Lesta Nediam POST2018-01-19 Some Notes on "Sufficient Proof"

SOME NOTES ON "SUFFICIENT PROOF"
By Lesta Nediam
January 19th, 2018

Original (read this version!):
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/1oPeZkPkEe9

Archived:
https://pastebin.com/MkXNd2ab





>> For ease of reading it is preferred that you read the Google Plus version linked above. This Pastebin copy exists as an archive should the original g+ post become removed or censored for any reason. <<

- January 24th, 2018







______________________________
*GENERALLY SPEAKING IT IS NOT ESPECIALLY HARMFUL TO ACCEPT PERFECTLY FAKED "SUFFICIENT PROOF", BUT IT IS ALWAYS CATASTROPHICALLY HARMFUL TO REJECT "SUFFICIENT PROOF" EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN PERFECTLY FAKED*

While accepting perfectly faked "sufficient proof" can lead to the reinforcement of belief biases, *rejecting "sufficient proof" not only reinforces belief biases, it unavoidably creates psychosis.* The good news is that the "lie system" *does not* fake "sufficient proof", although pranksters, criminals, activists, etc. often do.




_To read this post more easily click this link:_
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/1oPeZkPkEe9




______________________________
>>> *The intentional and systematic withholding and obscuring of "sufficient proof" is the only provable conspiracy, and this "presentation protocol" is what makes all of the other conspiracies seem possible in the first place!* <<<


To the new reader, everything in this post will be brand new. To the reader who has been paying close and proper attention to Lesta's writing over the years, there is little that's new. Beyond, perhaps, some new ways of expressing the same basic ideas.


All said and done, I want everyone to believe true things. *But more than that, I want everyone to believe true things, for true reasons.* Because to be right, but for the wrong reasons, can be just as damaging - _if not more so_ - than to be outright wrong.


For those who have drifted - _or perhaps have been lured_ - away from this ideal: may these words plant a new seed that grows to remind you of the importance of seeking true things for true reasons.


_Let these words sink in and take root!_




______________________________
*CONTENTS*


*1. Introduction*

*2. Some notes about "sufficient proof"*

*3. When "potential editing points" are okay*

*4. An interlude on "justified/unjustified" beliefs*

*5. Two examples of "sufficient proof"*

*6. Rejecting "sufficient proof" reinforces belief bias*

*7. Rejecting "sufficient proof" creates psychosis*

*8. Summary and closing remarks*




______________________________
*1. INTRODUCTION*


After some notes about *"sufficient proof",* and a little time set aside to cover *"justified/unjustified" beliefs,* I provide two examples of footage that *qualify* as "sufficient proof".


I have selected these two examples because they have in the past been rejected or doubted (i.e., not embraced) by *"event skeptics".* I then go on to explain why it is *always harmful* to reject "sufficient proof", _even if it has been perfectly faked!_


An *"event skeptic"* is someone who does not automatically trust that every event presented on the nightly news necessarily happened.


This is a post on *"sufficient proof"* and the *unavoidable harm* that results to one's mental health when it is rejected. My warning is relevant to every "event skeptic" - and although it's easy for them to ignore my words, doing so will be to their own peril.


The term *"sufficient proof"* is a specialised *lie system* term and concept. Many people who are acquainted with Lesta may say they understand the concept of "sufficient proof", but their words and actions reveal that they don't.


First of all, *"sufficient proof"* has nothing to do with _quantity,_ or _amounts_ of proof. For that reason some people find the term confusing. Other people simply dislike the term because it is Lesta's term and when it comes to Lesta they have an "oppositional defiance disorder"!


If you are someone who dislikes the term or is confused by its name, then to help understand this post you may think of "sufficient proof" as (for example): _"actual proof", "intrinsic proof", "categorical proof", etc._


Whatever alternative term the reader uses to help understand the concept, the *official* "lie system" term remains *"sufficient proof".*


The reader *must* use *only* the provided definition for "sufficient proof" (given below). While for this post it does not especially matter what other term the reader finds comfortable, to use any other _definition_ will cause misunderstandings that preclude successful communication.


_Use the provided definition!_


Also, there are some people who use the term "lie system" and who talk about similar topics, but they do not speak for Lesta nor do they have authority over Lesta's lexicon. Those people are not endorsed by Lesta.


Because other people are using the same and similar terminology, I refer to my writing as: *"The lie system as documented and described by Lesta Nediam"* so as to distinguish myself from everyone else.


Lesta's unique writing on the "lie system" is the result of much observation, thought, discussion, and debate in both public and private. My concept of the "lie system" is complete, *thought out,* self-contained, and forms the foundation for an *overall philosophy and approach to reality* (a system of thought).


