26 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-13 2135 +Michael Chranston

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-13 2135 +Michael Chranston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQSCxfV87SE&lc=z12vgt1arvrltlpy404cjlor4tuij5chy50
https://pastebin.com/EpY4Hc4j
__

+Michael Chranston __ The "blob of light" that we can all see in the sky according to a timetable published online is consistently referred to as the "International Space Station" ("ISS"). Without being able to see that object with details it's not possible to know what it is other than it's something called the "ISS".







There are some people who claim to have photographed that object "with details" (e.g., the smartphone image you linked to which I did end up seeing) *but unless each photo is then verified by "NASA/ESA/etc." as genuine I am not sure how it's possible for you and me to know if they are authentic*. That is because there are a number of people who - _for whatever reason_ (be it for the clicks, views, dollars, lols, trolls or just boredom) - post fraudulent images of the "ISS" as genuine. *Without "known good" images for us to compare to we can't really know what isn't fake*. Diamonds may well exist but I doubt you or I can recognise a convincing fake and faking a picture of the "ISS" is surely magnitudes easier than faking a tangible diamond (and if there is no "ISS" then all images purporting to show details are necessarily fake).







Would astronomy magazines knowingly publish a fraudulent image of the "ISS"? I'd like to think they wouldn't - _however_ - an "astronomy magazine" is no less subject to being duped by convincing yet fraudulent images than a nature magazine such as "National Geographic" - which has in the past (unwittingly) published fraudulent images as genuine.







Like many people I have seen the "bright light" as it whizzed past in the night sky above *but I have not seen it with discernible details*. Even if we are to accept that the "blob of light" really does possess the same "shape" as what is claimed about the "ISS" *_it cannot inform us as to whether anyone is presently living aboard it_*. (Not unless we can see an "astronaut" waving at us from the "Cupola"!)







With regard to a "military person riding in a helicopter chasing down the Soyuz" or a "SpaceX recovery crew" etc. these methods (though clever and tempting as they are) cannot be considered as "proof" of anyone having lived in space. *For if the "ISS" is not real and manned as claimed then we are witnessing a magic show* and stage magicians such as "Derren Brown" and "David Blaine" would surely have a clever and simple way to make people appear to emerge out of a capsule that had been "tracked without interruption from space". *_Such a magic trick would always be easier, cheaper, safer and more reliable than having to do it for real_*.







If there really is a permanent micro/zero-gravity environment where people are living and working in "space" then an *uninterrupted live broadcast* showing undeniable and unobscured micro/zero-gravity that *upon scrutiny remained free from* video glitches, cuts, edits and pans (i.e., "potential editing points") would make the "inhabited ISS" claim *unreasonable to deny*.







And that brings me to the main problem I have with the "ISS". Despite how it may seem I am not concerned about whether the "ISS" is real and manned or not. Having looked at the issue I realise that *I cannot know without having to trust those who are making the extraordinary claim* (only a few counties in total claim to have a "manned space programme"). I am instead more interested in *how the "ISS" is routinely presented to the audience/population*.







The "ISS" is presented to us in the same form that a lie would need to take. While that does not mean that the "ISS" is a lie it does mean that those who *do believe* it is real and manned are doing so based *wholly on trust* and not because of something they have seen (i.e., they are accepting [or mistaking] "proof's appearances" for actual proof). (For the sake of brevity I won't go into it here and now other than to point out that the video glitches *are necessary to the presentation style* - if the "ISS" is fake then *any* livestream could be flawless whereas if the "ISS" is real and manned then after 15+ years we can reasonably expect by now to see live broadcasts that upon scrutiny remain free from "potential editing points" [glitches, cuts, edits and pans]).







When *truth* is routinely presented to the population *in the same form a lie would need to take* the population - _by consequence of this presentation style_ - becomes trained [from birth] to accept lies when they are presented as "truth" in this same special way. Whoever routinely presents events and claims in this special way can *successfully lie* to the audience/population whenever it is desired or required and it won't be meaningfully rejected or opposed.







What government - or group of people - would not want the ability to do such a thing? *That* is the concern I have _and the "ISS" illustrates it elegantly_.


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

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.