API tools faq
paste
Lesta

9 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-1550 +Mitch Conner

Lesta
Feb 15th, 2016
97
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.73 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-1550 +Mitch Conner
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nObGH71j3z4&google_comment_id=z12uw3jw2rfgvfees22jtj3w4xqkfr3u4
  3. https://pastebin.com/B1N9Vd7m
  4. __
  5.  
  6.  
  7. +Mitch Conner __ Here is a bump. This is quickly typed. I just finished listening to part four of your series. It has been a while since I sat through someone talking for an hour.
  8.  
  9. You are a good speaker - you should be making more videos. I need to correct you on some points (with regard to "sufficient proof") but it will largely have to wait until at least tomorrow and I might have to post a video on it also (for now here are some summarising points).
  10.  
  11. I don't think it is very well understood. I will briefly try to make a few points:
  12.  
  13. __
  14. *"Sufficient proof" is the answer to the question "what do I need to see to know with certainty this event or claim is true and real?"*
  15.  
  16. (With the alleged "ISS" sufficient proof of the claim would require seeing sustained duration genuine micro/zero gravity footage that upon scrutiny remains free from glaring glitches, clever cuts, sneaky edits and misdirecting pans.)
  17.  
  18. >>> *Lie system events and claims never give us sufficient proof.* <<<
  19.  
  20. The audience's belief is always founded and formed on trust and proof's appearances (mistaking proof's appearances for proof).
  21.  
  22. None of us have seen sufficient proof from the lie system and so we have no expectation of ever seeing it.
  23.  
  24. (If anything people simply mistake proof's appearances for proof.)
  25.  
  26. __
  27.  
  28. Here is the part you have misunderstood (with regard to me): *the absence of sufficient proof does not mean an event or claim did not happen or was fabricated.*
  29.  
  30. This is the trap so-called "conspiracy theorists" fall into. Especially initially. They can be trapped there for years. "If 'they' could prove the claim they would! Since they haven't - it must be fake!"
  31.  
  32. *This is an intentional trap.*
  33.  
  34. The lie system is always luring the audience into committing to a belief. That's the point. Every time you BELIEVE something WITHOUT seeing sufficient proof you have REINFORCED a personal bias (a belief bias).
  35.  
  36. You have also gotten a little better at forming a belief without requiring sufficient proof. (It gets to the point where a person will believe or reject an event upon a mere glance at the event!)
  37.  
  38. Because there is never sufficient proof provided each audience member decides *arbitrarily.*
  39.  
  40. That is so important. *All beliefs in lie system events and claims are arbitrary.* ("Normal people" by default believe whereas "conspiracy theorists" pick and choose.)
  41.  
  42. Once a person BELIEVES X is real or Y is fake without seeing sufficient proof then they become belief controlled. (This type of belief I am calling a "shadow belief".)
  43.  
  44. When you commit to a position that something is real you become nearly powerless to evaluate the evidence AGAINST it.
  45.  
  46. The person simply will not notice all of the "doubtable moments" that arise - and when they do suppress them (via "doubt suppression training").
  47.  
  48. __
  49.  
  50. Someone like "Jeff C" says "not everything is a hoax - beware of auto-hoaxers". *But how is he determining whether an event is real or not?* He is being arbitrary and as it happens - he hedges his bets and ends up siding with the most widely accepted view!
  51.  
  52. The key point is this: it is not that a lie system event or claim is fake or fabricated: *it is that it can be doubted in the first place.*
  53.  
  54. That's the crucial part. EVERY EVENT IS DOUBTABLE and so believing something is real means OVERLOOKING SOMETHING. It means "filtering out the reasons to doubt".
  55.  
  56. (And of course "normal people" ALWAYS believe what they see on the nightly news - after all - why else would it be on the nightly news?!)
  57.  
  58. __
  59.  
  60. Anyway - there's more to it and I don't have the time to type any more now. *But I wanted to point out that the absence of sufficient proof does not mean an event or claim is fake or fabricated.*
  61.  
  62. >>> You say as much in your videos - so we are actually in agreement! <<<
  63.  
  64. __
  65.  
  66. Where we may differ is that the sufficient proof is effectively "censored" from us. But this censorship is easily done - it is as easily done as keeping swearing out of children's programming and p0rn out of evening television. Much of the censorship is "self-censorship" - the lie system doesn't really need to intervene.
  67.  
  68. (What would typically provide "sufficient proof" would be unsuitable for publication and so it simply isn't seen - for example - outright foul gore of mass death won't be on the nightly news!).
  69.  
  70. __
  71.  
  72. Quickly - one last thing. There is a trend for making "fake things appear real" and "real things appear fake" (note that withholding sufficient proof is how *fake things are made to appear real*). We are being transitioned into accepting FANTASY as reality.
  73.  
  74. In one photo you showed an alleged corpse with some obviously fake blood.
  75.  
  76. *A lie system strategy would be to take a genuine photo/scene and then "photoshop it" so that it appears fake.*
  77.  
  78. And so yes - it looks obviously fake. But how can you be sure it isn't a genuine corpse with genuine blood made to look absurd.
  79.  
  80. Such an action would cause "conspiracy theorists" to reject the event - and it allows "normal people" to be exposed to real gore. But it looks fake and artificial.
  81.  
  82. (There is a caveat - "sufficient proof" may be given to SOME people. Such as those genuinely investigating a crime. They may see the REAL body - whereas the audience see only the "artificial looking equivalent". This is a way to set us in conflict because in a situation like I have described: SOME people would KNOW that some people are calling a REAL body fake! etc.)
  83.  
  84. __
  85.  
  86. Making a "real scene" appear "fake" means that fake gore can increasingly be shown in future and it will be more likely accepted as real. (Again - shifting us from reality to fantasy.)
  87.  
  88. It is all much more nuanced and complex than I can possibly write here in my hurried and sleep deprived state. But these are all things to be mindful of!
  89.  
  90. I'll have to expand on things and continue next time - but the main point I wanted to impart was that *of course* - the absence of sufficient proof does not mean an event is fake! It simply forces each member of the audience to be arbitrary and "make a decision" etc.
  91.  
  92. But that will do!
  93.  
  94.  
  95.  
  96.  
  97. __________________________________________
  98. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
  99. https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg
  100.  
  101. Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
  102. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
  103.  
  104. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
  105. https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1
  106.  
  107. Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
  108. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!