5 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-27 0800 +fivedoors

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-27 0800 +fivedoors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqqeGp_ElM&lc=z12rhlkppzidzphlx22myzojyv20vh3av04
https://pastebin.com/PSM59hDG
paris attack; bataclan; director; signalling; street theatre
__


+fivedoors __ Much appreciated (you write a lot of good comments - *please* write more!). There are two reasons I am asking about this guy (plus an explanation for his "near nakedness"). 1) It seems a few channels are promoting this as a *REAL EVENT* CASE CLOSED. They have taken a look at it and it "looks real" to them (so they say) and they are telling their audiences it is real (because "not everything is a hoax", and "only hoaxtards auto-hoax everything" and so forth). Not everything is fake - you see. But how are they determining which events are real? It seems arbitrary. You need to rely on a "guru" like "Jeff C" to tell you which events are real!







I think anyone who scrutinises this SCENE properly is left with the impression it was *orchestrated* / *choreographed.* I'll be posting another video on this scene (I didn't do so at the time out of a fear of getting a strike but others have gone through the scene without problems). I have a strong suspicion that the region was pixelated *because that person was responsible for "signaling"/"directing".* How to cover that up? Easy! You position him there with his pants down! You're right - how on _God's flat Earth_ did he end up with his pants around his ankles? How exactly does that happen even if someone has shot you? Having his pants down certainly gives a "plausible explanation" as to why the region was pixelated. It completely HIDES the series of flashes. _It's all too convenient._







Each time there was a flash the cameraman shifted to some other kind of action etc. If you cannot see the flashes then that would not even occur to you.







And that leads to the second reason: 2) With the news reports that I could find covering the "street theatre" scene they talked at length about the pregnant woman hanging from the window. It talked about other people. *But made no mention of the guy on the ground* (other than to say "there was a guy was on the ground" but nothing more). It is as though they talked about everything else to be a distraction from the guy on the ground. An unbelievable amount of time was wasted on whether or not the woman was standing on the window's bars (of course she was). Why was all of that time spent focused on her *and not the guy with the light flashing on the ground?*







*And so it seems too much like a misdirection.* Anyone who has examined this event needs to be aware of the guy on the ground. *If this had been a "natural event" then the activity we see must necessarily be natural - which means it should be taking place chaotically and randomly and simultaneously.* But what we see instead is linear activity. One "major action" at a time. So I am somewhat suspicious of the channels who have called this event real. There are *many* reasons to hesitate etc. If you are going to call the event "real" then you need to have some explanation for the things I am pointing out in this message.







And so by asking for information about this guy a few months later I am expecting two things:







1) *That there will be no information because it is simply lacking* (and he is being forgotten because he is important to it being "street theatre" - otherwise we would be told something about him [he is a "participant" which in my definition means he could be important such as an "event planner");







2) That there will be little to no interest in this detail because the people claiming it was real don't want people to focus on the guy who makes it apparent it is "street theatre".