That is why I have no hesitation in discussing it, and no problem explaining it. Is the same _really_ true for others?


What other people have to say about the "lie system" may sound and seem similar to Lesta, but differ in subtle yet crucial areas. These differences may not be obvious or apparent to the casual reader. I cannot emphasise strongly enough: *taking seriously the captivating but ill-conceived ideas of others on these topics will lead to unresolveable contradictions and illusory progress.*


I suppose that's okay if you're here for entertainment, comradery, and don't mind living with a debilitating psychosis because it's shared by others.


Right now, you are reading about "sufficient proof" in the "lie system" according to Lesta Nediam. I cannot and do not vouch for what anyone else has to say on these things.


_For the love of crikey, do not accept cheap substitutes and unflattering imitations!_




______________________________
*2. SOME NOTES ABOUT "SUFFICIENT PROOF"*


What follows is a description of "sufficient proof" in a nutshell. As you read, please try to understand the "spirit" of what I am outlining so that a 50-page essay detailing every possible nuance and exception can be avoided.


>>> *"Sufficient proof"* in Lesta's lie system nomenclature is defined as any *singular* piece of *evidence* for the *central claim* of an event that _in and of itself_ necessarily *proves* it to be true and real *without* needing to add anything to it, or a subjective assessment/interpretation etc. <<<


Often "sufficient proof" comes to us by way of video footage. There are those who argue that video footage can never be accepted as proof of anything because it is just "pixels on a screen" which can be faked.


Certainly, it is true that "pixels on a screen" can be perfectly faked and I will address the problem of "perfectly faked sufficient proof" after I have talked more about "sufficient proof". But first, allow me to dispense with the notion that video footage cannot be accepted as proof because it can be faked.


Those who hold that unproductive view have forevermore excluded themselves from accepting video footage as proof of _anything_ for _any_ reason. *That is absurd, and anyone who claims to hold that view is either pretending to hold it, stupid, or actually insane.*


Imagine the house of someone who claims to hold this view has been broken into and valuables stolen. Suppose the thief who broke into the house live-streamed the crime to Facebook and it was recorded by people watching. (In 2018 this is not an unheard of thing!)


Suppose the police use the footage to identify, locate, and arrest the thief. Now imagine the thief's lawyer demands the video footage of his client committing the burglary be thrown out as inadmissible on the grounds it's, _"just pixels on a screen that can be faked"._


When confronted with this I am sure the person who pretends to hold the view that _"video footage cannot be accepted as proof because it's just pixels on a screen that can be faked"_ would not acquiesce to the lawyer's demands. Even an insane person would likely experience a moment of clarity and object.


(I suppose there can exist a *special kind of dolt* who agrees to the lawyer's demands since _"it's just pixels on a screen that can be faked"!_)


Dolts aside, by objecting to the lawyer's demands a person who pretends to hold the absurd view about "video evidence" makes an *arbitrary* exception, thereby revealing his or her dishonesty. Of course video footage can be accepted as proof. _Let us no longer entertain the nonsense that it can't!_


*The primary purpose and use of a video camera is to record reality as it really was.* So long as there is no good reason to suspect the captured footage has been *tampered* with, we may accept that it contains an accurate representation of reality as it once was.


What does it mean to not suspect tampering? In Lesta's lie system nomenclature it means a piece of footage, upon proper scrutiny, remains free from *"potential editing points".*


When potential "sufficient proof" _for an actual real-world claim_ remains free from glitches, cuts, edits, pans, time distortions, etc., the footage is said to be "free from potential editing points".


So long as there is no other *good reason* to reject the footage, the footage is said to *qualify* as "sufficient proof".


What are some *"good reasons"* to disqualify a piece of footage that would _otherwise_ qualify as "sufficient proof"? Again, without writing a 50-page essay that outlines every possible nuance, the following can serve as a reasonable guideline:


a) The *context* of the footage is not "real world". I.e., if the footage is from a movie, or a theatre performance, or a magic show etc. Several of the points below elaborate on this. _When footage is not even *supposed to be real,* it doesn't count!_


b) The footage is of such a *poor quality* that it's not possible to make anything out. Or that the vital part of the footage (i.e., the "money shot") is somehow blocked/obscured/censored. _When the picture quality has been degraded too far, then that doesn't count!_


c) You might have a piece of footage of something, but the person bringing it to your attention is a professional deceiver such as a *stage magician* (e.g., "David Blaine", "Derren Brown", "David Copperfield"). If the footage comes with a valid and genuine expectation of being somehow deceitful, then that _may_ disqualify it as "sufficient proof".


d) The footage might be of something that is widely accepted as not real/existing, such as footage of aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc. _If it's *not of something real,* then that doesn't count!_


e) The footage might be perfectly clear and free from any "potential editing points", but yet contains elements that are *not possible* in reality such as a person levitating in the air. _Obviously that which is *impossible in reality* doesn't count!_


You get the drift!


