API tools faq
paste
Lesta

10 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-06-02 0730 +XMEN CHEMTALES

Lesta
Jun 1st, 2016
29
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 11.18 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Lesta Nediam LNC2016-06-02 0730 +XMEN CHEMTALES
  2. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/BvgvWJvnqkQ
  3. https://pastebin.com/gpwV0QPv
  4. __
  5.  
  6.  
  7. +XMEN CHEMTALES __ [This ended up being characteristically long and covering many things. While you are not expected to read it - here it is.]
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
  11. __
  12.  
  13.  
  14.  
  15. Not infrequently when oddities are pointed out to "normal people" they will respond with _"But why? What is the possible motive?"_ *as though if a compelling and convincing reason cannot be supplied then the oddity can be ignored and the event dismissed as "innocent".*
  16.  
  17.  
  18.  
  19. Suppose I go to a restaurant and take a photo of my delicious meal after having done something sneaky to the food on the plate. If you cannot explain why I tampered with the food does it mean or change anything?
  20.  
  21.  
  22.  
  23. If you cannot satisfactorily explain why I tampered with the food it doesn't change the fact the food had been tampered with. All you can do is speculate as to why I would have done such a thing - keeping in mind that not all behaviours can be explained!
  24.  
  25.  
  26.  
  27. Objectively - when noticed all we can do is remark that something "odd" has happened to the food on the plate. No one can know why without asking me (and I could always lie as to my reasons).
  28.  
  29.  
  30.  
  31. Should we expect someone to f_kc around with their food before taking a photo of it? Probably not. Should we expect someone to blur out a numberplate (but not the others)? Maybe. *Should we expect someone to tweak the white lines of a road?* _I'm inclined to think not!_
  32.  
  33.  
  34.  
  35. Again - only those who are directly responsible for the digital tampering (which is present, undeniable and I suggest *_unnecessary_*; for to tweak the numberplate was one thing _but was it really *necessary* to additionally tamper with the white lines?!?!_) can give us an insight into the answer. Without their answer all we can do is speculate.
  36.  
  37.  
  38.  
  39. Seasoned "conspiracy theorists" will instantly insist that tampering is automatic proof of a "hoax". Whereas "normal people" will insist it (always!) means nothing at all.
  40.  
  41.  
  42.  
  43. I say that from where we sit in the audience we cannot know who is correct. We cannot conclude that the event was fake just because a numberplate had been blurred or a white line tweaked. But yet something odd has been done and so we should reserve judgment and take a closer look.
  44.  
  45.  
  46.  
  47. All we can really do is recognise that something odd/unusual has happened and remind ourselves that *we don't have to believe something just because someone else has told us it is true.*
  48.  
  49.  
  50.  
  51. It may not always be wise to hand over our belief [as most do] merely because "it was reported in a newspaper". Of course, newspapers are supposed to report exclusively about "real events" but perhaps - _right under our noses_ - that universally accepted definition of what a "news outlet" does is being *incrementally changed*.
  52.  
  53.  
  54.  
  55. (Far more subtly and much more differently than switching from the "War Department" to the "Defence Department".)
  56.  
  57.  
  58.  
  59. After all - words do change their meaning over time. The result of actual persistent usage despite there being a seemingly static dictionary definition. *So why not definitional changes for other things such as concepts and occupations like "newspapers" and "reporters" and so forth?*
  60.  
  61.  
  62.  
  63. You asked for a reason and with the above in mind I'll offer one: If real events are gradually and incrementally being "tweaked" and "tampered" with (especially in "unnecessary" ways _which conveniently help us to notice it_) and they continue to be accepted by the "general population" as genuine *then over time a situation could arise where an outright fabricated event is reported as genuine* and "normal people" will have trained themselves [literally from birth] to believe whatever they are told (and expertly dismiss any oddities in ways not dissimilar to how you appear to be doing on this thread).
  64.  
  65.  
  66.  
  67. Of course - that reason ("definitional transition") I've given is speculation. That the "definition of a 'news report' is changing" under our noses is speculation arising from repeated observation. That we are going from news reports about "real events" to "embellished events" and "partially real events" to *outright fabricated events* (and some mixture of all).
  68.  
  69.  
  70.  
  71. __
  72.  
  73. [I will write nothing about the idea the news has *always* been artificial and fabricated. My starting point is that once upon a time enough of the news was genuine and that genuine news reporters also existed who prized the truth above temptation and prejudice.]
  74.  
  75. __
  76.  
  77.  
  78.  
  79. So subtle is the *definitional transition* that it carries on largely unnoticed. It is accepted without alarm or revolt by the majority of "normal people" - despite more and more people learning about and discussing fabricated events. (It seems as though having people call events "fake" serves to create a kind of resistance and "immunity" in "normal people" to the idea.)
  80.  
  81.  
  82.  
  83. Though this "definitional transition" is speculation it has arisen from paying close attention to "news media events" over a reasonable period of time.
  84.  
  85.  
  86.  
  87. If you take an event from 20 years ago and compare it to an equivalent event that is reported today - the older event seems "more real" and the newer event more "artificial". The older event seems to have more reliable information whereas the newer event seems to have less reliable and more conflicting information.
  88.  
  89.  
  90.  
  91. *I strongly suggest that this is not an accident. I strongly suggest that this is a symptom of a gradual "definitional transition" actively taking place.*
  92.  
  93.  
  94.  
  95. To appreciate what I am writing it helps to compare something new to something old. For example - it is difficult to say how the taste of ice-cream has changed over the past 30 years unless you somehow have a tub of 30 year old perfectly preserved ice-cream ready to eat.
