5 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-25 0740 +Mitch Conner

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-01-25 0740 +Mitch Conner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCTgHE4PHGw&lc=z13scrz5elngzh3q204cczaovlfaungwxp40k
https://pastebin.com/tKwYSQ3b
__


+Mitch Conner [Yes, this is a *long* reply but I really hope you take the time to read it and reply. I ask just one question.] I am slowly making my way through your video. @ 10:40 - What is your explanation for the double flash? Not only do we see a SERIES of flashes (from memory there was a total of 5 or 6 in the brief duration of the clip that we actually got to see the "director" [as I named him] on the ground) there was also (and this is WHY I said what I said): *Two quick flashes in succession.*




A series of flashes is one thing. But a rapid DOUBLE FLASH is quite different. Something *had* to cause the flashes. Do you suppose he was getting text messages?! Maybe so! But TWO flashes - one rapidly after the other? *That needs an explanation IF you want to say it was a real event!*




Here's the thing: *if it was NOT a contrived scene then what "natural explanation" might it be?*




If I understand you properly you believe that the "Paris Attack" was a real event with some possibly fake bomb sounds let off at the football stadium? *(If I am speculating about the "director" then how are you not also speculating about the "bombs"?!)*




If you believe that this was a real event then you *cannot* see it as an orchestrated scene! Because to see the guy on the ground as a "director" would be a contradiction to your belief (if you were able to view him as a kind of "director" then you would not be able to view it as a "real event"). And so the idea of there being a "director" will be resisted - _that is to be anticipated._ But yet we objectively see a series of flashes including a double flash - *one from EACH hand.* _This is surely meaningful!_




And so IF you do not see it as an orchestrated scene then *HOW do you explain the SERIES of flashes which included a DOUBLE flash?!* I am asking you seriously - _I really want to know._




I have had this conversation with a few people and NONE of them have given me an explanation. This aspect of the event has led to "fights". I have had people strongly resist and fight me on this. I have had people DENY there was even a significant (meaningful) number of flashes (i.e., the total count was misrepresented as being lower - but we can objectively COUNT them!).




*Things simply do not magically flash without a reason!* _Something *had* to cause it!_




Here's something I thought was curious (which I am sure people unfamiliar with me will dismiss instantly): *After I posted my video pointing out what I called the "director" [because of the apparent signalling] the news media then showed that scene with a CENSORED region.*




But why? There was no gore there. _There was no violence there!_




*Did they censor it to create the impression it was a more bloody and violent scene?* _Possibly!_ But there's another convenient reason to censor that region: *so that the audience watching at home don't happen to notice the flashes of light.* By pixelating/censoring the scene it removed the series of flashes (and the double flash) from our view. We simply do not see it. Gone. If it was a contrived scene then *problem solved.*




Many people will see only the censored scene/footage. There was no reason to censor that footage. Ostensibly there was a guy injured on the ground (of course that is what we will be told is the explanation for the pixilation) but that claim does not stand up to scrutiny! *The guy on the ground was FINE!* How do we know? Because he not only rolled over - he sat upright upon his elbows. *He was playing possum.* That is even more reason to think he was positioned there intentionally and that is just one of several reasons I chose to refer to him as the "director".




By censoring a scene which did not need any censoring the person with the series of flashing lights (and a double flash) is now REMOVED from our vision and mind. *_How convenient!_*




*SUMMARY:* Either it was a REAL EVENT or it was a FABRICATED EVENT. If it was a fabricated event then the series of flashes could have been anything - they could very well have been SIGNALS. What those signals meant I cannot say. No one can say what they may have MEANT. *For to assign a meaning to the signals themselves WOULD be to speculate!* _I did not speculate._ I objectively observed a meaningful number of flashes and a double flash coming from a guy who was conveniently positioned on the ground but did not seem to be injured yet did not make an effort to get out of the way.




For these reasons I referred to the man on the ground as the "director". I do not know whether or not he really was a director or not. That is simply the name I gave to him. And if it was a contrived scene then he may very well have been the director. *I did not call him a "director" without some good reasons!* A series of flashes is one thing - *but a double flash is a another.* Along with him remaining positioned there while seemingly uninjured.




I am asking seriously: *Why would a seemingly uninjured man remain prone in the open like that - without making ANY effort to get out of the way - without anyone else attempting to help him - AND a series of flashes coming from him (with the double flash)?! I mention these things because I did not just call him a "director" for the fun of it. I did not speculate about WHAT the flashes meant. I simply observed that they did occur.




And based on their frequency I estimated that they appeared meaningful. (After all - flashes don't just occur by themselves! Something causes them! Every single one of them must have had an explanation!) These are the reasons why I chose the term "director". I was the only person to do so. And because if it was a contrived scene then it would be *that person* who is signalling. He was best positioned.




Does that mean the person I called the "director" was also controlling the flashes? *NO!* _That would be to speculate!_




It's possible he controlled the flashes and it's possible *someone else* observing the scene controlled the flashes. All I did was point out that with that man - laying prone - in the open - seemingly uninjured - seemed to be giving off a lot of flashes (plus a double flash)!




*I know I am being repetitive.* _I'll wrap this up and ask you the same question I have tried to ask others._




IF it was a REAL event then that was a REAL person on the ground. It means it is a real person on the ground who was objectively associated with a series of flashes PLUS a rapid "double flash". *And so it MUST have a "natural" explanation!* IF it's a REAL scene then something "natural" must have caused the flashes.




My question to you: _*What is your explanation for the series of flashes AND the double flash?*_




If the bombs at the football stadium were fake (i.e., perhaps audio played over the loudspeaker) *then what makes you think the guy on the ground wasn't also participating in some way?* (If it is okay for you to "speculate" about the bombs then why is it a problem if I call the guy on the ground a "director"?! I'm not asking that question - I am just pointing it out.)




Can anyone give me a "natural plausible explanation" for the series of flashing lights that includes a rapid "double flash" by the conveniently placed and seemingly uninjured man who made no effort to leave the scene and which the news would later pixilate the entire scene AFTER I had posted my video?!?!?!




______




At 11:35 you say, *_"If you won't listen to other ideas"_* - well, *I am listening!* _What are the other ideas?!_ I really want to know! What are the accepted theories for the flashes (and double flash)!




I understand that you're referring to Peekay but I am asking you! *What is your explanation?* It looks to me like signalling of some kind. What does it look like to you?! If you believe it was a real event then that scene HAD to be genuine because the shooting was taking place just inside. People were "fleeing". If it was a real event then what we saw HAD to be real. And so there must be a natural explanation for everything.




____




*As for Peekay and his ridiculous assertion that there were no bars for that the woman to be standing on:* That is of course NONSENSE. *She was DEFINITELY standing on bars.* _We can see them!_ Some months earlier Peekay had also posted the false claim that there were two takes at the alleged "Virginia Shooting". That is patently false. The fact it was never retracted left a bad impression on me. *That video which peddled DISINFORMATION [whether wittingly or unwittingly] and got over a quarter of a million views.*




I am not going to speculate(!) about what it might mean but I can objectively point out to you that when it comes to Peekay there seems to be a pattern! Either he is peddling disinformation or he is a worthless researcher. It's 2016 and I am not pandering to anyone any more.




I'll watch the rest of your video. Please don't take this (long!) comment the wrong way. I have moved on since that event and I never got a satisfactory explanation for what appeared to be signalling to me. What is your explanation?!



__________________________________________
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