Again, I cannot list every possible nuance/exception without writing a 50-page essay. Good, honest, and intelligent people will understand what would reasonably disqualify a piece of footage as "sufficient proof".


All footage that does not qualify as "sufficient proof" is called *"proof's appearances"* in Lesta's lie system nomenclature.


Generally speaking, if a piece of footage is rejected for "reason X", then *all* footage that is subject to "reason X" would need to be rejected; otherwise the person rejecting it isn't *consistent* and is being whimsical and arbitrary.


And similarly, if a piece of footage is perfect except for X and is accepted _despite_ X, then all footage that's perfect would need to be accepted *if X is relevant as a reason* to have rejected it. Otherwise the person accepting the footage isn't *consistent* and is being whimsical and arbitrary.


What am I getting at? *Consistency matters!* Apart from the basic *"potential editing points"* you need to be *consistent* when accepting or rejecting footage that constitutes "sufficient proof".


For example: if there are two videos with identical central claims, both are perfect in terms of "sufficient proof" except for "reason X", but a person accepts one as valid while rejecting the other as invalid, then that person is not being consistent. That person is being whimsical and arbitrary!




______________________________
*3. WHEN "POTENTIAL EDITING POINTS" ARE OKAY*


It may be possible that _some_ types of "potential editing points" _are_ present within a piece of footage _without_ necessarily disqualifying it as "sufficient proof". Just so long as the *type* of "potential editing point" present would not _facilitate cheating_ for the central claim.


In this section I am addressing a common issue where an "event skeptic" refuses to accept "sufficient proof" that's contained _within_ a piece of footage because of extraneous issues they have found with the _overall_ footage.


For example, hard cuts can exist throughout a piece of footage where the *central claim* is that a person was *at* a certain swimming pool. It does not matter if that piece of footage contains cuts, just so long as it clearly shows the person *at* the swimming pool.


_Such "potential editing points" *do not* facilitate cheating with the central claim!_


Because the *central claim* is *not* affected by that kind of "potential editing point", it is _okay._


However, if the central claim were instead that the person was at the swimming pool in order to break the world record for underwater breath-holding, then those hard cuts would indeed facilitate cheating and disqualify the footage as "sufficient proof"!


_Such "potential editing points" *facilitate* cheating with the central claim!_


I.e., the person, who is undeniably at the swimming pool(!), can potentially be taking breaths in between the hard cuts!


Thus, it does not necessarily matter if a piece of footage is scratchy and of a low quality, or even contains irrelevant "potential editing points" - just so long as the *"money shot"* (so to speak) for the *central claim* is adequately clear, free from potential editing points that facilitate cheating, and there are no other *"good reasons"* to reject the footage: _it *qualifies.*_


Again, just to be absolutely clear: if the central claim has to do with a clown juggling for a *minimum period of time,* then the presence of *any* potential editing point would be problematic.


But, if the central claim is simply that a clown was juggling, and a clown is indeed shown to be juggling in the footage, then that footage *can* be _filled_ with "potential editing points" without disqualifying it as "sufficient proof"!


As long as the *central claim* itself is not *withheld, obscured, or affected* by "potential editing points" then footage that otherwise qualifies is not disqualified (for that reason, anyway).


None of this is controversial to those who possess common sense!


As I say, I want to avoid having to write a 50-page essay that outlines every possible nuance and exception. *Common sense is needed!* With the above in mind, good, honest, and intelligent people should have no problem figuring out what does or does not qualify as "sufficient proof".


>> It is worth pointing out that an easy way to lure "event skeptics" into rejecting "sufficient proof" is to compress or convert the original footage such that it still proves the central claim, but becomes defective - though not in a way that would actually disqualify it as "sufficient proof". <<


>> *The "event skeptic" becomes baited into erroneously rejecting "sufficient proof" (which is always harmful as explained below). This can be anticipated as a feature of any ongoing "psychological operation" against "event skeptics" to drive them to psychosis.* <<




______________________________
*4. AN INTERLUDE ON "JUSTIFIED/UNJUSTIFIED" BELIEFS*


This is a post about the harm that unavoidably occurs when qualifying "sufficient proof" is rejected. This is not a post about *"justified belief"* and *"unjustified belief",* however, it is not possible to talk about "sufficient proof" without at least briefly mentioning *"justified/unjustified belief".*


All that needs to known for the purposes of this post is that when a belief about something is formed, but "sufficient proof" has not been seen that necessarily proves the belief, then the type of belief formed is said to be an *"unjustified belief".*


Just as the word "sufficient" in "sufficient proof" has nothing to do with quantity or amount, the word "justified/unjustified" in "justified/unjustified belief" has nothing to do with righteousness or legitimacy, etc.


