12 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-10-11 0635 +Michael Reszneki Trollin

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-10-11 0635 +Michael Reszneki Trolling4Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikJf0Fcs1o&lc=z22btpawetqovbbhd04t1aokgmgqad5tfqpbrcwo1l5crk0h00410
https://pastebin.com/ZgAkKnF2
__

*BECAUSE THIS IS A LENGTHY REPLY, I AM WRITING IT AS A NEW COMMENT SO THAT OTHERS MAY SEE IT.* (I'll pin this comment to make it easier to find.)
(I am replying to a thread started by +Jeff Maddock)

+Michael Reszneki Trolling4Truth __ You say that "duping delight" is not a legitimate thing. To be sure, *genuine* duping delight is a *fleeting,* initially uncontrolled, and incomplete *unilateral* smile. It is a "burst of a partial one-sided smile". It is not initially conscious, which is why it isn't used to emphasise speech. It is unplanned and *undesirable,* hence it quickly becomes suppressed.

Because of this, so-called "duping delight" is one of the easiest of human expressions to get wrong and mislabel. There are many videos that purport to show "duping delight", but reveal no such thing. I have seen very few instances where others have highlighted _genuine_ duping delight. (I am wary and skeptical of just about every "truther channel" on YouTube - and the wider Internet.)

Furthermore, just because genuine duping delight can be observed in someone does not mean the person is lying about anything. It also does not mean that an event must have been fake. Neither of these things follow. All it means is that for *whatever* reason: an individual felt an emotion that would normally elicit a smile - but because it happened during an *inappropriate* moment - the smile got caught midway (moments after it had begun to form) and suppressed.

This all happens in a few frames - in the blink of an eye. This is why most people fail to catch it (they aren't paying close enough attention) and those who spot it don't think much of it (because it's very fleeing).

While it is easy to "explain away" duping delight with any number of "plausible explanations" that are innocent, *it need not always be innocent.* Those who hold a negative attitude towards "duping delight" - _such as because they have been exposed to too many invalid examples_ - are always at risk of missing it, *and overlooking its significance when it does occur.*

And so I am curious, what do you make of "Michel Renaud" and his open, uncontrolled, and *undeniable* laughter?

He is the gentleman in this presentation who can be observed laughing hysterically when meeting the French President, just *a few days* after the "Charlie Hebdo" mass shooting. We were told that he laughed because a bird flew above and crapped on the jacket of "Patrick Pelloux".

But there is no evidence to suggest that a bird really did crap on the jacket of "Patrick Pelloux" (where the French president appears to wipe). That gesture from the French president could easily have been a prepared "abort signal" to cut the live feed. Moments later the camera was blocked and the footage terminated (you can see a gloved hand rapidly wave before the cameraman starts stepping backwards).

Perhaps it was anticipated that the joker "Renaud" wouldn't be able to keep his sh!t together. But, even if a bird did crap on the jacket of "Patrick Pelloux", would you not agree that "Michel Renaud" was *laughing* during an *inappropriate* moment? (That's the very definition of "duping delight", though that was in its own class: "duping laughter"!)

Or does the footage of "Renaud" laughing uncontrollable leave too much to the imagination?!

Are you really someone who disregards all facial expressions as a *guide* to evaluating the truth and reality of an extraordinary claim? If you won't accept "duping delight" as potentially meaningful then you cannot accept any other expression as potentially meaningful without being a hypocrite! A liar could point-blank laugh in your face while saying, "no, I didn't sleep with your wife" and you would have to take him on his word. That's absurd.

Police who interview suspects take human expressions seriously, and so should you.

Autistic people, God bless them, have enormous difficulty interpreting human expressions. This leads to all kinds of problems for them. Are we to have "truther autism" when scrutinising extraordinary news events? That would lead us to an unrealistic situation where we *need* liars to tell us that they are lying to us, because we can no longer recognise when they could be lying even though they are outright laughing in our face.

Finally, to have the biggest mass shooting take place on a massive crowd (some 22,000 people in attendance) where almost everyone had a camera should be the easiest thing in the world to prove as genuine. *There should be no way to doubt it happened.*

The point I make that distinguishes me from others is that it isn't so much whether an event is real or not, *but the way it is being routinely presented to us.* And as much as possible, genuine events are being presented to us *in the same form that a lie would need to take* (i.e., where "sufficient proof" is withheld, censored or otherwise obscured).






__________
2017-10-11 0640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikJf0Fcs1o&lc=z23yc1aiqwexjltntacdp435ukv0dmxaicpsvym4vllw03c010c

+Michael Reszneki Trolling4Truth __ I have written a lengthy reply and posted it as a separate comment (and "pinned" it) to make it easier for others to see. If you would like to reply, please do so there etc. Here is a link to the comment (or just refresh the comments and look at the top for the pinned comment): watch?v=rikJf0Fcs1o&lc=z22btpawetqovbbhd04t1aokgmgqad5tfqpbrcwo1l5crk0h00410
____________________________________________________________
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.