>>> Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-09 2105 +lostintranslation76

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-09 2105 +lostintranslation76
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUe4ILZqJLM&google_comment_id=z12dirva4yb0drw0q23rxbvrapnrzlgcz
https://pastebin.com/K26M43Sy
__


+lostintranslation76 __ Please don't associate the claims of other people with me because I am distinct from every other channel on YouTube and the Internet. The only claims that I make and endorse are those that have been posted to my official YouTube channel and Google Plus. *I do not support or endorse any other channel or anyone else's observations.* You have given a detailed answer and so I will try to address a few points.

*If this message does not display in full do a search for:* +"Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-09 2105"

You say that you can see the "ISS" using a telescope. *No one denies that there is a bright flash that whizzes past according to a timetable you can lookup online.* Are you so sure that details can really be made out? Or are you *assuming* that they can? Have you done this yourself *or are you trusting the images and reports of others?*

Please take a look at a video I posted where I busted a liar who claimed to have taken an image of the alleged "ISS" titled: The "ISS" is BS - PROOF of a LIAR caught LYING about the "ISS"! (Lesta 2015-12-16)  Link: watch?v=a4898fr4XP4

That liar ("Andrew Winnard") comes with an elaborate spiel. He claims to be studying the effects of the human body after long periods of time in space. It is very convincing stuff if your guard isn't up. He got categorically busted lying about the "ISS" and so we must take everything else he has said with a grain of salt. If the "ISS" is real then no one should be lying about it, right?

The hardest thing to notice is "what's missing?" But once your attention is drawn to it - it can become all you notice. If people are truly studying the effects of zero gravity on the human body - especially with a view of sending people to Mars - then don't you think by now there might be some young people aboard the alleged "ISS"? Do you know who the youngest person aboard the "ISS" is? I don't! The youngest age I could find with a cursory search was about 35 years of age.

If you are serious about studying the effects of zero gravity then wouldn't there be some young people? 18 to 21 perhaps? In the decades of allegedly manned "space stations" there have probably never been anyone under the age of 30 but yet every year we hear about all kinds of world records being broken ("the youngest to sail around the world"; "the youngest to fly around the world" and so forth.)

While we may not expect a child to be sent into space - surely someone aged around 21 should by now have been there?

With regard to what you would deem "evidence" of fraud - all that really tells me is how you currently view the world. It tells me that you think of "governments" and "nations" as being genuinely separate entities (that are sometimes in conflict with each other). What you have asked for in terms of proof requires the world to operate in that way. I don't think that it does. I think you will find there are many who doubt alleged "whistleblowers" (and their alleged enablers) like "Edward Snowden" and "Julian Assange".

__

You must also remember (and I think this is overlooked by most people) that I am not making a claim - *I am rejecting a claim.*

I am not the one who is asserting there is a permanent micro/zero gravity environment. On that note - we can see time-lapse of buildings get constructed. Have you ever seen convincing footage of the alleged "ISS" getting constructed? Surely that would have been amazing and everything would need to have been done with cameras in the beginning. So where is all of that footage? All you will find are worthless animations and propaganda videos of "astronauts" purportedly operating robotic arms - but they are already inside assembled areas!

It is "NASA" and pals who are making the claim and after decades of allegedly manned "space stations" there has not been any "sufficient proof". Not even by accident. What do I mean by "sufficient proof"? "Sufficient proof" is that which answers this question: *"What do I need to see in order to know with certainty that a claim/event is necessarily true/real/happened?"*

And so what would constitute "sufficient proof" for the claim of a permanent micro/zero gravity environment?

>>> *Sufficient proof would consist of sustained duration genuine micro/zero gravity footage that _upon scrutiny_ remains free from clever cuts, sneaky edits and misdirecting pans.* <<<

If you think such footage exists you are mistaken. I have had dozens - probably approaching a hundred - people send me links to the same handful of "NASA" videos. Each time they claim the video "proves" sustained zero gravity. But it doesn't. All we see are magic tricks. All these people are doing is pointing out what they feel are the most convincing tricks and saying "prove that didn't really happen!"

But if it's real then ALL of it should be real. And so even the worst footage should stand up to scrutiny (i.e., if it's real - then all of the footage from the "ISS" must necessarily be real). I have documented categorically genuine cuts and edits. I have other footage I haven't released yet which proves beyond all doubt that there are stitched together segments that are seamless and flawless except for the occasional glitch. If the "ISS" is real then this should not be the case.

This footage will be posted when the time is right (I am putting together a series of videos that deal with all aspects of the "ISS" because it proves we live in a lie system).

Perhaps you are familiar with a rather long video by "Chris Hadfield" where he wets a towel and then squeezes the water out?

