22 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-04-04 0615 +Robbo Max

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-04-04 0615 +Robbo Max
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrTyjZ4PXXo&lc=z12msrwrdujfedh2n22pvh4h5pahznsea
https://pastebin.com/2zd6gRRq
__

+Robbo Max __ I have seen that "ACA" interview and there is nothing contradictory. Allow me to explain why. First of all you are assuming that the woman "Christine Nixon" spoke to introduced herself as the biological mother and not the nanny. It's likely that in such a situation there would be no such introductions - only rapid assumptions (i.e., only the baby's mother would be looking for the baby - so it's an understandable assumption to make in a stressful situation).

Had "Christine Nixon" specifically pointed out the woman we see on "ACA" as being the woman she spoke to *then - _and only then_ - you would have a point*. Not only would you have a point you'd also have *evidence of a hoax* _since that woman *was not present* at the alleged incident!_

>> Had that been the case I would be hammering YouTube with video after video calling the event a staged event. <<

I know that you have not read my 56-page PDF - so go and familiarise yourself with pp. 36-39. Once you have you will understand that the news media has been active in misreporting and thus discrediting "Christine Nixon" as a witness. *This has had the effect of covering up police involvement.*

Tell me - are you here for the truth or are you here to defend lies? If you are here for the truth then *stop resisting like a little b!tch* and pay attention to the things that people outside of your "echo chamber" are saying to you. *It is much more plausible - _and much more likely_ - that this was a genuine event where police contributed to at least some of the carnage than a fantasy where nobody died or got hurt.*

That it was a genuine event involving (potentially unforgivable) mistakes by the police *is a much better explanation as to why the relevant CCTV footage has not been released*. After all - had the event been an outright hoax then we can still expect the "event organisers" to have simply FAKED SOME BOURKE STREET CCTV FOOTAGE and shown that. (Refer to pp. 28-32 of the PDF.)

But instead of seeing the relevant CCTV (nor even a crippled potato cam version of it) we have been shown NOTHING. And a good explanation for that is because if we did get to see the relevant CCTV footage we would discover that police were partly responsible for the carnage.

Covering this up is the real story. Investigating that possibility is what a genuine independent journalist would do rather than shout endlessly into a microphone: _"This is fake! Fake! FAKE! You have to be stupid to believe any of this!"_

And if that's all you're hearing within your echo chamber (your "truther ghetto") then it isn't surprising that you would begin to believe it. *Especially when those who are covering this event are focusing your attention on the details that can be easily doubted (e.g., "we heard shots") while disregarding and ignoring details which support the idea of a genuine event being covered up (e.g., "hit by the cars").

*If the event is being covered up then the news media must be involved.* Is there any evidence of that? Yes! That the news media is involved *explains the conflicting details* we are seeing (e.g., the inconsistent timeline of the event).

Conflicting details are what give "conspiracy theorists" an excuse to call an event fake *_even if it isn't_*.

When "conspiracy theorists" are calling an event fake they aren't thinking about the possibility it happened and that police were partly responsible for the harm done to the public. *That's a win for the police and for the lie system.*

If police were responsible for at least some of the carnage then the news media needs to be involved in covering it up and we can find examples of it when you look. Think about how the newspapers have *misreported* what "Christine Nixon" actually said (which in turn introduced conflicting details which in turn enables people like "Peekay" to cry into his microphone "FAKE!").

If "Peekay Truth" isn't outright assisting police by deflecting attention away from their culpability then he is helping them through sheer incompetence. "Peekay" is at worst an "agent against truth" and at best just a "useful idiot".

You have sided with the WRONG people. Don't let the charming scumbags continue to mislead you.

You can see that the "3AW radio interview" is of a low quality - do you really think that in 2017 a professional radio organisation can only provide the public with a heavily compressed interview (even though the radio announcer's voice remains perfectly clear throughout)?

A strong case can be made that the radio interview was *compressed* and thus *intentionally crippled* so as to *obscure* "Christine Nixon" saying "cars" that second time. The host tried his best to talk over her the first time but "Christine Nixon" (a professionally trained communicator) smoothly - _and more carefully_ - repeated the very same phrase except the "s" on the word "cars" got obscured by the audio's compression - *_oh - how very fortunate for the police!._*


______________________________________________________________
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 Official Blog:
https://lestanediam.blogspot.com

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Vimeo
https://vimeo.com/lestanediam

Lesta Nediam's Vidme
https://vid.me/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Dailymotion
https://www.dailymotion.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's LiveLeak
https://www.liveleak.com/c/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Disqus:
https://disqus.com/home/forum/lestanediam/

Lesta Nediam's Archived 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.