  96.  
  97.  
  98.  
  99. __
  100.  
  101.  
  102.  
  103. To give you a practical example of what I mean there just recently was an *alleged* "gorilla" incident at the Cincinnati Zoo. We may not have thirty year old ice-cream but thankfully we can compare the footage from the recent 2016 event to a comparable alleged event from 1981 involving "Jambo the Gorilla".
  104.  
  105.  
  106.  
  107. Do you know of that alleged event?
  108.  
  109.  
  110.  
  111. In the 1981 event a five year old kid ("Levan Merritt") allegedly fell into a gorilla enclosure. Do a YouTube search for the words: Jambo, Gorilla, 1981 and look for the longest available footage. If you are lazy here is a satisfactory link: watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A
  112.  
  113.  
  114.  
  115. Focusing only on the footage - compare everything from that event to the current event. What do you see? What don't you see? What can you hear? What can't you hear? Etc.
  116.  
  117.  
  118.  
  119. __
  120.  
  121.  
  122.  
  123. If you are new to the idea of "fabricated events" (i.e., that "not everything reported in the news is necessarily true - including major events) then this may all seem "crazy/nuts". _But it's not._ ))
  124.  
  125.  
  126.  
  127.  
  128.  
  129. __
  130.  
  131. An aside for +Terran Downvale - Is it any wonder that "mental health" issues are increasingly receiving so much attention and it just happens to coincide with this apparent [increased/accelerating] transition from seemingly "real to fake news events"!
  132.  
  133.  
  134.  
  135. *How long until "thinking that the news is fake" is classified as a kind of mental illness?* How long until we are encouraged to report (anonymously of course) to "mental health professionals" those loved ones around us who suffer from such an "affliction"?!
  136.  
  137. __
  138.  
  139.  
  140.  
  141.  
  142.  
  143. Anyone who has spent enough time paying attention to the details of news events (details which "normal people" typically pay no heed to and soon forget) *will have counted up too many of these "oddities" to be able to relax and dismiss them _all_ as "natural".*
  144.  
  145.  
  146.  
  147. Far too many "oddities" can be pointed out for it to be accidental/coincidental. It appears to be intentional - the result of some process that is in motion.
  148.  
  149.  
  150.  
  151. It seems to be a [global] "policy" to "make real things seem - _on examination_ - somehow artificial" (if they weren't outright artificial to begin with).
  152.  
  153.  
  154.  
  155. This phenomenon - in my view - is an intentional *definitional transition.*
  156.  
  157.  
  158.  
  159.  
  160.  
  161. __
  162.  
  163. Another aside: this paragraph is for +nationalparksign - Just as it is intentional that we never see sustained duration zero gravity "ISS" footage that upon scrutiny remains free from glitches, cuts, edits and pans in order to satisfy observant and intelligent folk that the "astronauts" really are living, breathing, eating and sh!tting in a permanent zero gravity environment. (It's always doubtable.) Thus forcing us to trust the story tellers. "Normal people" cannot resist handing over their belief. By adults they have been worn down into submission, acceptance and trust - incapable of sustaining any meaningful scepticism which is *exhausting* (as I can attest)!
  164.  
  165. __
  166.  
  167.  
  168.  
  169.  
  170.  
  171. When someone asks "why?" ["why would someone insert an oddity into an event"] I interpret them as saying: _"While I cannot fully explain what has been pointed out - I don't want to believe I live in a world that is intentionally and consistently f_kcing with me"._
  172.  
  173.  
  174.  
  175. After all - that is stressful and psychologically *draining*. I would say that the habit of "inventing plausible explanations" for oddities is a kind of "coping mechanism" for living on the farm [it reduces stress and preserves mental energy].
  176.  
  177.  
  178.  
  179. Inventing plausible explanations ("plausibilities") is especially pronounced in those who are at [but remain under] the threshold of awareness of being a relentlessly farmed animal.
  180.  
  181.  
  182.  
  183. _Anyway!_
  184.  
  185.  
  186.  
  187. There are many other oddities about the alleged "TransAsia" event. Taken individually they can be dismissed. *Broken down into indivisible pieces and examined individually almost anything nefarious can be dismissed as innocent.*
  188.  
  189.  
  190.  
  191. Suppose you have a survey that accurately determines whether someone is a "psychopath" or not. Each of us would surely tick a few of the boxes - _some of us maybe more_ - but that remains nothing to worry about. *It is only when all or most of the boxes are ticked that there is cause for concern!*
  192.  
  193.  
  194.  
  195. A grain of sand does not a heap make. But when all are put together - as an aggregate - it forms an undeniable heap.
  196.  
  197.  
  198.  
  199. The digital tampering - of which I pointed out only two from several potential examples - is just one metaphorical "grain of sand" that in aggregate forms an undeniable heap.
  200.  
  201.  
  202.  
  203. And with the "TransAsia" event - in total - I suggest we can justify having doubts that a plane really did crash into a filthy little river as it had been presented.
  204.  
  205.  
  206.  
  207. To have examined the event and be aware of its *many* oddities and yet have no doubt that it was a real plane crash - is a sign of someone who is either naïve, unobservant, unintelligent, in denial or downright dishonest.
  208.  
  209.  
  210.  
  211. There will be some more videos to come in this series!
  212.  
  213.  
  214.  
  215. __________________________________________
  216. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
  217. https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg
  218.  
  219. Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
  220. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
  221.  
  222. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
  223. https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1
  224.  
  225. Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
  226. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
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!