At face value this does appear to be too long for a "zero gravity flight". I noticed you quoted "around 22 seconds" but you must know that's on the low side. Do you really think the world's most powerful military are limited to just 22 second parabolic loops? Are you aware that the playback speed of any such footage can be slowed? Do you realise that the audio tracks are often added onto the "ISS" footage? ("NASA" have posted many videos without audio but also where the audio has gaps and other anomalies that suggest it is added after-the-fact.)

What we see with "Chris Hadfield" can be thought of as a magic performance. Everything about it has the hallmarks of magic. Watch his video again and count all of the opportunities for a cut and edit (even if you cannot detect where or how an edit was done - just count the opportunities). If you believe it is real then you will not be looking at it in that way. When you look at it in that way then suddenly you can see how it is being done.

No one denies that on occasion we see seemingly long segments of zero gravity. But we never see the kind of zero gravity that proves it is genuine. Wouldn't you like to see how many somersaults can be done? Wouldn't you like to see more than just two or three? The most I've ever seen was three from memory. I've definitely never seen more than five. Although I'd like to see a ten minute zero gravity gymnastics routine surely just two minutes of somersaults would be interesting to many?

__

If you believe it is real it is because you want to believe it is real. You may well believe it is real (I don't doubt you) but I know that you have never seen sufficient proof. You have only ever seen proof's appearances.

If you believe it is real then you simply are not going to notice the huge number of clever cuts, sneaky edits and misdirecting pans because *why would you?!*

If you believe it is real then you are not going to scrutinise it properly. You may say you would or can - but if you believe it is real then you are biased. You need to suspend belief first. I have examined - frame by frame - a large number of "ISS" videos. I have probably watched more "ISS" footage than most people. If you can watch "ISS" footage but tell me that you can see no opportunities for cuts and edits then I know you're either lying or not examining the footage properly.

If you were examining the footage properly then then you would be telling me about all of the problems which are present in every single "ISS" video! It is patently easy to look at "ISS" footage and see it as a magic performance. But when you look at "known good" footage - such as a tennis match or a neighbour's home video - it isn't like that. With real footage you simply do not get that same impression. *When something is real it is difficult to doubt it. When something is fake it is easy to doubt it.* _However - when something is fake but you believe it is real - *then it again becomes difficult to doubt!*_

Can it be that if it is real but believed to be fake that it is easy to doubt? I don't think so. Because even though you may think of it as fake - it's still real! (What I mean is: you can VIEW it as fake but you will have a tough time pointing out WHY it is fake - because the "opportunities" in REAL footage are just not that good.) *No one wants to see sufficient proof more than me.* I would love there to be sufficient proof so that we conclusively know it is real *without having to trust the word of the same groups of people who (you believe) drop bombs on children.* For there to be sufficient proof would mean that at least one event/claim has sufficient proof (I suggest that there are no lie system events/claims that come with sufficient proof unless they can be proven by the individual - but then they won't be controversial anyway). *For there to be sufficient proof would mean we are not living in a lie system.* But the fact remains we can doubt it - and that's the thing. It's not whether it is real or not - *it is that it can be doubted in the first place* (again - this goes into issues to do with the "lie system" that you may not be aware of and are beyond the scope of this already lengthy reply).

__

With regard to the slip by "Kjell Lindgren" - I think I mentioned in that video that it would be suggested he had meant a "video conference". Certainly, that's what I had expected people to say but initially people told me it was "a way of speaking" or a "Southern thing".

For it to be a "video conference" would be neat if only it were true. *There is no proof that the alleged "astronauts" have two-way video conferencing.* I have posted a video about that. Please take a look at my video titled: ISS is BS - Beware of "Hadfield" DISINFORMATION and 2-way Video Link is Bogus! (Lesta 2015-12-25) which can be found at this link: watch?v=TZcW73pbMTc

(The part about the two-way video link starts near the end at 9m40s)

__

There is a press release that is circulating and is mirrored on various websites claiming that the "astronauts" have "video conferencing" capability but it is exaggerated. What we are told they have is "Internet" communication but their communication is very slow - like dialup speed.

However, let's pretend they did have "video conferencing" (which I stress they don't - *you will never hear the "astronauts" talk about it and so one has to wonder whether the belief they have this ability even comes from* - it seems to be an "assumed belief"). But, _let's pretend you are correct._ Let's pretend he really meant by a "video conference" (which as I say, we've never heard any of them refer to in the past).

