22 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-10-09 0245 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-10-09 0245 +cabadejo
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/YRarbppNNmn
https://pastebin.com/Rk4xPQiU
__

+cabadejo __ It has always been ten minutes. The first instance of using "10 minutes" that I could find after a quick search occurred on the *4th of July, 2015* in this post: https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/b8aVKiFUWzm

_"And to keep all of this up *for the entire duration of a 10 minute interview* as they speak and answer live questions. All the while without any clever cuts, sneaky edits or misdirecting pans."_




______
Note - I'm looping in +nationalparksign and +Terran Downvale because there are some points I want them to read and also to see if NPS gets a notification. He said he didn't for earlier messages. It could be that if a username is referenced at the end of a message a notification isn't trigged [something to keep in mind]. But - I don't get notifications for a certain pretzel muncher yet she does not have me blocked - so if it turns out we are no longer able to reliably reference each other's usernames then that would be one more "sign" of our ability to communicate being limited.)
______




(I have not been writing the text/captions of my videos to my Google Plus [though I probably should be] so it is possible I was talking about this concept prior to 4th July, 2015. I would need to look over my videos from 2015 to see if there was an even earlier reference - but certainly - *I have talked about "ten minutes" with regard to "clever cuts, sneaky edits" etc. for over a year and for well over 200 Google Plus posts and comments*.)

__

*Any figure you give can be dismissed as "arbitrary"*. If I have ever mentioned a figure less than 10 minutes *it would only be to explain why it isn't long enough*.

The problem with relying on a figure that's too low (I strongly suggest anything under 10 minutes isn't long enough) *is that if a cheating technique is being used it may be possible you fail to spot it*.

The longer the footage we have to work with the greater the chance of being able to notice a "cheating technique" if it's used *_as it [and possible variations] would need to be repeated throughout the footage if it is being cleverly stitched together_*.

>>> No reasonable person would argue that ten minutes is an unreasonable duration to ask for - especially given that there are countless hour-long "ISS" videos. <<<

The only rebuttal I've come across to the requirement of "ten minutes" is that it "would be too boring" - but the same can be said of those numerous 30 minute "ISS interviews" where the same questions are being asked and answered. *If 30 minute interviews from a single fixed camera where nothing new is talked about are not too boring to release to the public then the claim we don't see "10 minutes of glitch, cut, edit and pan free footage" is because it's "too boring" simply does not stand up to scrutiny*.

(By the way - who wouldn't want to see ten minutes of mice floating about or fish floating/swimming about in micro/zero-gravity? At least - who wouldn't want the option of being able to view such footage?)

With all of this mentioned we must not make the "fallacy of the conspiracy theorist". *The fact such qualifying footage does not appear to exist does not mean the "ISS" is not real and manned*. (And it certainly does not mean the Earth is necessarily flat as the highly active and virulent "flat Earth disinformation crew" would have its intellectually vulnerable audience believe when it tries to associate "ISS" anomalies with the "flat Earth".)

>>>>> Rather - *the point is that "NASA" seems to want the audience to SEE the glitches, cuts, edits and pans*. <<<<<

It may be as simple as that. *That may be all there is to it*. Not only does it disqualify the footage as "sufficient proof" (a requirement for the lie system forcing the audience to trust) *it trains the audience's expectations to always see cuts and other video imperfections* (so that if a time were to come when it needed to be faked - it could be faked and it would go unnoticed).

Just as the population is being trained to accept lies when they are presented as truth - the population can also be said to be trained to accept fabricated footage when it is presented as genuine.

I recently posted something that suggested "NASA" want the audience to see the glitches. It isn't "strong proof" but it adds to the suggestion and I am sure more examples of it can be found.

"NASA" have in recent times taken to doing more and more "hard cuts" during their alleged "ISS interviews" and those interviews have been "professional edited together" (would "NASA" ever hire amateurs to do such a task?!). *Thus any glitches which could have been removed - but were instead left in - _must be thought of as being [at least potentially] intentional_*. It certainly cannot be ruled out.

The post where I point this out can be found here: https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/2U5uMLwkMkP

If the "ISS" is NOT genuine THOUGH ESPECIALLY IF IT IS GENUINE these glitches serve to train the audience's expectations. If we always see sustained duration "ISS" footage that is purportedly streamed "live" WITH glitches *then we are certainly going to expect to see glitches* when it comes to [for example] any alleged "Mars missions"* etc.

>>> *It may be that the "ISS" is real and manned and that the whole time we are being given intentionally crippled footage so as to enable "NASA" and pals to fake a any "Mars mission" more effectively*. <<<

With the "ISS" we can at least point a telescope at a bright light in the sky according to a timetable found online and use it to help imagine it's a manned vehicle (if we trust the claim) *but we are not going to be able to point a telescope at Mars and say _"Oh, I can see that!"_* - for that task imagination is 100% required for there will be no "discernible object" with which to assist one's imagination.

__

>>>>> *If the "ISS" is real and manned THEN OF COURSE there would exist HOURS AND HOURS of crystal clear HD genuine glitch-free footage! THAT IS THE POINT!* <<<<<

The fact we have not seen a mere 10 minutes of it MUST be intentional (here must be literal hours and hours of continuous glitch-free footage - even for the alleged "Moon missions" - there should have been countless hours of micro/zero-gravity footage [I recently pointed out this absence out to a "NASA fan girl and APPOLOgist/enabler" when she [disingenuously] asked "What's your favourite Moon landing conspiracy?"]).

If the "ISS" is real and manned then we are INTENTIONALLY being shown *CRIPPLED* footage. If the "ISS" is NOT real and manned then we are ALSO being shown intentionally flawed footage because it would be possible to produce 10 minutes free from glitches, cuts, edits and pans.

(If you can fake 2 minutes of micro/zero-gravity [seamlessly stitch it together] without apparent problems then you can fake 4 minutes and 8 minutes and 80 minutes - that is also why the figure of 10 minutes is being used and isn't some "arbitrary" number plucked out of thin air because it sounded good at the time. Had that been the case I would have gone with 15 minutes.)

*Again - this is why the "ISS" is so important*. It ALONE is what PROVES that sufficient proof is being intentionally withheld. (I.e., that the "video evidence" which necessarily proves a claim is being presented to the audience in an intentionally crippled form that makes it doubtable by intelligent people.)

And when you look at other lie system events and claims - we find the very same thing! (Which is what we'd expect given that a true theory must have predictive power.) However - the "nightly news" has an "excuse" (i.e., it conveniently can't show "gore" for example and it conveniently can't show things due to "privacy concerns" etc.) but these things can be understood as *bullsh!t excuses* when you realise that the "ISS" isn't showing sufficient proof either *but it has no such obstacles*.


__


Withholding sufficient proof is like having a magician seat you in a way that prevents you from seeing the trick get done (should a trick be performed on that occasion and the magician isn't more simply training you to be seated a certain way). If a magician seats you - you should immediately get up and move closer! *If the magician forbids you from moving closer then you can understand that being seated as you were is integral to the practical success of the trick*!


______________________________________________________________
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.