It also does not mean the belief is necessarily false. Simply, "justified belief" and "unjustified belief" are specialised lie system terms in Lesta's lie system lexicon that refer to two distinct types of belief.


*Many of our day-to-day beliefs are "unjustified beliefs" and there is nothing inherently wrong with them. We would struggle to function and survive without "unjustified beliefs"!*


>> All that matters for this post is that *every* "unjustified belief" requires one's imagination to "fill in the blanks". Whereas a "justified belief" *never* has such a requirement. <<


Of course, on some level we must _always_ trust that video footage of qualifying "sufficient proof" is genuine, just as we must _always_ trust that we are not a caterpillar having a dream that we're reading these words.


On this there is no need to be pedantic, else you will not be able to function beyond that of a drooling idiot. When someone has seen footage that qualifies as "sufficient proof" for a central claim, then that person's belief for that central claim is "justified". Whereas at any other time, that person's belief for the central claim was "unjustified".


>>> *Important:* Footage that contains a *"potential editing point"* that *disqualifies* it as "sufficient proof" can only create an *"unjustified belief"* in the viewer, while often leaving the viewer _erroneously thinking_ he or she has formed a "justified belief". This is an integral part of the lie system's perceptual magic trick. <<<


Suppose an event happened and person A has seen "sufficient proof" for it, whereas person B has not. Person A holds a "justified belief" about the event, whereas person B holds an "unjustified belief" about it.


For the central claim to be true in the mind of person B, that person has needed to trust and has needed to use his or her imagination (as a substitute for the absence of "sufficient proof"). On the other hand, person A has not needed to trust and has not needed to use his or her imagination to believe the central claim.


Should person A tell persons C, D, E, F, etc. that the event happened (that the central claim is true), then those other people would also form an "unjustified belief" about the event.


Persons C, D, E, F, etc. would have to *trust* that person A has indeed seen "sufficient proof" and was not deceived or mistaken about it, and that person A is relaying to them the entire, unabridged truth.



__________
>> Of course, if person A were to later make available (e.g., show) the "sufficient proof" that he or she saw to C, D, E, F, etc., then those people would now be able to form a "justified belief".


Their imagination is no longer "filling in the blanks". They are now *convinced* by the *objective evidence of shared reality,* rather than *self-convinced* by their *internal subjective imagination.* <<
__________



As I say, many of our day-to-day beliefs are "unjustified". We would not be able to function or survive without "unjustified beliefs". A man shouts to his wife outside, _"Is my underwear dry?"_ and his wife shouts back, _"Yes, you lazy f_kc, you could have checked on it for yourself"_ - the man has formed an "unjustified belief" about the central claim of his underwear being dry, whereas his wife has formed a "justified belief" (because she personally checked and verified that it was dry).


Generally speaking, there is no problem or harm with this. *Unjustified beliefs are only an issue when intelligent entities exploit this "feature of human psychology" to train the population to accept lies as truth.*


For example, the man's wife could have easily looked up at his naked a$$ by the window, and with a smile and a chuckle said that the underwear was not yet dry. Being a *trusting* sod the man wouldn't have doubted it for a second (and from the window he cannot verify his wife claim).


Since no lie or falsehood can have "sufficient proof" (else it would not be a lie), all belief in lies and falsehoods are necessarily "unjustified beliefs". Only the truth can have "sufficient proof", but of course not every truth necessarily has "sufficient proof" to prove it. *If you have formed an "unjustified belief" about something, _even if it seems positively true,_ it could be a lie.*


If someone tells you that something has happened, and they could easily prove it by showing "sufficient proof" - _but they don't, or they show only *proof's appearances*_ - then be careful! *That's the _modus operandi_ of the lie system.*


Without any hesitation - the wife's lie, _albeit a small one,_ would have slipped into the man's mind as the truth. The lie system trains the population from birth to be vulnerable to these perceptual magic tricks. Whether small _or monumental,_ any lie that's required or desired can be slipped into the population's mind as the truth. (When "sufficient proof" is routinely withheld, and there's no expectation of seeing it, and no way to verify it. But this post isn't a primer on how the lie system works!)


It's okay if the above does not make sense, but it is worth remaining mindful of these two fundamental types of belief. These concepts have been dealt with elsewhere, and will no doubt be dealt with again.


There is another important dynamic to "justified" and "unjustified" beliefs which has to do with how we *form "first impressions"* (another specialised lie system concept). I cannot go into that here without adding at least another 5 pages to this section! I mention this in passing because the concept of "first impressions" in the lie system is worth knowing exists. (Again, this concept has been dealt with elsewhere, and will no doubt be dealt with again!)


