30 Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-07 0315 +Lyndall Riedel

Lesta Nediam LNC2018-01-07 0315 +Lyndall Riedel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd9S6cyzpPU&lc=UgzSB2X162glte6B6kx4AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/HPcMiNqa
__

+Lyndall Riedel __ I am not sure what you meant with _"not picking it up"._ I will do my best to explain since you seem passionate about giant pandas and more knowledgeable than most.

The video I linked to above was specifically intended for the person who posted this "Giant Anteater" video questioning if they are real. He seems to be pointing out "fake animals" and is noticing fakery with various animals, because something about them _"doesn't seem right"._

If "Conspiracies by Hans" is noticing fakery in various animals, then there is a good chance he will notice fakery with other animals, such as the rare and highly prized giant panda. Hence my suggestion for him to take a closer look at them.

Right now, let me point out that giant pandas *undoubtedly* exist! I am not for a second suggesting that every giant panda is an animatronic panda, or that they all have little Chinese acrobats in them! _That's absurd._

One of the points I tried to convey above is that when you begin to notice fakery in the things around you, there is a real danger in perceiving *everything* around you as fake - _including all of the things that are not fake!_

This is a preventable shortcut to psychosis. My message above (and all of the links, posts, and presentations connected to it) is intended to prevent that from happening in someone who is able to perceive fakery with animals.

However, that is not to say there are not any shenanigans with giant pandas. While giant pandas undoubtedly exist, not every video we see of them is _necessarily_ the real thing. It can also be that _some_ of the "adorable" panda behaviours we see are the result of training; not unlike how circus animals are trained to put on a show for paying crowds.

Have you noticed how often giant pandas clamber to the ends of thin branches which inevitably break causing them to experience a great fall? As though they are in hot pursuit of the scent of a delicious panda treat!

For such a rare and highly prized animal the Chinese government sure seem to be reckless with them, *_given that_ they have _full control_ over each giant panda enclosure and environment.*

Why give the giant pandas access to unsuitable trees with thin branches, unless you want them to eventually fall? It must not be overlooked that such falls _help_ to draw in paying crowds.

Of course, we are quickly informed that each fall from a tree is "harmless" to the panda. But do you really believe it? Some of the falls are from tremendous heights! Sometimes the giant panda lands on wooden decking and there is always the potential to land on rocks.

But, the belief giant pandas are not harmed does help people to not feel bad. It does help to prevent people from suspecting there is abuse going on.

Such perilous falls help to draw in _millions_ of panda tourists each year. But it's okay, because no panda is ever harmed!

I have watched just about every giant panda video that is publicly available, and perhaps you have too. I'm curious: have you ever seen a giant panda _in the wild_ fall from a tree?

That's not to say it doesn't happen, but it is a rather common outcome with captive giant pandas. (It is also not hard to toss a hyper-realistic panda out of a tree and post it online for the views, but I'll let Hans investigate the merits of that.)

Whatever the case may be, let's hope the Chinese government is drawing in crowds of paying panda tourists *for the right reasons,* yeah?




__________
2018-01-07 0530

+Lyndall Riedel __ I'm not talking about "tourist sites". I am pointing out that with proper scrutiny, certain behaviours associated with the "main attraction" (i.e., the "hilarious antics" of giant pandas) reveals that either the Chinese government is *reckless* with their rare and highly prized giant pandas, or the potential exists for "hyper-realistic fakes" to be tossed out of trees (so to speak) in an effort to draw in paying visitors.

I'm curious. Did you watch this video on the "Giant Anteater"? What are your thoughts on the suggestion that the "Giant Anteater" is a fake animal? I have been talking to you on the assumption you _did_ watch this video because your comment to it read: _"Oh, mannnnn! One of my favorite books was Only A Gringo Would Die For An Anteater by Michael Milts....MM!!!!! 33!!!!! Damn!"_

I didn't exactly understand your comment, and I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you saying you have less of a problem with "Giant Anteaters" being a fake animal, than the possibility for some giant pandas to be either fake or trained to perform (effectively) "circus tricks" to help attract crowds of paying customers?

*I'd have thought that anyone who can embrace the idea of "Giant Anteaters being fake" would have _no problem_ with the idea of fakery to do with "giant pandas"!*

Perhaps I am mistaken. Until I hear from the good Hans, I must wonder if perhaps I've stumbled upon a *"parody conspiracy channel",* where perhaps _some_ of the commentators are somehow connected to a propaganda network that is preying upon the intellectually vulnerable who have lost trust in traditional authority and officialdom.



__________
2018-01-07 0735

+Lyndall Riedel __ Do you think that the Earth could be flat?




__________
2018-01-07 1050

+Lyndall Riedel __ *Please take the time to consider the following.* From what you have written, it seems as though there are some things that _need_ to be the case for the Earth to be round, but which are _impossible_ for you to imagine as true.

