API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Lesta

7 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-20 0810 +cabadejo

Lesta
Jan 19th, 2016
18
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.92 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-20 0810 +cabadejo
  2. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/BpMgHhKHb7N
  3. https://pastebin.com/aPiG2D3P
  4. __
  5.  
  6.  
  7. +cabadejo __ TO THE TWO OF YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE.
  8.  
  9. __
  10. NOTE: I don't say to not look for green-green (or even CGI). What I say is: *we should not assert that something is CGI if we are looking at something that is *indistinguishable from "real"* and that what we see could easily have been done *for "real"* and thus does not *need* the use of CGI and especially when the footage has no signs of CGI that can't otherwise (or easily/genuinely) be explained as more simply "video compression".
  11.  
  12.  
  13.  
  14. ("TransAsia" did have a "path glitch" where the plane appeared to blend into the light pole and those asserting it was real produced only one very strange and problematic clip to show it could have been video compression but there are numerous flaws to what they did [worth noting for curiosity's sake: it seemed to be mirror-reversed and played backwards!] and the clip they used *seemed specially engineered to give the glitch/effect it did* whereas the purported "TransAsia dash cam footage would not have been engineered to do that [this is all beyond the scope of this message] and the key point remains: *if there was no "plane crash" then the plane HAD to be CGI _even if_ the apparent glitch was a simple "video compression" error.* I.e., if it was fake it needed a CGI plane despite also suffering from "video compression" whereas the woman hanging from the window may be puzzling but you don't need CGI etc. Just because something has an anomaly that CAN be recreated naturally does not mean the footage is natural but we'd certainly expect to hear that from people peddling the idea it was real. *A fake plane crash REQUIRES CGI.* A woman merely balancing out of a window does not. _I did not plan to go off for so long onto this tangent!_)
  15.  
  16.  
  17.  
  18. Even if something *is* CGI we should avoid thinking of it as CGI *(because to latch onto CGI when we don't need to is to accept being wrong a thousand times all in order to avoid being wrong just once!* - and it sends us down the path of insanity where real life is thought of as CGI etc. but this comment is not about that! just mentioning I've never said to not look for "green-screen").
  19.  
  20.  
  21. __
  22. *As a presenter he could very well be using "green screen" because that's appropriate for a presenting role and it's very common in general and it would help to explain many of the anomalies that can be found in the footage.*
  23. __
  24.  
  25.  
  26. +Terran Downvale has mentioned a glitch and I noticed it too and it could support that the footage has been edited further suggesting it was pre-recorded. And if it's pre-recorded then that blows a hole in the idea of a live-stream giving "real time telemetry data"!
  27.  
  28. Also - his teeth look a bit odd but I assume he might have some kind of teeth "falsies" to go over the top so that they appear white etc.
  29.  
  30. With regard to the time overlaid I would characterise that as "proof of nothing" - as in - it is the "appearances of proof". People are so used to seeing the time associated with "live" things that an unsuspecting person (who is belief controlled) simply accepts it is real. It is a "cue and clue" that it is "live".
  31.  
  32. If you believe it is "live" based only on the appearances of proof (i.e., a lack of sufficient proof) then you become belief controlled. A belief controlled person who believes it is "live" is going to overlook anything that suggests it is not live.
  33.  
  34. *My focus must remain on the "weakest link" which is not just the fact he "laughs" but that his mouth is moving but no words come out and the audio seems affected in some way.* That needs to be my focus because that alone informs us that the footage has been edited and is not "live".
  35.  
  36. (He does say some interesting things but I've learned to leave the slightly less critical and more subjective detail in favour of the more urgent and more significant problem so that the seemingly smaller and more subjective detail does not become a distraction (or a way for "them" to derail the more critical observation). That's the only reason I am acknowledging it but not spending too much effort on the additional details at this time *but I accept and acknowledge there are some additional problems present such as with his language and those aspects do deserve attention at some point. In an emergency we must treat first the most serious *treatable* problem!)
  37.  
  38. ____
  39.  
  40. For the love of crikey this is the most important point: >>>> *If the footage is not "live" then he cannot be giving us "real-time telemetry data"!* <<<<
  41.  
  42. Furthermore: if he knows he is lying then suddenly the explanation for his laughter can make even more sense: *"that he finds lying to large numbers of belief controlled people funny".*
  43.  
  44. __
  45.  
  46. >>> *If the footage is not "live" then the rocket "launch" and "landing" may also become suspect.* <<<
  47.  
  48. __
  49.  
  50. There is one person who seems to get exclusive "rocket footage" and that's Reds Rhetoric.
  51.  
  52. Does Reds Rhetoric have any association with fake and contrived footage? *Maybe!* I can think of one POTENTIAL event (which the two of you know about) *and I can ALSO think of one other that's much more likely.* (It is not Reds Rhetoric directly *but someone he is associated with.* If Reds Rhetoric isn't here because it's his *JOB* then he may be a useful idiot.)
  53.  
  54. I've kept that as an ace up my sleeve and have not yet played it - *but soon I will.*
  55.  
  56. It is now the case I have several of these so-termed "aces up my sleeve" such that it would appear to be *game over for the people on YouTube who are lying and misrepresenting themselves.* And there are more than a few people doing that on "both sides".
  57.  
  58. ____
  59.  
  60. *And so is it reasonable to suspect that the footage where he laughed and appeared to speak had in some way been altered?* I do. Since there was no audio change to the background "crowd noise" that appears to have been added in. If the crowd noise has been added in then that has an impact on some other things that happen in the footage.
  61.  
  62. I have several videos on the way. They are approaching 60% complete. *Things will change quite quickly once they have been released.*
  63.  
  64. Reds Rhetoric will be featured soon. *Since like "Stefan Molyneaux" he appears to take calls from flat Earthers and talks to them for hours *he should not have a problem answering Lesta's simple question concerning the "ISS".* ))
  65.  
  66. Any additional thoughts let me know!
  67.  
  68.  
  69.  
  70. __________________________________________
  71. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
  72. https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg
  73.  
  74. Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
  75. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
  76.  
  77. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
  78. https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1
  79.  
  80. Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
  81. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!