While these are all crucial concepts to understand if you want to properly understand the "lie system" *and how it reliably gets away with deceiving the population,* they are not crucial to understanding the remainder of this post!




______________________________
*5. TWO EXAMPLES OF "SUFFICIENT PROOF"*


With the spirit of everything above in mind, it is time to turn your attention to the following two brief clips. Each clip qualifies as *"sufficient proof"* for a central claim.


The first clip is "sufficient proof" for the central claim that an Olympic gymnast broke his leg. The second clip is "sufficient proof" for the central claim that people were run down by a car.


If you have heard about these incidents, but have not yet seen "sufficient proof" for them, then you have been holding an "unjustified belief" about them.


Once you have watched the following clips you will have witnessed "sufficient proof", and you will now hold a "justified belief" about them.


Even if you have already seen these clips, watch them again before continuing:


1) _*French Gymnast breaking his leg:*_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2fx7Z6wrQs


2) _*People getting hit by a car in New York:*_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzt48dYCJYQ




______________________________
*6. REJECTING "SUFFICIENT PROOF" REINFORCES BELIEF BIAS*


If either clip from the previous section *is not* accepted as "sufficient proof" (given that the clips satisfactorily show the so-called "money shot" for each central claim *without* "potential editing points" to disqualify it), _then one is being whimsical and arbitrary._


To witness "sufficient proof", but then reject it, is to be *unreasonable.*


How can a person defend such unreasonableness? When challenged, he or she would have to respond: _*"I can see that the footage proves the central claim, but I don't accept it because I think the footage could have been perfectly faked!"*_



__________
>> *Yes,* it remains _possible_ for "sufficient proof" to be *perfectly faked!* _This is not denied!_ There can be no doubt that "sufficient proof", _from time to time,_ really *is* perfectly faked.


However, we can figure out that the *lie system* _does not_ manufacture perfectly fake "sufficient proof"; rather, that remains the _exclusive domain_ of pranksters, criminals, activists, etc. (i.e., that which is _*not*_ the lie system proper).


After all, _*within*_ the lie system is the population - which of course is comprised of *individuals* living out their lives, and *groups* pursuing their own interests. Everyone _within_ the lie system is more than capable of enacting their own strategies for deceit, and perfectly faking "sufficient proof" can be one of them.


When you understand the lie system's methodology, you will appreciate that perfectly faking "sufficient proof" *is not* its _modus operandi,_ *not even for sh!ts and giggles.* In my closing remarks I will include an additional explanation. <<
__________



To be told that the *lie system* _does not_ fake "sufficient proof" is *not* going to satisfy those who arbitrarily reject "sufficient proof". That's okay, for the purposes of this post we can simply _assume_ the lie system *does* fake "sufficient proof" so that we don't lose those dear readers who _feel_ the lie system _would_ perfectly fake "sufficient proof" - if only to mix things up and keep us on our toes!


*Even if the lie system were in the habit of perfectly faking "sufficient proof" (it's not!), the harm remains two-fold and _serious_ when "sufficient proof" is rejected.*


To guide the dear reader back to the light, let us first dispense with the notion that it is _*ever*_ worthwhile for "event skeptics" to reject "sufficient proof" because _"it's possible the 'sufficient proof' had been perfectly faked"._


Be aware that this is a proposition which cannot be invalidated, _let alone tested!_ And you will soon realise that it is a wretched and devastatingly pernicious position to hold.



__________
>>> *Upfront the hard and fast rule is this:* if you are presented with footage that upon proper scrutiny *qualifies* as "sufficient proof", *you must not hesitate to accept it.*


The instant you reject _or fail to embrace_ that which *qualifies* as "sufficient proof" for a *central claim,* you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what's true. This *unavoidably* brings about a *self-induced psychosis* which is *magnitudes worse* than being deceived by a mischievous prankster, criminal, or activist (should it be "perfectly faked sufficient proof").


If you are going to doubt "sufficient proof", then do so in terms of properly scrutinising it for "potential editing points" and in terms of looking for reasons to disqualify it. But if "sufficient proof" stands up to proper scrutiny, then you *must* accept it, _even if it's something that has been perfectly faked!_ <<<
__________



>> When a person insists that "sufficient proof" is being manufactured by those who stage news events, then the reality of *any and every* news event becomes a matter of *personal choice.* (And we can anticipate that person is going to choose in a way that conforms best to his or her belief bias!) <<


_*That is self-evidently absurd!*_


Recall the person near the start of the document who claimed that video footage cannot be accepted as proof because _"it's just pixels on a screen that can be faked"._ Recall how easy it was for us to determine that such a person must be either pretending to hold that position, stupid, or actually insane.