Then why wouldn't a professional speaker like "Kjell Lindgren" simply drop the "here" and say: *"I look forward to seeing them soon"?* (Why bother to include "here"?). Imagine you are having a video call with someone and you will call them again. Wouldn't you simply say to that person: _"I look forward to seeing you soon"._ There is no need for _"I look forward to seeing you *here* soon"_ *unless you meant _that person_ is going to be visiting _you_ soon.*

Or "Kjell Lindgren" could have said: _"I look forward to Skyping with them soon"?_ (Or _"I look forward to video chatting with them here soon"_). *There are any number of possibilities that don't require a creative reinterpretation on your part.* For you to understand what he said in an innocent way requires you to strip the word "here" of any meaning/value.

"Kjell Lindgren" is a well-educated man who "NASA" feels is able to address the public. I am sure that if he had meant "by video conference" then that is what he would have said. You allege that I am "speculating" but I am doing no such thing. I am purely understanding his words as he spoke them. For me to be "speculating" would mean that *EVERYONE* is "speculating" when talking to anyone about anything! You can't do that. If YOU are choosing a meaning that is DIFFERENT to the literal meaning of his spoken words then it is YOU who is speculating. It is YOU who is exploring the possibility that "Kjell Lindgren" (a well-educated and professional speaker) did not mean what he said. *I am not speculating and I must strongly object to that characterisation.* It is you who is speculating - not me. Only if I attempted to interpret his words in a way other than their basic meaning would I be speculating.

(Play for 100 people the audio of what "Kjell Lindgren" said and I would be surprised if not everyone understood his words in the same way as I have. If that is the case then I cannot be speculating! I am *understanding* his words. Only if my interpretation differs from a common understanding can it be said I have speculated. It is only you who is choosing a different meaning BECAUSE you are assuming he is really aboard a "space station". You have "assumed the conclusion" etc.) Anyway, I have dealt with many of these issues and permutations in the comments section of that video as well as my Google Plus. I cannot possibly cover them all again here and now (do you see how "here" has meaning?). Please refer to my longer comments on that video for further nuances.

__

*From what you have written you do seem to really believe the "ISS" is real and manned.* It is that belief which is causing you to overlook all of the flaws and causing you to invent all kinds of innocent "plausible explanations" for any slips that occur to conform to that belief it is real. Since you believe it is real then "Kjell Lindgren" must have meant something innocent such as a "video conference" (even though you have never heard of any "astronaut" referring to a two-way video link). Since you believe it is real then you are assuming you HAVE seen sustained duration zero gravity - but you have never scrutinised it with the serious intention of detecting the potential editing and stitching/joining points.

Maybe we can forgive one slip but can we forgive several? Did you not also see the slip with "Chris Hadfield" indicating the clouds above?

This won't be resolved in just one or two messages. If you are a good, honest and intelligent person who values the truth above everything else then in time you may come to understand the important of "sufficient proof" and grasp why the claim by "NASA" of a permanent micro/zero gravity environment has never been proved.

For something that is supposed to be real there sure are a lot of people who lie about it! I have caught a number of those people and I have documented it as I have come across it. If you have *never* come across those people then is a whole world about "NASA" and the "ISS" that you don't yet know about. If you are someone who spends none of your time thinking about this issue then of course I can seem crazy. But if you have spent any time seriously scrutinising the footage and encountering absolute liars then you would begin to wonder what the crikey is going on.

If there really are "astronauts" in space then why are they misspeaking as though they are not in space?!

They tell us that the alleged "ISS" will be abandoned in the mid to late 2020s. Even if the "ISS" was ever a real and manned vehicle then what makes you so sure it hasn't already been abandoned?!

__

All said and done - *the issue that I am trying to draw everyone's attention to is NOT that it is or isn't "real and manned" but rather that our belief *it is simply isn't justified.*

When you accept the appearances of proof in place of sufficient proof you are on your way to believing fantasy as reality.

That is the problem I am pointing out *regardless* of whether or not the alleged "ISS" is real and manned. If you believe it is real it is *not* because you have seen sufficient proof. You haven't. *It is only because you mistakenly believe you have.* (And you have certainly been encouraged to think you have!) *It is only because you trust the people who are telling you it is real and cannot fathom how these nice looking honest people could possibly lie. (But again - it is not so much that they are lying or not - it is that they are not showing us what we need to see in order to justify a belief - we are denied sufficient proof. Year after year.)

Withholding sufficient proof forces each person to believe on trust and forces their imagination to fill in the blanks. And like cattle and crops that is how entire populations are being farmed. I have written a lot - if you are a genuine person then I have pointed you in the right direction for a number of things. I apologise for any typos - I have had to type this up quickly as I am doing several other things. _I'll have another video on the "ISS" pretty soon!_ I can't wait to see how you will deny it! ))



__________________________________________
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