningful coincidence *IF* that is what it is. By interpreting my sentence *literally* you have found a way to misunderstand it. Perhaps you did not intend to misunderstand so I will take a moment to explain it. The sentence I wrote was: _"I tell my subscribers that there are meaningful coincidences and synchronicities but I am at a complete loss as to how to rule any of them out."_

There are two parts to the sentence I wrote: *A)* "I tell my subscribers that there are meaningful coincidences and synchronicities." *B)* "but I don't know how to rule any of them [i.e., coincidences/synchronicities] out."

To ask me why anyone would rule out a meaningful coincidence you have needed to interpret "any of them" to mean "any _meaningful_ coincidence" instead of "any coincidence". Although I anticipated the possibility for confusion I should have been more clear.

In the first part of the sentence I am referring to a subset of coincidences that are meaningful. In the second part of the sentence I am referring to the collection of all possible coincidences (meaningful and otherwise). *A* (meaningful coincidences) is a subset of *B* (all coincidences both meaningful and not).

Just because a coincidence *in hindsight* _seems_ meaningful does not necessarily mean it actually is meaningful. In hindsight many things can _seem_ "meaningful" when they are not. With some introspection you should be able to think about many examples of "seemingly meaningful coincidences that are not" from your day-to-day life. How are you ruling them *in* as meaningful and how are you ruling them *out* as meaningless?

For example, in your video at 1m:31s you reversed the title "SUPERTRAMP" and suggest that the "U" becomes an "11" (while conveniently ignoring that the "P" is no longer a clean "9"). You are taking something, *manipulating it,* and then claiming it is meaningful (otherwise why would you have presented it?).

If there existed a random drawing by a kid of the WTC with the word "SUPER SKYSCRAPER!" above it (like with "SUPERTRAMP") how would you rule that *out* as meaningful? After all, if you flipped the image you would get the same result.

If it is not meaningful because a kid randomly drew it, then is it meaningful because "SUPERTRAMP" was involved? This is the part you are not explaining. *What exactly makes a "coincidence"/"synchronicity" meaningful beyond a feeling you have in your tummy?*

You are being asked *how* you determine whether a coincidence/synchronicity is genuinely meaningful. How do you rule in a coincidence/synchronicity as meaningful and how do you rule a coincidence/synchronicity out as meaningless/irrelevant?

If you cannot give an answer, then it is purely a subjective feeling. It simply "feels" like it is meaningful.

And if it comes down to feelings, then a person who points out the kid's random WTC drawing as meaningful would be equally valid in doing so. Yet you would know that's absurd. When pushed on this, a "synchro-mystic" might respond: _"The kid unconsciously picked up a sense for 9/11 coming and the drawing resulted. Although the kid wasn't in on 9/11 - it was therefore still meaningful."_

Well, anyone who insists on that is either experiencing psychosis/schizophrenia or is appealing to those who are. If that is enough to rule something in as meaningful, then it becomes impossible to rule anything out.

Again, in hindsight many coincidences/synchronicities can seem entirely meaningful and relevant - but that does not mean they are. How are you distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant? Before you rule something in you must first know how to rule something out. Those trapped in the planned dichotomy of "real versus fake" know only how to rule things in that conform to their pre-existing belief bias.

How do you rule *out* _seemingly_ meaningful coincidences (like the example I gave with the kid drawing the WTC with "SUPER SKYSCRAPER!" above it) that are *not* meaningful? You have not thought this through *otherwise* you would be able to explain *why* each example you cited is meaningful as opposed to genuinely accidental.



____________________________________________________________
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.