26 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-02-04 0005 +PUBLIC

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-02-04 0005 +PUBLIC
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/cgk1HAGqFaL
https://pastebin.com/yimTgkrr
__

I would add this: *The lie system lies only where it can successfully lie and distorts with half-truths only where it can successfully distort with half-truths*.

For everything else we can expect to be told the truth (i.e., we won't be told it's raining on a verifiably sunny day) - but as much as possible we are required to trust the people who are telling us the story.

As much as possible we must trust that a liar isn't lying (which is not a good situation to be in).

If there exists two camera angles of an event where one angle shows the incident perfectly and undeniably but there is also another angle which *can be doubted* by intelligent and observant people _then that will be the preferred angle we're shown_.

If there is only one angle that shows the incident perfectly then we'll be shown something that's heavily compressed as though it was filmed on an ancient phone ("filmed by a potato"). Or - _failing that_ - it will be outright censored such as with a "black rectangle" around the "actual part of the incident".

Reducing the video quality and/or censoring footage that would otherwise qualify as "sufficient proof" cripples the "actual proof" and forces our imagination to (once again) fill in the blanks and trust the story teller.

Operating in this way keeps everything as much as possible in alignment with the "systematic policy" of withholding "sufficient proof". Our own experience of watching "news events" year after year shows this apparent "policy" to be the case.

(Where "sufficient proof" is *actually shown* it will invariably turn out to be for minor and insignificant events (things/matters of little to no consequence) and allows the lie system to turn around and say: _"But we *do* show sufficient proof!"_)

For some events it may not be possible to outright lie about it and so we can expect the above shenanigans. For example - we can see the alleged "JFK assassination" but it's of such a poor quality that people like "Dave Johnson" can argue that we're looking at a lifeless dummy.

_The footage quality is so worthless that he may even be right!_

The same goes for the alleged "Moon landings" where we appear to see "transparent astronauts". While there may be a valid technical reason for the "video transparency" most people watching wouldn't know what that valid reason is and so for those people to believe humans walked on the Moon - despite the transparency - must mean they have done some significant doubt suppression!

If "Derren Brown" or "David Blaine" claimed to have flown to the Moon and walked on it and as "proof" showed us footage of themselves walking about - though appearing see-through - *it would be immediately rejected as a magic trick by everyone in the audience*.

_But apparently not if you're "NASA"!_

(If there is a valid reason for the "transparency" then "Derren Brown" and "David Blaine" could simply cite it as well for their own footage. Yet - their appeal to the "valid video phenomenon" would be rejected whereas when made by "NASA" it is not. The lie system voodoo all comes down to trust.)

__
Note: I have now fallen too far behind on most posts/threads to keep up and so I likely won't add replies (beyond a plus one). This is because of the video I am working - but I have read everything where my name has been referenced. If you still need/expect a reply somewhere just reference my username again but until the upcoming video is posted I may be slow in responding! *I apologise*!
+nationalparksign ., +Terran Downvale


______________________________________________________________
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 Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's 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.