API tools faq
paste
Lesta

14 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-27 1355 +Patyx

Lesta
Feb 26th, 2016
63
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 9.83 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Lesta Nediam LNC2016-02-27 1355 +Patyx
  2. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/bT77q23tPp9
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nObGH71j3z4&google_comment_id=z13pgrsibtnluxmev23ahpaygxbdvhprp04
  4. https://pastebin.com/xfxhutsd
  5. standard reply
  6. __
  7.  
  8.  
  9. +Patyx __ Hey dummy. *No one disputes that there is a bright light that can be seen from Earth that is consistently referred to as the "ISS".*
  10.  
  11.  
  12.  
  13. What is being disputed is that *discernible details* can ALSO be seen.
  14.  
  15.  
  16.  
  17. You SAY that you can make out details with "strong binoculars". And we should just trust some random stranger on the Internet because... uh, "reasons"?
  18.  
  19.  
  20.  
  21. *Would you believe me if I told you I once saw a yeti through powerful binoculars?*
  22.  
  23.  
  24.  
  25. What? You wouldn't?! But I can tell you all about its fur! I SAW A YETI! I PROMISE! *WHY WOULD I LIE ABOUT IT?*
  26.  
  27.  
  28.  
  29. Let me guess - you sill don't believe me? _Damn._
  30.  
  31.  
  32.  
  33. Let me guess some more: *YOU HAVE NEVER YOURSELF TAKEN SOME "STRONG BINOCULARS" AND SNAPPED A PHOTO OF THE "ISS" SHOWING DISCERNIBLE DETAILS.*
  34.  
  35.  
  36.  
  37. You haven't have you? *_Damn._*
  38.  
  39.  
  40.  
  41. So what the f_kc are you doing here stinking up this thread?
  42.  
  43.  
  44.  
  45. Let me put the situation into words that even you might be able to understand:
  46.  
  47.  
  48.  
  49. >>> *You are expecting complete strangers on the Internet to believe that another complete stranger on the Internet has photographed something that would be very difficult to photograph even if it were real but yet would be very easily faked via CGI.* <<<
  50.  
  51.  
  52.  
  53. Do you even understand? We often see people lament on astronomy forums: *"I have spent years trying to photograph the 'ISS' with details but haven't had any success".* But yet some people just happen to magically obtain success on their first go!
  54.  
  55.  
  56.  
  57. Amazing!
  58.  
  59.  
  60.  
  61. That something admittedly difficult to do is so easily achieved by some people!
  62.  
  63.  
  64.  
  65. And you don't suspect CGI?
  66.  
  67.  
  68.  
  69. You don't suspect CGI because there are some people on the Internet who are suggesting that the bright light (which no one denies) isn't really filled with little men and women who are living, breathing, eating, sh!tting (though not really showering) in a permanent micro/zero-gravity environment?
  70.  
  71.  
  72.  
  73. And because of those crazy "conspiracy theorists" you find yourself eager to rush in and accept EVERY photo and video showing details as being genuine?!
  74.  
  75.  
  76.  
  77. Pay attention dummy: You so badly want to believe that you live in a world with a real and manned "ISS" - _rather than more simply a world that lies about one._ You are willing to overlook the fact dishonest people would be attracted to this topic as a way to obtain instant kudos and cheap praise by posting a CGI version of the "ISS" for people like you to fawn over.
  78.  
  79.  
  80.  
  81. __
  82.  
  83.  
  84.  
  85. Let me put it another way: *Suppose I were to post a video to my channel of the alleged "ISS".* Given your "skeptical" (i.e., hateful) attitude toward me *would you immediately believe that what I had posted was real?*
  86.  
  87.  
  88.  
  89. Would you believe I posted something authentic?
  90.  
  91.  
  92.  
  93. Or would you be inclined to think I had somehow cheated and used CGI?
  94.  
  95.  
  96.  
  97. *You would be suspicious.* And so it's fascinating that you aren't at all suspicious of anyone else. In your mind can none of them be lying? Really?!
  98.  
  99.  
  100.  
  101. Let me ask you: *do you think that every image or video of the alleged "ISS" as seen from Earth showing "discernible details" that has been posted to the Internet or uploaded to YouTube is genuine and authentic?*
  102.  
  103.  
  104.  
  105. _You must!_
  106.  
  107.  
  108.  
  109. *Why do you suppose "Reds Rhetoric" won't personally vouch for any of the existing footage of the alleged "ISS" from Earth showing discernible details?*
  110.  
  111.  
  112.  
  113. Oh - is it really just because Lesta will "auto-reject" it? Is that it? For what it's worth - I won't auto-reject something unless it is actually fake. But even if I were to - so what? So what if I do anyway? *What does it matter?* If I am rejecting something that is real and genuine then how can that make anyone else look bad except myself?!
  114.  
  115.  
  116.  
  117. And what if one of "Reds Rhetoric's" followers were to ask for such footage instead of me? Would "Reds Rhetoric" then fulfil the reasonable request and provide some footage that he personally vouches for as genuine? Or is he now in a position where he will never vouch for any other footage because it might be Lesta who is behind the request?!
  118.  
  119.  
  120.  
  121. Does it really make such a difference that it is Lesta who is asking for the footage he personally vouches for?
  122.  
