9 sta Nediam LNC2016-01-25 2135 +Mitch Conner

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-25 2135 +Mitch Conner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY6ZHK_oQ1A&lc=z12cybqatyf2t3zrl04cdz5wjknqu1iwjck
https://pastebin.com/5XpcLxbE
__

+Mitch Conner __ This reply will be as long as it needs to be. *Why would you go ahead and give me sh!t like that?* I pointed out one specific aspect from your video. I didn't just do what you have just here *so what's with the change in attitude toward me?*



With regard to my comment about the "director" on your video - I think that in order to dismiss it as "natural and nothing" you're having to overlook a few (important) things:



1) *The guy isn't really injured!*



2) *He makes no effort to get out of the way or leave!*



3) *Each time there is a flash the person filming then shifts the camera to another piece of action* (I was not able to cover that in my video out of a concern for getting a strike.)



4) Of course something is causing the flashes but you still haven't said WHAT. Even if the second flash was a simple "watch reflection" *that does not explain the objective series of flashes that seemed to be coming from his phone.* (And if it's signalling then of course he's going to be wearing something reflective to produce the reflection.)



But it doesn't matter so much WHAT is causing the flashes. *What matters is that they HAPPEN in the first place.* _It's not just a "once off"._



In my video I only showed the double flash *but there were 5 or 6 flashes in total.* And that was just from what we could see! The person filming *seemed* to be reacting to each of the flashes. *Hence the name "director" or "coordinator".*



After each flash the person filming shifted to some new "action sequence". This is an objective fact. At no stage was there a flash seen and the cameraman remained fixed without then shifting focus to something else. Had there been 1 or 2 flashes then we cannot say anything but *five or six* and it is more difficult to dismiss that there is a "cause and effect" relationship.



*Do you realise that after one of the flashes the cameraman then shifts to the two people who drag bodies away? But those people were WAITING for the cameraman to start filming them because one of them is LOOKING UP AT THE CAMERAMAN and only starts moving AFTER the cameraman is focused on him!*



I didn't include that detail because I didn't want to get a strike on my account and that's because I have more important things to cover. My video on the flashes ("director"/"coordinator") was necessarily weak *because I couldn't go through it as I would have liked* _but it seems I'm going to have to._



_*What's with giving me sh!t Not Mitch?*_ (How else am I supposed to interpret this?)



You are posting a *series of thirty minute videos [which I will be watching] so how the crikey can you complain about my lengthy comment* which I at least took the time to write to you?



The detail I am talking about is a significant one. *Are you taking this attitude with me because you want to believe the alleged "Paris Attack" was a real event and therefore anything suggesting otherwise must be wrong?*



Are you buying into the "Jeff C" marketing slogans regarding "auto-hoax"? You do realise that "Jeff C" is a retard who after "years of breaking down hoaxes" *still doesn't understand that sufficient proof is withheld?* Any *insta-belief* that an event is real (or must be real unless PROVEN otherwise - which is *magnitudes* worse) is ARBITRARY. You are choosing to believe an event is real because you WANT to believe it's real and you don't want to accept you either live in a world where ALL of these events are BS *or* that some may be real but what we need to see to *JUSTIFY* a belief is absent.



What do you think PROVES the alleged "Paris Attack" event other than a fear of being labelled an "auto-hoaxer" like Russianvids [and now perhaps Peekay]? Don't worry - I'll watch your series to find out. But I'm starting to think there is a trend of people who have been tricked into calling some events real just to avoid being ostracised.



If you have formed a belief that the event is real without seeing sufficient proof then it is because you have mistaken the appearances of proof for proof. It's because people like "Jeff C" and their RELENTLESS "repetition into reality" of the marketing suggestion "not everything is a hoax" that has finally gotten to you. *It was NEVER about everything being a hoax. It is that events CAN be doubted in the first place.*



And just because SOME people cite BAD reasons to reject an event *does not mean the event was real.* That is one of the purposes of disinformation: *so that when you realise you believed BS you more easily take on the opposite belief when you reject it.*



This is how "truthers" are so easily played. We are NEVER shown sufficient proof of an event being real. Agents against truth and useful idiots like "Jeff C" relentlessly repeat into reality suggestions like "not everything is a hoax" and "the auto-hoax meme" *and the response is to arbitrarily pick and choose SOME events as being real.*



I thought you were bright enough to see through all of this. What has happened to you? Why the snide and snarky attitude with me? Did someone tell you to not associate with me? Did someone say something to cause this change?



If I pointed out a reason to doubt that scene *then I have given a reason to doubt the event itself* because THAT scene contained alleged gunshots. *If the scene I pointed out was really street theatre then the event itself must be fake.* So it's damn important to get that scene right.



If you believe it was a real event then you must disagree with me. And that's okay *but you must somehow resolve what I have pointed out!* (I.e., the four numbered points above.)



If that scene was street theatre then the event itself was fabricated. But if you cannot explore that possibility out of fear of being called a "hoaxtard" or an "auto-hoaxer" then congratulations - *you just got played by the lie system.*



It means you have been trapped into finding a way to believe it was real. Once a position has been reached that an event is real in the absence of sufficient proof it *always* leads to erratic and defensive behaviour (which would explain why you're giving me sh!t on this).



I write as much as I need to be sure I can't be misunderstood by good, honest and intelligent people. *Sometimes that requires writing a lot.* *By the way - I am a genuine truther. I am a genuine skeptic. I am a genuine dissident.* It seems to be increasingly fashionable for people (YouTube channels) to say, *_"I'm not a truther and I'm not a part of any truth community"._* Congratulations for getting played on that - too.



So what's up with this attitude Not Mitch? *Are you finally turning on me too?* It seems fashionable to do that as well.