6 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-04-05 1825 +Robbo Max

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-04-05 1825 +Robbo Max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clbC8Boa2ww&lc=z125hbjo3na3drgqt04cerholoqotryj1cs
https://pastebin.com/Vd2wsuH4
__

+Robbo Max __ STOP. Read over this reply carefully. I am not your enemy.

When it comes to scrutinising an event a *partial* interview is useless when we cannot trust the news media. It is only when we can have complete confidence in the news media can we tolerate a partial interview.

It would be like having the "3AW" interview but omitting the line "hit by the cars". That would be deceitful. It would be like having the "3AW" interview but omitting the part where she asked the woman where her baby was. That would be deceitful.

If they had chopped out that part you would never have found a contradiction!

You need the *full* source interview to *know* when there is a *genuine* contradiction. *And that means we need the full source for the OTHER interview ("ABC 774") to be CERTAIN there REALLY IS a contradiction.*

Why? Because although it's highly unlikely it could be that in the full "ABC 774" interview "Christine Nixon" corrected herself and said, _"Sorry - I meant to say that I had asked the woman where her baby was"._

While that's unlikely - without the full radio interview *we can't rule it out.* We need to be thorough. If you make a mistake about this event then you are attacking as "actors" innocent people who really died and really did get recklessly injured.

Lying by omission is how the population is routinely deceived. That is why I took exception to "smoke'n mirrors" leaving out "hit by the cars". *It was a detail that needed to be left in.* Disseminating partial source materials is how the news media can lie to us without ever having to tell an outright lie.

The population hears something from an "official" _but they are not getting the *full* message._

You also can't go by what is quoted in news articles. Relying on news article quotes is hazardous!

The news media have *improvised* with what she said and that is in part why I said she has been misrepresented and misreported. For example:

From the *actual* "ABC" interview (though it's only partial) "Christine Nixon" said this:

_"I turned around and saw the car. He was probably about a metre from me. And I kind of stepped back and he went by and then continued on down Bourke Street on the footpath, being chased by police officers who were probably about two or three seconds on the road..."_

*But in "The Age" that was quoted as follows:*

_"I turned around and saw the car. He was probably about a metre from me, I stepped back [from the road] and he continued down Bourke Street on the footpath, with people chasing him."_

It's a quote - it's supposed to be from the same source - _but it's not at all the same!_

It's like *Chinese whispers.*

You want to see me as a bad person but I'm not. You want to pounce on everything you can because you desperately need me to be a "liar" who is spreading "disinformation" *when I am neither of those things.*

I am trying to arrive at the truth - _aren't you?_

The truth of the matter is shaping up to be a *genuine* event where police *contributed* to at least *some* of the carnage *and it is being covered up.* But by being combative your eyes, ears and mind remain closed to that.

All of the points you keep bringing up to suggest it was a "hoax" *ALSO fit the possibility of police culpability.* And the points you bring up fit that possibility EVEN BETTER than that of a "hoax". But you're not giving that position a chance because you insist on being combative.

Yesterday - after finding the PARTIAL interview you were talking about I noticed some striking differences that really should not exist. Last night I posted a video (this one you're commenting on) showing how in one radio interview "Christine Nixon" repeated the word "STROLLER" and in another radio interview she repeated the word "PRAM".

A person tends to use one term but not both. They are terms that are used in different geographic regions. It suggests that at least one of the interviews was scripted - which you must agree with since you believe the event was a hoax.

I presented these differences in this video which I am not sure you have watched. Watch it. Once you have watched the video read over the comments as I have already outlined most of the main points there.

_Good grief you are exhausting!_


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Official Blog:
https://lestanediam.blogspot.com

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Vimeo
https://vimeo.com/lestanediam

Lesta Nediam's Vidme
https://vid.me/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Dailymotion
https://www.dailymotion.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's LiveLeak
https://www.liveleak.com/c/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Disqus:
https://disqus.com/home/forum/lestanediam/

Lesta Nediam's Archived Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta


What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.