14 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-08 1225 +Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-08 1225 +Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eRTGfcMn4&lc=z134i1baykyhuhpdz22pwns5dozxy1eb504
https://pastebin.com/au7JnHKT
__

+Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis __ A "mistake" is anything that *literally* gives the game away. A "mistake" is anything that *proves* an event is fake/staged.

Often when I write the word "mistake" I need to qualify it with the word "fatal". A "fatal mistake" would be like a thief claiming he didn't steal something when he had livestreamed his crime to Facebook. A "fatal mistake" would be like an allegedly dead victim of a "terror attack" standing up again and doing a jig for the camera. There is no "plausible explanation" for these things - every "normal person" who sees these things will recognise it is genuine *proof* of deceit.

These things literally give the game away. These things are *mistakes* if the intention is to *not* get caught. When it comes to alleged terror attacks - _if indeed they are staged_ - the lie system most definitely *does not* want to get caught. Otherwise it could easily have been caught out by way of allowing "fatal mistakes" a thousand times over (every "normal person" would have no doubt that events are being staged).

What most *amateur* conspiracy theorists think of as "mistakes" are nothing more than "oddities" and "anomalies" which do not *necessarily* prove anything (such people place a high value on what is worthless).

I have written extensively on this topic in the past and won't go into every nuance now (two recurring ideas are "doubt suppression training" and "convincing yourself of what's true/false" but these need their own essays).

I'll give a brief example, though. One active conspiracy theorist claims that a "crisis actor" played "three different roles" during the alleged "London attack" - all because of a "pink jacket". Here is his video (titled: "London Terrorist Attack - The Pink Panther Lady"): watch?v=3fTZDgiOzGY

The nightly news - which must be complicit in the presentation of staged events (*if* that's what they are) can easily pick out elements from an event *(whether staged OR real)* which can be perceived as "odd" and "unusual" - such as a "pink jacket" seen in various photos/video (if indeed the colours of the original photos/video hadn't been tweaked to make it seem similar) and present them in a way that *paranoid low IQ amateur conspiracy theorists* will latch onto.

Thus baiting them into making assertions that bring genuine skeptics and dissidents of the lie system into disrepute. (Something you would expect to be going on if we are in a lie system.)

For example - the "London attack" could well have been staged (if it lacked "sufficient proof") but the "pink jacket" was not a genuine "mistake" and so long as those who are skeptical of the nightly news remain focused *on the wrong things* then the lie system can carry on business as usual.

(If there is a "plausible explanation" for an oddity/anomaly *that cannot be ruled out* then it isn't a "mistake". The opinion it *is* a "mistake" becomes a subjective assessment. Paranoid (*and* dishonest) people can be expected to interpret oddities/anomalies as mistakes and conclude that "the people who are faking these events are sloppy" - when nothing could be further from the truth.)

Perhaps the lie system was so short-staffed that day it needed to use the same "crisis actor" to play three different (and incompatible) roles? More than that - perhaps the lie system had such a limited wardrobe that the "crisis actor" had to wear a noticeable/distinctive bright "pink jacket" instead of something inconspicuous?

If the lie system wanted to get caught that badly it would have allowed for a *genuine* mistake to be observed rather than these relentless "oddities"/"anomalies" that *always* come down to a subjective assessment.

(A person who trusts the lie system will reject each oddity as meaningless [even when it's not] and a person who has lost trust in the lie system will embrace each oddity as meaningful [even when it's not].)

The reason I say that the lie system does not make mistakes is because you will never find a genuine mistake with any of the events that are reported on the nightly news as "real". "Boston Marathon Bombing" and "Sandy Hook" are just two of many events where conspiracy theorists claim "mistakes" were made but upon scrutiny they are not mistakes at all - but instead subjective reactions to oddities/anomalies.

You won't make meaningful progress until it is accepted that the lie system isn't "sloppy" and does not make mistakes because until you do you will forever be chasing ghosts down dead-ends.

