API tools faq
paste
Lesta

14 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-23 0740 +JRushPixel

Lesta
Feb 22nd, 2016
95
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 10.11 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-23 0740 +JRushPixel
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_E5ZVlEHyU&lc=z12eid2xwv2lipeuo22chvphxufvv1rkh
  3. https://pastebin.com/DuaRMUQc
  4. __
  5.  
  6.  
  7. +JRushPixel __ Howdy, this is a moderately long but important follow-up to this incident (as of 23rd Feb 2016). *IMPORTANT:* *The scrolling glitch has now been satisfactorily reproduced on a slow computer and is no longer of interest or concern.* That detail was incorrect. (I did believe the default behaviour was for YouTube to always tuck the video player under the header region but that is not always the case with all browser and hardware combinations). *ALSO:* another detail I had pointed out which has now been ruled out is the appearance of the video player on screen BEFORE switching to the browser. That too can be observed on slow computers and has also been satisfactorily reproduced. *In summary:* none of the presented "video anomalies" are of interest any more. There are no claims of "video layering" or "images over the top" being suggested any more.
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
  11.  
  12.  
  13.  
  14.  
  15. However - the central claim that "Peekay" manufactured truther drama *still stands* for the primary reason which I will now describe: Remember: the *central claim* is that "Peekay" had manufactured truther drama (and is an agent against truth - but for brevity's sake that will not be addressed in this message). *Please pay attention:* There is one detail that remains *without* a satisfactory explanation and it is also the core reason for having had suspicion in the first place. *It is the mysterious increase in the video's view count from "333 views" to "351 views" despite the video having been removed by YouTube.*
  16.  
  17.  
  18.  
  19.  
  20.  
  21.  
  22.  
  23. *CHRONOLOGY:* 1) "Peekay" began his video by claiming he received a "community strike" when his video was "right on 333 views". "Peekay" focuses on that number and refers to it at least twice as though it has special significance. An important detail is that "Peekay" expresses "surprise" at seeing it. *As though he had "only just noticed it" etc.* (E.g., "well look at that! 333 views!")
  24.  
  25.  
  26.  
  27.  
  28.  
  29.  
  30.  
  31. 2) Next, "Peekay" showed us an email that he had purportedly received from YouTube regarding the community strike. "Peekay" then acknowledged it. "Peekay" next showed us that his video had been removed in the video manager. Things become interesting after that.
  32.  
  33.  
  34.  
  35.  
  36.  
  37.  
  38.  
  39. 3) When "Peekay" switched back to the video (via a browser tab) *the view count for the video was now at "351 views" and not "333 views"!* This of course is impossible. There are some natural explanations but *each explanation requires "Peekay" to have known the view count was higher than "333 views"!* (Remember - the central claim is that "Peekay" manufactured truther drama. *Good and honest people do not lie or misrepresent anything. They have no need.*
  40.  
  41.  
  42.  
  43.  
  44.  
  45.  
  46.  
  47. 4) When we see the video's view count of "351 views" we can also see that the "Up Next" videos are different. (Also of interest is that the position on the video player is slightly different.) This suggests one of two things. a) Either the video page which showed "333 views" had been refreshed (thus now giving us "351 views" plus different "Up Next" videos) *OR* b) "Peekay" had *switched to a different browser tab which also had the video loaded* (and paused at a slightly different position etc.).
  48.  
  49.  
  50.  
  51.  
  52.  
  53.  
  54.  
  55. *ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO POSSIBILITIES CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN!* Since we know that if a video has been removed from YouTube *its view count is frozen and cannot increase* we can therefore know that "Peekay" didn't simply refresh that video page. Had he done that then the video would have remained frozen at "333 views" (though changing the "Up Next" videos list and of course altering the video player position). But because the view count had increased we know that "Peekay" cannot have refreshed THAT page. *Instead - what we see is fully explained if "Peekay" had another browser tab open with the same video loaded.* That video page had "351 views" (but "351 views" isn't nearly as interesting as a number like "333").
  56.  
  57.  
  58.  
  59.  
  60.  
  61.  
  62.  
  63. If "Peekay" had a different browser tab open with the video at "351 views" *then it means he must have known the video had more views than "333 views".* But "Peekay" wanted us to believe it all happened at "333 views" (hence his "surprise" at the number "333"). *Note:* some people in "Peekay's" audience take notice of what I call "number theory" and may associate the special number "333" with other special numbers such as "33" or "666" etc. *In hindsight that appears to have been the sole reason for this cheap stunt* (thus "Peekay" is guilty of manufacturing "truther drama" and presenting something as true that he knows was not true - he contrived a scenario just to make a cheap passing comment about the number "333").
  64.  
  65.  
  66.  
  67.  
  68.  
  69.  
  70.  
