Lesta Nediam LNC2015-12-30 0415 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2015-12-30 0415 +cabadejo
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/jPLu4rWD8Ts
https://pastebin.com/u8puem0V
__


+cabadejo __ [This turned out to be a long ramble - I apologise!]

I haven't looked into the numbers/figures for centripetal forces BUT *if the Earth is a spinning sphere then we can expect SOME kind of a difference.*

The mistake low IQ people make is that *they always assume the conclusion.*

They will say things like, _"we know the Earth is spinning *because* things weight more/less at the equator"._

But to say this they are ASSUMING they are on a spinning ball!

As far as I know no one has taken a heavy weight (say 500kg chunk of metal/marble) and weighed it on some very precise industrial scales at the equator and then weighed the very same thing with the very same scales at the alleged poles.

*People claim there is a difference but when I ask them to show me what they saw to confirm it they confess it's theoretical.*

This kind of stupidity frustrates me!

One of my "best practices" is to *never* introduce facts and figures because they can always be disputed. I encourage you to consider it as well.

Whenever WE introduce facts and figured they can be disputed by whomever we talk to. It is far better to let THEM introduce the facts/figures and take it from there.

For example - you are saying that the weight differences will be negligible. But what we're really trying to establish is that it's theoretical - no one has actually gone ahead and done it. If no one has really gone and done it then we can not waste time talking about it.

(This example serves as a way to bring up "sufficient proof" which I'll ramble about in a moment. I will have you muttering "sufficient proof" in your sleep!)

What I would do is something like this:

I would ask:


Q) "Do you believe there would be a difference in weight between the alleged equator and the alleged poles?"
A) Yes

_And then have the other person introduce the facts and figures:_

Q) "Okay, what would the difference be for, say, 500kg?
B) ::some answer::


THEN I would point out that they have given a *THEORETICAL ANSWER.*

If the theory is correct then we can expect to observe the calculated result.

(Something is only of use if it has predictive power!)

But SINCE the CLAIM of a spinning Earth is being disputed it will not do to ASSUME it is spinning!

(That's what people don't seem to understand.)


Basically - people have a BELIEF about there being a weight difference then that belief is theoretical until someone actually goes and does it.


*I don't know of anyone who has actually gone and done this!* (If the lie system pretends to have people do it they will ALWAYS introduce some kind of disqualifying variable such as using DIFFERENT scales. To use the same weight and the same scales - in the same temperature etc. - would constitute sufficient proof - which we never get.)


This is yet another example of the lie system withholding sufficient proof.

*If we indeed are on a big spinning ball then we won't be SHOWN sufficient proof it.*

We are never given proof - only proof's appearances. *THAT is always the TRICK!*

We will only be TOLD it. *And we will be forced to just believe.*

____

The following is important! It needs to become second nature! You will understand people so much better!

*IF we believe ONE CLAIM on TRUST then we are inclined to believe it ALL CLAIMS on TRUST.

The corollary is that IF we doubt ONE THING on trust then we are PRONE to doubting ALL THINGS based on trust.

____
(Think about a person who is in a relationship and his or her partner cheats on him or her. Once that happens the trust is eradicated. The partner might be wholly faithful forever more - but the trust is gone. By the same token - a person might trust his or her partner [even though that partner is cheating on him or her!] but because they don't know about it they wholly trust.)
____

This is how the lie system gets us. It is just like being in a "relationship".

____

A "conspiracy theorist" is inclined to distrust EVERYTHING and that includes VALID things. Thus we can be dismissed as "paranoid" and to people who don't understand the psychological game going this can be exhausting and psychologically draining. We need to latch onto someone to trust! And there's always an agent against truth waiting to snap up such people.

____

If we DOUBT something then we are also going to doubt REAL things. It is inevitable. We will all go through this UNTIL we figure out the bigger game (and I don't think many people do.)

Hence we can be called "paranoid" - and often it will be justified.

____

By the same token: *If we BELIEVE something then we are going to be more inclined to believe all of the BS claims as well.*

We all started out that way. As children we were dependent on those around us. We trust by default. We ALL started out believing EVERYTHING was real.

I know I did. I know that I believed the alleged "ISS". I know I believed the alleged "Moon landings". It wasn't until the trust was broken (like catching a cheating partner) that I even became able to doubt.

But I found I doubted everything! Including things I knew had to be real. It was the lack of sufficient proof which was missing - that's the common denominator.

That's how "normal people" are forced into believing EVERYTHING (because if you believe just ONE claim on TRUST then you are inclined to believe ALL claims).

____

People may say they don't trust the government or that they don't believe all claims - but they DO. (Or put it this way: people believe what they WANT to be true and will claim to doubt what they don't want to believe - but deep down they DO accept on a level. When a person TRULY doubts - when the trust is truly broken - only then can that person SERIOUSLY doubt things.)

____

PROOF (my standard example): *People don't doubt for a second that governments drop bombs on innocent children.*

That is to say: "killing children is an option that governments make use of when it is expedient or for the 'greater good'".

Here is the part that "normal people" struggle with:

>>> *_Lying is magnitudes easier than killing!_* <<<

That is to say: if someone is willing to kill another person then for that person LYING is also going to be an option. If they would kill you then they would also lie to you.

But it doesn't work the other way.

If a person is willing to lie to you it does not mean they are also willing to kill you!

In terms of severity KILLING is at one end of the scale and lying is at the other. We can think of it as: whatever a person does - they will also do what's LESS SEVERE.

If a person kills - then lying is child's play.

But if the most severe thing a person has done is to lie then we cannot expect that person to also kill.

(I know I repeat these ideas to you! Absorb them!)

The reason for writing all of this is to say:

If killing innocent children is an option a government will take for the "greater good" then SURELY lying to innocent children - also for the "greater good" is an option also.

Surely there are more options and possibilities to LIE than to KILL.

Therefore - what's missing? (The hardest question to answer is always "what's missing?" and then once you know what it is - it becomes the easiest thing in the world to notice!)

What's missing?

Ask a "normal person" to give three examples where a government has KILLED large numbers of innocent people and they can answer this question.

Now ask the same person to give three examples where a government LIED to large numbers of innocent people. "Normal people" cannot answer this question.

(I have noticed there are some "lie system" prepared responses to this but beyond those a "normal person" is stumped.)

If a "normal person" cannot answer this question does it mean "government" has never lied to large numbers of people? Of course not!

It means that the lies are happening under their nose.

We are told "Lance Armstrong" was a drug cheat (let's assume it was true). During his career he must have been cheating. But had you asked a normal person during that time "name a cycling scandal" they couldn't talk about it because they didn't know about it.

It is only once it became "revealed" that people could talk about it.

The point I'm making is: there is every reason to suspect the "government" is at this moment lying to large numbers of people. If you cannot think what it is then you have a blind spot.

The blind spot is caused by "if you believe one thing based on trust then you are inclined to believe ALL things on trust".

When we suggest things that are being lied about we are called "paranoid". But it is never paranoia to doubt things that lack sufficient proof!

It's not paranoia to doubt a friend's claim if that friend is a pathological liar.

The government has us believe it kills large numbers of innocent people - I am baffled as to why anyone would trust such an entity! The fact people do despite knowing this shows it is psychology at play (this is what I mean by "human psychology" when I say "our farmers use our psychology against us").

____

ANYWAY! I'm rambling. Oops! ))

____

*The key to everything is getting another person to see that their belief is founded entirely on TRUST.*

And that people (who call us "paranoid") are literally trusting groups of people who would have us believe they are PSYCHOPATHS and MASS MURDERERS!

Okay, that will do haha!



__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w