Now the equally absurd objection takes the form: _*"Sufficient proof cannot be relied upon to prove things happened because sufficient proof can be faked!"*_


As before, it is easy to determine that anyone holding such a view must be either pretending, stupid, or actually insane.


Someone who has viewed the clips from the previous section, but *does not* accept the *central claims* _despite having now seen *"sufficient proof"* for them,_ is *picking and choosing* what he or she wants to be true and real.


_That is madness!_


Furthermore, any person who picks and chooses what is "true and real" (by ignoring "sufficient proof" because "it could be fake") is *always* going to pick and choose in a way that _conforms to his or her *pre-existing belief bias.*_


Unless, of course, you can imagine a *special kind of dolt* who not only picks and chooses what shall be true on any given day of the week, _but sometimes chooses things to be true that contradict his or her own beliefs!_


_Give me a break!_


>> *Thus, rejecting "sufficient proof" - _even when it is perfectly faked_ - always results in a reinforcement of one's pre-existing belief bias. When someone "picks and chooses", he or she invariably chooses that which is already believed to be true!* <<


When a person rejects "sufficient proof", he or she is bolstering belief bias. But more than that, _and far more seriously,_ rejecting "sufficient proof" is a progenitor of self-induced psychosis.




______________________________
*7. REJECTING "SUFFICIENT PROOF" CREATES PSYCHOSIS*


A consequence for someone who rejects "sufficient proof" when it is presented, is that he or she becomes inclined to *accept* footage that is _in actuality_ *proof of nothing.*


_Otherwise that person would be trapped in a constant state of rejecting *everything!*_


And so everything that gets accepted as true and real no longer depends on "sufficient proof", but instead is a *personal choice* which happens to conform to pre-existing belief bias.


If such a person has a belief bias that "Bigfoot" exists, then he or she may be unable to reject worthless quality footage of "Bigfoot" that's replete with "potential editing points".


That unfortunate person will overlook and disregard the fact the footage is *worthless.* When questioned, the person can be expected to invent tenuous *"plausible explanations"* in an effort to "explain away as innocent" the "potential editing points".


Of course, for that person to be *consistent* he or she would need to accept _as genuine_ *all* other equally poor quality footage that's replete with "potential editing points".


But that is not what happens! Such people _never_ embrace equivalently flawed footage that *contradicts* their pre-existing belief biases. When presented with flawed footage that would contradict their belief bias, they are quick to point out its flaws!


And when that person is presented with _flawless_ "sufficient proof" that contradicts their belief bias, they can be expected to reject it. *After all, _"it's possible to perfectly fake sufficient proof!"_*


Can you see the problem?


>> *When we are talking about those who reject "sufficient proof" we are talking about people who are neither reasonable nor rational.* <<


Earlier I pointed out that if a person insists that "sufficient proof" is sometimes manufactured by those who stage news events, then the truth of *any and every* event becomes a matter of *personal opinion.*


This *always* results in psychosis.


Suppose an event really did happen and "sufficient proof" for it exists. By rejecting "sufficient proof" for that event, the "event skeptic" has trained his or her mind to *interpret real evidence that proves a real event - _as fake._*


*By rejecting "sufficient proof", the "event skeptic" has literally practised perceiving reality as fantasy.*


_Let that sink in!_


With repetition, the *unavoidable consequence* is that reality begins to seem increasingly fake. Over time, bit by bit, what's real feels unreal. Eventually, *presented reality* becomes unbearably *fake.*


Every event presented on the nightly news feels like it could be staged.


>>>>> This is happening because "sufficient proof" - _*which is a tether to reality*_ - has been severed. <<<<<


And it gets worse: not only do events on the nightly news _seem_ fake, it becomes easy to accept them as fake. When a real event is accepted as fake, *the mind is forced to adjust and rearrange itself so that what is true in objective shared reality becomes false in the mind of the victim.*


And when something false in reality is accepted as true, the mind is forced to adjust and rearrange itself so that what is false in objective shared reality becomes true in the mind of the victim.


This is the debilitating experience of psychosis.


If the victim is questioned about an inconsistency or contradiction with his or her delusional beliefs, the victim's mind *must invent a new "rule" to maintain the psychosis.*


Each time a new "rule" is invented, the mind must again adjust and rearrange itself so that what is false in objective shared reality becomes true in the mind of the victim. And what is true in objective shared reality becomes false in the mind of the victim.


On and on it goes. The victim never realises that he or she is drifting further and further away from objective shared reality and into insanity.


Everyone else is crazy! Everyone else is asleep! Everyone else is a "normie"!