  123.  
  124.  
  125. Really?
  126.  
  127.  
  128.  
  129. Tell me - *why do you suppose "NASA" don't post any such images of the "ISS" with details to their own "spotthestation" website?*
  130.  
  131.  
  132.  
  133. Why do you suppose they always link instead to an external "amateur astronomer"? *Hint: it is done for plausible deniability.* "NASA" are not going to show any such photos *if they know they're all fake!* But yet if they show none then it would be very suspicious! Thus they are forced to link to external "astronomers". That way if and when the images they have linked to are found to be fraudulent "NASA" can say, *"We are shocked! It is obvious a very good forgery - it fooled us! - It looks just like the real thing! It is not easy to photograph the 'ISS' and so he must have been desperate for the kudos and praise!"
  134.  
  135.  
  136.  
  137. After all - "National Geographic" have in the past posted fraudulent images to their magazine. On occasion such fake images have even graced the front cover! But in the case of "NASA" and the "ISS" there is a huge difference. "National Geographic" likely didn't know the images were fake whereas "NASA" do. "NASA" *KNOW* that *ALL* of the images with details are *necessarily* fake. *So they have to be very careful with how they go about presenting such images.* They need plausible deniability at all times. And if you look into the history of those who have had their "ISS photos" featured *you may find criminal backgrounds and links to other kinds of moral deviancy.*
  138.  
  139.  
  140.  
  141. Hasn't it occurred to you as odd that by now there are no photos of the "ISS" with details as taken by a loved one of an "astronaut" as the alleged "ISS" whizzed past overhead? *If you had a parent, sibling or child who was an "astronaut" aboard the alleged "ISS" don't you think you might want to take a photo of them as they go overhead?!*
  142.  
  143.  
  144.  
  145. Of course you would.
  146.  
  147.  
  148.  
  149. Though of course it might not occur to a low IQ loser to do such a thing. *But surely after more than 15 years it would have occurred to just ONE parent, sibling or child.*
  150.  
  151.  
  152.  
  153. But yet there are no such photos.
  154.  
  155.  
  156.  
  157. *You haven't thought this through.*
  158.  
  159.  
  160.  
  161. You are hating on me because you BELIEVE it is real and manned and that no one would lie to you about it. Because you believe it is real you are assuming it CAN be see with details and you are thus overlooking the fact that dishonest people are attracted to this topic for the cheap praise and instant kudos.
  162.  
  163.  
  164.  
  165. *PROOF: I bet you cannot point out a single fake image or video that has been posted online as genuine.* You can only point to videos where the uploader has indicated upfront that it is fake. *But you are powerless to call out as fake anything which is portrayed as genuine.*
  166.  
  167.  
  168.  
  169. Yet surely - _even if we were to assume the "ISS" is real_ - *you must acknowledge that there are fakes spread out amongst the real.* But you can't discern between them! You have no capacity to judge.
  170.  
  171.  
  172.  
  173. The only difference is that I have examined this issue carefully enough and scrutinised enough images/footage to be in a position to call them ALL forgeries. Whereas you have never thought deeply about this topic and because you believe it is real are stuck having to call it all real. So go ahead - point out one image or video posted to YouTube as genuine which you believe is fake. *You can't do it.* And you won't even dare because if you were to try you might soon realise they are ALL forgeries and that would mean revising your beliefs about the "ISS" and about the world itself.
  174.  
  175.  
  176.  
  177. You have never stopped to think why the purported crew spend such a goodly amount of their time talking to children (and to adults who have audiences of children) *rather than university students, engineers and actual researchers.*
  178.  
  179.  
  180.  
  181. It's because the alleged "ISS" is a platform for impressing beliefs upon children. We all grew up believing "astronauts" were amazing - the best of the best.
  182.  
  183.  
  184.  
  185. Perhaps everything that we would expect to see if it were real and manned is missing. *I suppose you think that the Chinese space station is real also?*
  186.  
  187.  
  188.  
  189. Have you even taken a look at the "Tiangone-1" space station? If you accept the "ISS" is real and manned then you must also accept THAT nonsense is real and manned!
  190.  
  191.  
  192.  
  193. After all - if it weren't real and manned then wouldn't the US say something? Wouldn't Japan say something? In your little head you believe there are "nations" and that they are all "separate and different". But they're not. They're all in cahoots. In your little head you believe the "Moon landings" were real because if they weren't then "Russia would have said so!" But using that same logic then the US (or Russia!) would call BS on the "Tiangong-1". But they haven't. In your head it must all be real!
  194.  
  195.  
  196.  
  197. You are hating on me for pointing obvious things out. *_Shame on you._*
  198.  
  199.  
  200.  
  201. Let me ask you once again: *HAVE YOU PERSONALLY SEEN THE ALLEGED "ISS" THROUGH "STRONG BINOCULARS" AND MADE OUT DISCERNIBLE DETAILS?*
  202.  
  203.  
  204.  
  205. _Of course you haven't._
  206.  
  207.  
  208.  
  209.  
  210. __________________________________________
  211. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
  212. https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg
  213.  
  214. Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
  215. https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ
  216.  
  217. Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
  218. https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1
  219.  
  220. Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
  221. 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!