22 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-06-27 0615 +Brian Hill

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-06-27 0615 +Brian Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y_chZdmYsc&lc=z13nvdbyux2oipqum223vbi5su2gsjev4
https://pastebin.com/m88vNVwS
__

+Brian Hill __ It does not matter if an uploader/channel *seems* to be posting "random panda videos" that are not "aesthetically pleasing" or "logical" or have a "discernible pattern" *if it is all coming from the same source*.

Why not? Because the *origin* of the panda videos is what controls *all* that a subsequent uploader/channel can *possibly* post. _For you cannot post what has not been made available to you!_

(As an aside / in passing [don't get distracted by this!]: Think about the "pink jacket" video you showed me. Those clips needed to be made available *in the first place* for that hoaxtard claim to be made. How convenient for the lie system that such a *bad observation* could serve as a misdirection for potentially *good* observations from that event! But don't take this example too literally - I am merely using it to help with understanding the notion that the *source* of footage is what controls everything that an audience ends up seeing.)

__

With the giant panda videos the *source* is what's controlled. There is a limited source - the Chinese government by way of the "panda researchers". How kind they are to show us their CCTV! The *source* is what provides us with the *rigged camera angles*. The *source* is what determines which of the *hilarious panda antics* occurring within its enclosures (and from which angle!) are documented _and made available._

If you are getting all of your content from me then although it may *seem* like you have a "free choice" in getting to choose between what I have made available (especially if I have provide a large range to choose from) - _but ultimately I am *dictating* what you (and in turn others) can see._

A controlled source therefore controls what others - _who may not be under the control of the controlled source_ - can show.

Does this point about the source controlling what content others see make sense to you? *If it does* then I'll extend it with the following example:

Suppose someone has never *properly* seen a giant panda drinking water/milk - i.e., they have not properly seen the panda's tongue moving smoothly, in a complicatedly varied manner to undeniably lap up the water/milk.

By virtue of this "censorship" (e.g., "withholding, crippling, obscuring, etc.") that person cannot form an impression in their mind of what a genuine panda drinking water/milk *actually* looks like. Even though they may be watching footage of genuine pandas drink water/milk. Their mind has the "appearances of proof" but not actual proof.

Now - with a head *filled* with such "crippled and obscured" memories/experiences to draw upon - would that person *as a consequence* be in a *better* position or a *worse* position to recognise a fake panda drinking water should such a thing ever be presented to them in that same restricted way?


____________________________________________________________
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.