  71. *There are other oddities and anomalies but for the moment they are not of concern.* IMPORTANT: *If "Peekay" knew the view count was higher than "333" then he must have been acting when he saw the "333".* If he was feigning surprise then he was manufacturing "truther drama". *If "Peekay" was acting for any reason in his video then who can know where the truth begins and the manipulations end?*
  72.  
  73.  
  74.  
  75.  
  76.  
  77.  
  78.  
  79. *SUMMARY:* All in all it appears that "Peekay" had two browser tabs open with his video. One of the tabs had his video at "333 views" and the other had his video at "351 views". You weren't supposed to see the "351 views" tab. *Instead of switching back to the "333 views" tab he accidentally clicked the "351 views" tab instead.* Although that was a mistake he had already screen-recorded himself going through the motions and couldn't start over again. Besides - "Peekay" appeals to "base" people - people who thrive on emotion and lack analytical skills. "Peekay" can let a slip like that in because he knows his audience are unobservant and subservient. They will blindly trust whatever he says. Why would he lie?
  80.  
  81.  
  82.  
  83.  
  84.  
  85.  
  86.  
  87. Furthermore - if you look at the backlash I have received on this page - *you can see very clearly what happens if you try to stand up to someone like the mighty and infallible "Peekay".* If you look over at the foul comments I have received on this page - the enormous amounts of hate thrown at me - all coming from people who do not have the slightest clue what has been going on. All because I have pointed out something objective.
  88.  
  89.  
  90.  
  91.  
  92.  
  93.  
  94.  
  95. Shame on all who have been swept up in this group hate. Shame on everyone. *I got some of the details wrong but not the central claim itself.* As soon as I verified the details I got wrong are indeed incorrect I am now here contacting every single person who has left a comment to inform them of the situation. *Have you ever seen anyone else make such an effort?*
  96.  
  97.  
  98.  
  99.  
  100.  
  101.  
  102.  
  103. I have presented a case against "Peekay". There were good reasons for pointing out what I did. And yet the only person to have come to "Peekay's" rescue has been one of the very people he has hated on! That's the difference between "Peekay" and Lesta. "Peekay" is behaving like a guilty man because he knows he was tricky regarding the "333 views". As soon as "Peekay" saw that I was right - BUT FOR THE *WRONG* REASONS - he went on the attack. *But I am not wrong overall.* "Peekay" has been wholly irresponsible with his "truth bomb army". This video now has over 300 dislikes *but yet within this video is PROOF that "Peekay" was indeed deceptive.* It is just that some of the details I focused on have turned out to be incorrect. But I was not wrong about the jumping view count - the very reason for scrutinising his video in the first place.
  104.  
  105.  
  106.  
  107.  
  108.  
  109.  
  110.  
  111. *As I say - a follow-up video will be posted that makes all of these points very clear.* "Peekay" has been caught red-handed manipulating his audience and is now sending them to participate in a session of group hate on me. Shame on you if you have chosen to participate in that. *Anyone who would do that is here for the wrong reasons.* Lesta does not make claims that cannot be justified and substantiated. *To have gotten some of the details wrong it does not follow that automatically "Peekay" is wholly innocent!* Don't be a tummy truther. And don't be a truther coward.
  112.  
  113.  
  114.  
  115.  
  116.  
  117.  
  118.  
  119. If you have any questions about the above please ask them and I will do my best to address them both here on this thread and again in the upcoming video for everyone else's benefit.
  120.  
  121.  
  122.  
  123.  
  124.  
  125.  
  126.  
  127. I stand by everything I do and I make no claims I cannot justify and substantiate.
  128.  
  129.  
  130.  
  131.  
  132.  
  133.  
  134.  
  135. *The only details I had gotten wrong have no bearing on the overall claim itself.*
  136.  
  137.  
  138.  
  139.  
  140.  
  141.  
  142.  
  143. After all - we do not let a murderer walk free just because a witness said a knife was used as the murder weapon when really it was a fork. *We do not let a r4pist walk free just because the victim said the attacker had brown eyes but really they were green.* The details I have gotten wrong have no bearing on the central claim. *The incriminating detail that has no natural explanation except for intentional deceit by "Peekay" remains the magic jump in video view count despite the video having been removed.* That suggests two browser tabs were used. And that is what suggests "Peekay" knew very well that the view count was higher than "333 views". And that is what suggests "Peekay" latched onto the "333 views" *just to be able to talk about that number* (twice!) to his audience.
  144.  
  145.  
  146.  
  147.  
  148.  
  149.  
  150.  
  151. *"Peekay" has been found guilty of manipulating his audience and shame on everyone who has participated in shooting at the messenger.*
  152.  
  153.  
  154.  
  155.  
  156.  
  157.  
  158.  
  159. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Please do follow-up with constructive questions if something needs expanding or has not been understood.
  160.  
  161.  
  162.  
  163.  
  164.  
  165.  
  166. __________________________________________
  167. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
  168. https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg
  169.  
  170. Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
  171. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
  172.  
  173. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
  174. https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1
  175.  
  176. Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
  177. 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!