If you genuinely believe there are shenanigans afoot then you must realise that conspiracy theorists are being intentionally f_kced with. You must by now realise that they are being *baited* with the *appearances of mistakes* (e.g., the "pink jacket").

Since the bait was taken - the bait is *always* taken by the *same group of conspiracy theorists* - that's why I refer to those people as *paranoid low IQ amateur conspiracy theorists*. Because either they have learned nothing *OR* they are intentionally f_kcing with the minds of those who suspect shenanigans.

Those who present the *appearances of proof* as proof itself are indistinguishable from agents against truth and need to be considered as such. If they are good, honest and intelligent people then they will learn from their mistakes - _but for some reason they never seem able!_




__________
2017-07-08 1350

+Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis __ An oddity/anomaly *can* be meaningful but they *aren't* mistakes. A mistake *necessarily* means something is fake/staged/false. An anomaly can be presented _*like a mistake*_ to bait conspiracy theorists into asserting something is fake/staged/false when it may not be (or to have the conspiracy theorist focusing on the wrong things).

The news media does this *all the time* - this is as we would expect to happen in a lie system. Anyone who accepts the possibility for staged events (presented as real) would realise this must happen.

If I am correct that the lie system does not make mistakes then *every* oddity/anomaly will upon proper scrutiny turn out to be nothing. It will be proof's appearances (not a mistake) rather than proof itself (an actual mistake).

If I am correct then the "mistake" is with the person claiming it's a mistake (i.e., the conspiracy theorist would have overlooked something rather than incompetence from the event organisers).

The only exceptions to this would be for situations where the lie system *wants to be caught*. For "terror events" and "diplomatic assassinations" etc. it is reasonable to think that the lie system *does not* want to get caught.

(We can always expect pranksters and criminals to make mistakes and get caught - but not when it comes to the lie system.)

If you are interested - let's go through the oddities/anomalies you have listed one by one and see if they really are proof of anything. Remember - a mistake *necessarily proves* that something is fake/false. An anomaly does not prove something to be false and always remains a *subjective* assessment/interpretation.

(A subjective assessment where conspiracy theorists can be expected to think of oddities as "proof of deceit". For the most part conspiracy theorists are adept at ruling things in but hopeless when it comes to ruling things out.)

Do you have a link to where the alleged shooting was recorded at night through a glass wall (when there was no glass wall to have filmed through)?




__________
2017-07-08 1400

+Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis __ About the "pink jacket" not being compelling. So what does that suggest about those who jumped on it as though it was proof of something?!

From what I wrote above: Those who present the *appearances of proof* _as proof itself_ are *indistinguishable* from agents against truth and *need to be considered as such*. If they are good, honest and intelligent people then they will learn from their mistakes - _but for some reason they never seem able!_




__________
2017-07-08 1555

+Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis __ Regarding the alleged "ambassador shooting":

1) The audio that goes with the YouTube video you gave says: _"the gunman can be seen pacing *the second floor* of the art gallery"._

2) From a Google news search we are told: _"*After* shooting the ambassador, the gunman *climbed to the second floor* of the same building and a 15-minute shootout with police ensued before he was killed, Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported."_

If the claim had been that the gunman shot the ambassador where we see him then it would indeed be a mistake. But that is not the claim being made. The footage we see of the gunman isn't supposed to be in the same room/area where he allegedly shot the diplomat.

You can expect this bait to be snaffled up by conspiracy theorists and disseminated as "proof" of a hoax. Where did you first hear about this? Be wary of anyone promoting this *bad observation* as a good one.




__________
2017-07-08 1625

+Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis __ Regarding the alleged "Berlin Christmas Truck Attack":

I am not familiar with the event. Assuming that the truck we see in the dashcam footage is the same as the alleged truck (there is a hard cut) - what exactly is the problem? Are you saying the truck is halted/stopped and hasn't caused any mayhem? Should the truck be further down the road? If you could briefly outline the problem for someone who isn't familiar with the event it would be appreciated!



____________________________________________________________
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.