There are explanations for each of the things you have mentioned, but if you don't understand the explanations for them - _or if you don't trust the people explaining them_ - then you're stuck. And if you don't accept the _technical explanations_ for a round Earth, then the idea of a flat Earth begins to make sense!

Though, there are ways to prove that the Earth isn't flat, too. But if you don't understand the technical explanations, or if you don't trust the people who are explaining them, then once again you're stuck.

Without any doubt, the universe is a rather bizarre and unbelievable place! Just as there are many bizarre and unbelievable things about a universe _with a round Earth,_ there are just as many bizarre and unbelievable things about a universe _with a flat Earth._

Since in _either case_ there are bizarre and unbelievable things, we can confidently know that merely because something _seems_ bizarre and unbelievable (i.e., impossible to imagine as true) does not mean it cannot be true.

Between the round Earth and the flat Earth, the bizarre aspects of the flat Earth have _simple_ explanations, but they _don't_ stand up to proper scrutiny; whereas the round Earth has explanations that _do_ stand up to proper scrutiny, but are _more complicated._

At some point you lost trust in those who provide the population with correct and proper explanations as to why the Earth is round. And because you don't understand the technical explanations given, the flat Earth (with its simpler explanations) _makes more sense._

A great many people believe the Earth is round, but they don't understand the technical explanations for it. They have formed what is referred to as an "unjustified belief". They believe the Earth is round simply because they *trust* the relevant "experts".

But, *significant problems* arise when trust in the relevant "experts" is lost, while _those_ experts are correct and telling the truth! When that happens, those who have lost trust risk rejecting reality as fantasy, and risk embracing fantasy as reality.

It doesn't mean you have to trust _those_ experts with _everything_ they say. Don't do that! You only need to trust the relevant experts with just _one_ thing - the Earth's shape. With everything else those experts have to say (especially their spokespeople), by all means remain skeptical of that!

Unfortunately, if you have lost trust in the relevant experts (those who correctly explain why the Earth is round) and have consequently formed a bias that the Earth is flat, then you may _never_ be able to accept the explanations.

This means you will remain a "flat Earther" until such time as you lose trust in those claiming the Earth is flat. (Then you're in a real pickle.)

So long as you are an honest and genuine person, and not merely _pretending_ to believe the Earth is flat, then I believe this to be the situation. Whether or not you can/will admit it!




__________
2018-01-07 1115

+Lyndall Riedel __ Just so you know, I deleted and then reposted my lengthy message in order to correct some of the sentences, but everything else remains intact. *I urge you to read it before you reflexively demand "proofs" for a round Earth.*

At this point, it cannot be overlooked that you have *not* asked Hans - the gentleman who posted this video - for *any* "proofs" to substantiate the notion that "Giant Anteaters" are fake. You are perfectly happy and willing to accept his _opinion_ that Giant Anteaters are fake because they "look strange".

So why would you ask for "proofs" for a round Earth? Since when have you needed proof for anything?!

I am not convinced you are here for the right reasons, and if you're not then any evidence I provide you with will be denied. Either because you don't understand it, or you're pretending to not understand it.




__________
2018-01-07 1130

+Lyndall Riedel __ Looking up sh!t for yourself, I'm sure you're a proper little dung beetle. All the best with your "flat Earth" and "Giant Trees" psychosis.



__________
2018-01-07 1140

+Lyndall Riedel __ Wishing you luck with your psychosis is _not quite_ the same as showing concern for your welfare. But, if you want to think I am concerned about someone who is either defiantly self-deluded or more simply a propagandist, then okay - whatever gives you those warm-and-fuzzies. Are we done? Yes, we're done. *Good bye.*




__________
2018-01-08 1145

+Lyndall Riedel __ And these _many_ (but not all?!) "features" *you* claim _"shouldn't be seen at d² x 8"_ can _always_ be seen or are they only _occasionally_ seen?

Are you telling us this from your own tested and repeated observations, or are you merely reporting to us the alleged observations of others who also advocate for a "flat Earth"?

And if you claim they can _always_ seen, then how have you ruled out mistakes in these observations and calculations which happen to deviate from *everyone else's* observations and calculations?

I shall await with bated breath to find out how your obvious and ugly belief-bias influences your response, or whether you simply choose to carry on with cheap insults because you have no argument that stands up to proper scrutiny.



__________
2018-01-08 1805

+Lyndall Riedel __ Oh, I see. And here I was led to believe that you were a "flat Earther" *implying* that "features" *which should be hidden by the Earth's curvature* can be seen _because_ the Earth is not round like all those corrupt and retarded university-educated scientists say, but flat like you and your honest and clever Internet-educated sleuths say. *For why else did you quote the formula "d² x 8"?*

But, it turns out you were _*only*_ referring to "pollution" and other "atmospheric conditions" that affect visibility. Uh huh, sure.

Looks like I've found another faux flat Earther. _As you were._


____________________________________________________________
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.