That's what I was thinking, it's a subliminal trigger. We know that there is no such thing as coincidence, and this was absolutely not one. She pushed her way to the front past everyone to touch his hand for a fraction of a second. Kind of like "when I snap my fingers, you will fall into a deep sleep" kind of thing.
Post-hypnotic command. That's what it looks like to me.
I looked at it a few times (what crappy resolution!) and though it does appear that she has an object in her hand as she's reaching out towards him, that object completely disappears when she pulls her hand back. I believe that the "object" is just a glitch and she used her hand to touch his.
What I also found interesting is how the guy directly behind the hands sort of leans in and motions with his hand, as well, as if he's acknowledging what she was doing. Also, he's worth watching after McConnell freezes. Watch the expression on his face change! Is he someone or is he just security?
That's because the friendly version only works on willing participants. If you want to enslave someone you have to break their will, and the more permanent the enslavement needs to be, the more permanent the psychological damage needs to be.
I saw it with Bill Clinton in one of the videos where a woman was putting make up on him and he was completely out like looking no where. Was he hypnotize or was a bot?
I've zoned out on a haircut I'd assume you could do the same for makeup.
But if you are curious you should binge some hypnotism videos online. Most don't show you the "induction"(the process of getting somebody in a bit of a trance to accept the triggers/cues) but you'll get an idea.
I think the object is concealed in her fist and what's actually touching him is a needle. Possibly an epi-pen. Remember Hillary had that guy who turned out to be a physician standing by at her speeches? I wonder if she thought he was having a seizure and jabbed him
You don't "know" there is "no such thing as coincidence." That would mean the impossibility of random events, but they are all around us. The motion of gas molecules is random, according to the kinetic theory of gases, which predicts the gas laws to an accuracy that is unmatched. If the motions were not random, there would be an error between the theory and measurement. So, the existence of randomness in nature (i.e., coincidence) is proven by falsification of the opposite theory.
But that says nothing about the present event, which mainly is mysterious. (I go to the link, but the embedded videos don't run for me.)
And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
That's what I was thinking, it's a subliminal trigger. We know that there is no such thing as coincidence, and this was absolutely not one. She pushed her way to the front past everyone to touch his hand for a fraction of a second. Kind of like "when I snap my fingers, you will fall into a deep sleep" kind of thing.
Post-hypnotic command. That's what it looks like to me.
I looked at it a few times (what crappy resolution!) and though it does appear that she has an object in her hand as she's reaching out towards him, that object completely disappears when she pulls her hand back. I believe that the "object" is just a glitch and she used her hand to touch his.
What I also found interesting is how the guy directly behind the hands sort of leans in and motions with his hand, as well, as if he's acknowledging what she was doing. Also, he's worth watching after McConnell freezes. Watch the expression on his face change! Is he someone or is he just security?
Mkultra is a basically a torture version of the nice hypnotism you are used to seeing on the TVs.
That's because the friendly version only works on willing participants. If you want to enslave someone you have to break their will, and the more permanent the enslavement needs to be, the more permanent the psychological damage needs to be.
I saw it with Bill Clinton in one of the videos where a woman was putting make up on him and he was completely out like looking no where. Was he hypnotize or was a bot?
I've zoned out on a haircut I'd assume you could do the same for makeup.
But if you are curious you should binge some hypnotism videos online. Most don't show you the "induction"(the process of getting somebody in a bit of a trance to accept the triggers/cues) but you'll get an idea.
https://youtu.be/ij4PCohCJhw
I think the object is concealed in her fist and what's actually touching him is a needle. Possibly an epi-pen. Remember Hillary had that guy who turned out to be a physician standing by at her speeches? I wonder if she thought he was having a seizure and jabbed him
First of all, you don't jab someone on their hand, and second, he was fine until the moment she touched him.
You don't "know" there is "no such thing as coincidence." That would mean the impossibility of random events, but they are all around us. The motion of gas molecules is random, according to the kinetic theory of gases, which predicts the gas laws to an accuracy that is unmatched. If the motions were not random, there would be an error between the theory and measurement. So, the existence of randomness in nature (i.e., coincidence) is proven by falsification of the opposite theory.
But that says nothing about the present event, which mainly is mysterious. (I go to the link, but the embedded videos don't run for me.)
Welcome to Great Awakening, a forum where we discuss things from the perspective of Q, an author who used this terminology.
And where Q, a human being, will always have a tendency to speak loosely to make a point. Maybe if restricted to the realm of politics, the idea becomes more real. That is a possibility. But to take it as a global truth...not even remotely close. I find the validity of Q to be found in the explanations, not the metaphysics.
I notice you did not address the hard, empirical, fact- and logic-based disproof of "there are no coincidences" and instead substituted an appeal to authority, the first of all argumentative fallacies. You have to watch your moves in the mirror to see when you are awkward.
It's not an appeal to authority to mention hard facts about the context of the conversation.
That's how I saw it, but like everything else I could be wrong about, I could be wrong.
Any. Chicken clucks?