If an Olympic gymnast breaks his or her leg, then in the mind of the victim that cannot be. In the victim's mind the gymnast must be perfectly healthy with an intact leg.


*The victim must rearrange reality itself in his or her mind for this to be true!*


If a car runs down people, then in the mind of the victim "nobody died or got hurt". It means that everyone involved was just acting.


*Again, the victim must rearrange reality itself in his or her mind for this to be true!*


It is easy for the victim to accept that the footage must be CGI. *After all, it _feels_ fake.* And if the victim believes that the footage is CGI, then the victim has once again trained himself or herself to perceive genuine footage as fake CGI.


>> So long as the tether to reality remains severed - so long as "sufficient proof" remains an option to reject - *fantasy gradually replaces reality.* <<


This is why presented reality increasingly feels dreamlike to the victim.


Everything makes sense in the mind of the person experiencing psychosis, but over time it becomes impossible to adequately explain things to other people. *The only other people who seem able to "understand" are those who happen to be experiencing a similar psychosis!*




______________________________
*8. SUMMARY AND CLOSING REMARKS*


The consequence of accepting "sufficient proof" for an event is that a "justified belief" is formed. *Excellent!*


The consequence of rejecting "sufficient proof" for an event is *debilitating psychosis.*


__________


The lie system is a *"voodoo system"* that's based on *trust.* Thus, the lie system can be thought of as a *"trust voodoo system".*


As much as possible the lie system presents events and claims to the population _without_ "sufficient proof", or with "sufficient proof" that has somehow been _disqualified_ (i.e., "proof's appearances). _This is referred to as the lie system's *"presentation protocol".*_


When _qualifying_ "sufficient proof" is absent: one's imagination is forced to "fill in the blanks" to accept an event or claim. Whenever one's imagination has "filled in the blanks" to accept an event or claim - an "unjustified belief" has been formed.


Each time a person uses his or her imagination to "fill in the blanks" he or she has practised "filling in the blanks". _With repetition this becomes *habitual,* and an expectation of seeing "sufficient proof" does not form._


>> *Since a lie _cannot_ have "sufficient proof" (else it would be a truth!), the population is surreptitiously trained to accept events and claims that have been presented to them _in the same form a lie would need to take._* <<


>> *The consequence of this _repeated specific training_ is that the lie system is positioned to deceive the population whenever it is required or desired.* <<


Because this is how the lie system goes about deceiving the population the presentation of perfectly faked "sufficient proof" is *not* the _modus operandi_ of the lie system, but rather the domain of pranksters, criminals, activists, etc.


Since the population has been trained from birth to trust, the only people who can doubt news events are *open-minded* people who have *lost* trust. Therefore, it can be anticipated that there would be an *ongoing "psychological operation" to target and neutralise open-minded people* who have lost trust in the lie system by driving them to psychosis.


Once *proven* reality is doubted (by rejecting "sufficient proof"), reality itself becomes doubted. *Psychosis results and the person might never realise or recover.*


An "event skeptic" experiencing psychosis has been neutralised. It no longer matters if that person is making any good observations because "normal people" will ignore him or her as batsh!t crazy.


_That's a win for the lie system._


A "flat Earther" may be revealing an important truth about something that can benefit the rest of the population, but no one from the population pays attention to batsh!t crazy people who claim the Earth is flat except other batsh!t crazy people who claim the Earth is flat (can you begin to see how open-minded people trap and herd _themselves_ into the delicious green pastures of irrelevancy?).


*If an "event skeptic" is presented with "sufficient proof" for an event, then it is _generally_ okay for him or her to accept it. If an "event skeptic" rejects "sufficient proof" then he or she will be _unavoidably_ driven to psychosis and neutralised.*


If an "event skeptic" feels suspicious towards "sufficient proof" for an event, then the best course of action for that person is to *stop paying attention* to the event. If you don't know *when* it's okay to trust, _just let it go!_


>> *In order to slay the lie system's Medusa you must know when to avert your gaze!* <<


If you are struggling to let go of the belief that the lie system _would_ perfectly fake "sufficient proof" (since of course it _could_ if it wanted to), then think of it like this: You *know* that the lie system withholds and obscures "sufficient proof" *as much as possible,* so why would it need to risk exposure (by way of a "fatal mistake") by perfectly faking "sufficient proof" just to get _some_ people to believe a fake event when doing that is _unnecessary_ and *undermines* how the population is *already* trained to accept fake events as genuine in the first place?!


