5 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-07-08 1445 +Brian Hill

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-07-08 1445 +Brian Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOnpUIWf12g&lc=z13wtnybyvbewl1bq04cdz5wjknqu1iwjck
https://pastebin.com/FzxDqCcn
__

+Brian Hill __ [This is a quick - as in quickly typed - reply. The first link was a nightmare to load - I ended up having to do a screen-recording so I could go through it slowly without the page crashing my browser.]






The first thing: Yes - I see the problem you are pointing out. I agree that on the surface it really does appear to be a fatal contradiction between the two articles. I am in agreement with you so keep that in mind as you read the rest of what I have to say.






The problem is that "mistakes" and "discrepancies between articles" can always be explained by "plausible explanations" (even if those "explanations" are bullsh!t).






Everything can be "explained". You won't like it - _but it's not about you or me!_ It's about how "normal people" perceive and "rationalise" these contradictory things.






The lie system *intentionally* gives conflicting information. People who call "hoax" incorrectly view "conflicting information" as proof of a hoax. "Event realists" then take these claims and "debunk" them.






It is better to escape that "cycle" and start pointing out what the lie system is doing. Describe the "techniques" rather than getting fixated on the details.






Conflicting details and testimony is a part of the psychological abuse being done to us. It forces us to create a first impression about an event - only to then have to abandon that memory.






Recently I wrote a ramble about this kind of thing. It's not compulsory reading but I'll make you aware of it and you *might* want to skim over it. I also link to a chapter from 1984 at the end which you might want to read again if you haven't already: https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/HSoWj8KfCWA










So how would a "normal person" interpret this apparent (massive) contradiction?






First of all - in the first news article/video we see two people who appear to be doing "CPR" on an otherwise "intact" person on the floor. *The only way we know it's the "suicide bomber" is because the alleged "eyewitness" tells us* (i.e., the purported "nurse" who "discovered the wires" with the "body").






The alleged "nurse/witness" *alone* is the one who tells us that it was the "suicide bomber". He alone tells us he was later "told by officials" that it was the suicide bomber. There is no proof or verification of this offered. We must take his word for it - and that is the "way out".






In other words - there is room for the "witness" to be mistaken. There is room for "authorities" to have given him the incorrect information. There is room for the "witness" to have simply lied. A normal person might think: "in the excitement he embellished his story to get a little fame - given the ordeal he went through I don't blame him".






__






(Again - it does not matter that none of this makes any sense to us. It doesn't make sense to me. All that matters is that it can be "explained away" by a "normal person". Normal people are f_kcing retarded and f_kcing insane. Stupidity and insanity is a bad combination! "Normal people" are also extremely gullible and will believe just about anything - even an "alien invasion" if it were reported on the nightly news. At the end of this reply I will outline what a *fatal mistake* for these two articles would be.)






__






The news article itself labels the photo with the wiggle words "*thought to be* the bomber". That is important! That gives a "way out". We can be told: _"at the time of writing the article we THOUGHT it was the bomber but it turns out we were wrong"._ (Again - I'll explain how it would be a genuine fatal mistake at the end.)






With the second article we are told that the alleged "suicide bomber" completely blew himself up with nothing remaining and that nobody was injured. Yes - comparing these two articles appears to be a huge contradiction! As I said from the outset - I agree with you.






If we choose to accept the second article as being the "truth" we still saw *video footage* of someone appearing to receive "CPR" in the first article. But the second article said "amazingly no one was injured" etc. Again - on the surface it does appear to be a contradiction.






But a "normal person" can resolve this easily: *_"News reports often contain mistakes like that due to the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle"._* In other words: the article said no one was injured but they made a mistake.






The "pressures of a 24-hour news cycle" is an amazing "catch-all". It excuses ALL mistakes - both typographical AND factual!






Though let me repeat: *what you have pointed out does appear to be a fatal contradiction*.






But to me it appears to be yet another "truther trap". Such that a "truther" might commit to asserting: _"Look! In this article we are told it's the bomber but in the later article we are told it's not - *this cannot be! This must be a hoax!*"_






But as soon as anyone makes *that* claim - a subsequent article could be posted that "clears things up" and the hoax claim is "debunked" and belief is reaffirmed in the event. (I.e., "a hoaxer points out an apparent contradiction which is then debunked by an event realist".)






__






Now - to explain why this isn't a fatal mistake and to describe what *would* be a fatal mistake.






With the footage of the two men appearing to give "CPR" - *did either necessarily look like the alleged "nurse" who gave the two minute interview?* Even if one of them did - how do we know the "nurse" was not just making sh!t up about the wires? (For the "lols", "views", "sympathies", etc.)






Surely the other Good Samaritan would have given an interview talking about seeing the wires? Had BOTH made that claim it would be stronger. But as it stands - the nurse can simply be lying. (And what "sensitive" news reporter is going to say "uh - you're lying" to a guy who just went through such horrors?!)






__






As I say - you may not like what I have to say. But everything presented is *subjective* and that's the problem. "Excuses" can be "invented". ("Plausible explanations".)






So what do I mean by "fatal mistake"? It must be something that CANNOT be "dismissed" with a "plausible explanation" (no matter how ludicrous). And so what *would* constitute a "fatal mistake" for those two articles is as follows:






>>> *It would be a fatal mistake IF we got to see the FACE of the person on the ground [could "identify" him] and it was a MATCH to the person to the second article. Then THAT would be a fatal mistake*. <<<






Without that - each oddity, anomaly, "factual error", "eye-witness" testimony can be "explained away". *I AGREE WITH YOU* - and what you have shown makes it pretty clear that we are being fed BULLSH!T (two wildly different portrayals of what happened). But I suggest that is intentional and I had a ramble about that kind of thing on my Google Plus only recently (link above).



__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w