The lie system does not do this. Perfectly faking "sufficient proof" is something for pranksters, criminals, activists, etc. to do, _and they often get caught later on._


The lie system causes people to *convince themselves* that an event happened by withholding "sufficient proof" and forcing their imagination to "fill in the blanks". By providing people with perfectly faked "sufficient proof" (which risks exposure by way of a "fatal flaw") it means that those people are *not* using their imagination to "fill in the blanks" *and are therefore not convincing themselves.*


To persist with the belief that the lie system would perfectly fake "sufficient proof" is to completely misunderstand the lie system itself. Yes, the lie system *could* perfectly fake "sufficient proof", but that is not how the lie system secures belief in others. *More than that: doing this would always undermine itself!*


I'm sure a case could be made whereby a strong person fighting a weaker person with the intent to win in a battle to the death, would choose to drink a poison so as to become weaker than the weak person. Sure, a case could be made, _but it would be *lunacy* that does not stand up to proper scrutiny._


>> The lie system *does not* have *any* need to *sabotage itself* and risk exposure (due to introducing a "fatal flaw") by perfectly faking "sufficient proof" _from time to time_ - just to mix it up and keep people on their toes! <<


The belief the lie system would do that is *wrong!* It does not stand up to proper scrutiny.


_For the love of crikey, I am running out of ways to say this!_


Accepting "sufficient proof" does not lead to psychosis (where reality is increasingly perceived as fake and dreamlike) since the mind is not having to "make true" something that *cannot* be true. And the harm that comes from accepting "perfectly faked sufficient proof", generally speaking, is that belief bias is reinforced, or that existing beliefs are inappropriately challenged.


With lie system events and claims: the harm that comes from accepting "sufficient proof" is as good as none. The harm that comes from rejecting "sufficient proof" is nothing less than *catastrophic.*


Of course, as time passes and _access_ to more advanced technology for individuals and groups _within_ the lie system increases - we can expect mischievous pranksters, devious criminals, and desperate activists using it to manufacture "perfectly faked sufficient proof".


But, that is *separate* from the lie system _proper._ Those people often introduce *"fatal flaws"* into their deceit. The lie system has rubbed off on them in that they lie, but they are using an inferior and flawed strategy for long-term deceit.


They *can* succeed _but only for a little while_ - temporary, short-lived gains - before their deceit is recognised (by "normal people" no less!) and unravels.


If pranksters, criminals, and activists enact lies by way of presenting perfectly faked "sufficient proof", then they are forevermore at risk of being caught because *evidence* for their deceit now *exists* in objective shared reality!


But the lie system, _by simply withholding and obscuring "sufficient proof",_ *cannot ever* get caught in an objective way should it choose to lie. For there is no evidence to "get caught" with!


The lie system doesn't leave objective evidence like pranksters, criminals, and activists; rather, "getting caught" amounts to individuals who have lost trust saying: _"I don't agree with the experts, I feel as though the claim has not been satisfactorily proven"!_


If the lie system _seems_ to have been caught, and it really isn't the work of pranksters, criminals, and activists; then you can be sure *you* have made a mistake.


>> Mischievous pranksters, devious criminals, and desperate activists _come and go,_ whereas the lie system's long-term breeding program carries on. <<


Again - if you feel unsure about "sufficient proof" and suspect it might be perfectly faked, the best thing to do is *abandon* the event. Don't allow a belief to form either way. _Look away!_


If footage qualifies as "sufficient proof" then embrace it. It is okay to be wrong occasionally, there is minimal harm! It is better to be wrong from time to time than to risk being wrong potentially _all the time_ in an effort to avoid being wrong _just the once._


*It is always better to accept "sufficient proof" - and be wrong from time to time - than to guarantee the endless misery of a self-induced psychosis!*




______________________________

*ADDENDUM*

Someone who makes a claim _without_ providing "sufficient proof", and at best offers only *"proof's appearances",* is called a *"STORY TELLER"* in Lesta's lie system nomenclature.

A *"STORY"* is any claim, _or series of claims,_ that is *not* backed up with "sufficient proof". The audience's imagination *"fills in the blanks"* as it is guided by the story teller's *story.*

The more *charming* a story teller, the longer he or she can string along an audience before anyone begins to wonder: _"Hang on, where is the *actual* proof for any of this?!"_

If a *story teller* tells a long and fascinating *story* in this manner, perhaps over the course of many weeks, months, or years - then that person is wittingly or unwittingly enacting a *"MINI-LIE SYSTEM".*

It is called a *"mini-lie system"* in Lesta's lie system nomenclature because this is the lie system's _modus operandi._

Many charming story tellers are _unwitting *naturals*_ and their stories may only be doubted and rejected once they have introduced too many elements that are not rooted in reality which break the audience's immersion (like an engrossing movie that becomes too unrealistic).

Watch out for _*witting story tellers*_ who are far more cunning! They are most pernicious to their vulnerable audience's mental health.

>> *The YouTube platform is a magnet for story tellers.* <<




____________________________________________________________
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._