House Stenographer Appears to Get Hypnotized Before 'Freemason' Rant

The message played is useless I want to hear what she said into the microphone, if the audio was ripped from the elevator as the presenter suggests.

She was given an instruction, that's for sure - almost militaristic in it's execution.

Imagine if she was instructed to type history that was not actually being spoken!

angelchemuel

Maghda
reply to post by angelchemuel

 

It's interesting, does look like a set up event rather than unbalanced individuals outburst.

As a clinical therapist, what stuck out to me was the womans body language as she got up and walked to the podium, just the first few seconds, her body language speaks volumes when she walks away from him....like she's in a trance/robotic. Have a look at that part again, I hope you can see what I mean.

Rainbows
Jane

I Believe the man and the other woman next to her gave her hypnotic suggestions to prompt her to go up to the podium. Most people when they walk will be aware of their surrounding and often look at their foot steps, and at things nearby. You see it in all the other people around her. She walks with her head straight forward almost like a soldier would in drill formation.

In recent months there have been other individuals who claim that radio waves were being sent into their minds. She could be a victim of this perhaps along with that man coming to her and with a simple three nods made her respond to a preset hypnotic suggestion.

Check out the phrase "voice of god weapon." It is possible to send messages into a persons brain with them thinking they are hearing a voice.

Something is going on. I just wonder what she actually said at the podium.

reply to post by ShaeTheShaman


We must always be ready for the truth!

This is really weird, thanks for the thread. I noticed the audio being off from the video the first time I saw it but couldn't make any sense of it then either.. The lady in the vid makes a good presentation. Now I'm even more confused..

Good catch OP, Kudos to the lady in the vid who caught all of this... Strange to say the least!

reply to post by angelchemuel


There are 2 problems i have with the claims made in this video.

1. the lady narrating claims that there are two separate videos and the second one has sound dubbed over it taken from another bit of film by an elevator. Well i listened to the first video on full volume and even though its very difficult to make out the individual words that she said she does seem to be saying exactly the same as in the second video that the lady is claiming has dubbed sound.

2. Why does it have to hypnosis against her will? Occam's razor suggests that this is the least likely thing to happen as there are all sorts off more likely explanations

-The guy might have had nothing to do with her or what happened.
-She could have just been told something that made her snap at that point.
-She might have been a willing part of something organized.

reply to post by angelchemuel


When we have a conversation with another person in a loud room, our ears become more attuned to their voice so we can better pick their voice out of a crowd. It's extremely strange that the guy would immediately start texting after the conversation and ignore her outburst. The most probable response to such a thing would be to note it and react, typically with shock. His reacting has the greatest probability because a. he just spoke with her and b. the tendency towards shock (unless one is in cahootz--staged event) would cause them to stand, staring. But the video linked in this post shows that he, instead of reacting, is instead checking his phone so that's absolutely weird.

However, let's look at the actual C-SPAN video:

www.c-spanvideo.org...

At 41 seconds, you can see him lift his head and turn it towards the now shouting stenographer. In fact, it only takes him about 5 seconds from the moment she begins to shout and to the point where he lifts his head and turns it towards her.

It's really nice that Truthmedia went ahead and were very quick to point out that it was dubbed. However, they, too, are grossly misrepresenting something as well and that is that the man with the phone did not react. He did. Truthmedia is lying to you.

The video from the elevator area is very interesting, it has to be
considered, has anyone found a link to it seperately apart from
this Truth Media?

If the stenographer indeed went on a rant in front of camera
prior to the stage, what could have been happening
with the man is he told her something concerning the first
rant at the elevator area....

Imagine it could be something like...

"So and so has been made aware of your rant at the elevator, you need to go see so and so"

"Your going to catch it for your rant at the elevator in front of camera"....

reply to post by WhiteAlice


The video presentation in the OP does show the CSPAN video. It's not altered in any way. The guy does look in her direction in both videos, there is no difference so I have no idea what you are going on about.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole incident started on the house floor, where the mic would have been switched off by the speaker or one of his minions, if it was on we would have heard what the stenographer was saying. The second vid is of the stenographer at the lift AFTER her first rant on the podium.

If the above is the case, then why switch the mic off? What was the purpose of her rant? As stenographer she would have known the mic would get switched off if an 'uneliagable' person took the podium.

Rainbows
Jane

Being a stenographer, why didn't she merely "type" her rant into the notes she was taking??

The interaction with the gentleman before she left for the podium was interesting though. His reaction was as well. Sure he looked up for a second but if someone who you'd just personally-interacted with went on to spontaneously exhibit strange behavior, wouldn't you take more than a glancing notice of them?

burntheships
The video from the elevator area is very interesting, it has to be
considered, has anyone found a link to it seperately apart from
this Truth Media?

If the stenographer indeed went on a rant in front of camera
prior to the stage, what could have been happening
with the man is he told her something concerning the first
rant at the elevator area....

Imagine it could be something like...

"So and so has been made aware of your rant at the elevator, you need to go see so and so"

"Your going to catch it for your rant at the elevator in front of camera"....

The rant at the elevator was not prior to the "stage"! The rant at the elevator was a continuation of the rant on the "stage" that was captured by the media's recording devices as security was escorting her off the floor due to her rant.

Wookiep
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

The video presentation in the OP does show the CSPAN video. It's not altered in any way. The guy does look in her direction in both videos, there is no difference so I have no idea what you are going on about.

The premise in the Truthmedia video is that the man does not react to the stenographer. If you had actually watched the original C-SPAN video, you would realize that he absolutely does react to her within 5 seconds of her beginning her rant.

just spit balling here,

i read on page one, where a member mentioned james morgan.
so i did a search on him, found out he is the representative, from the 8th congressional district of va., and he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

when i read that, this clicked in my mind.
knowing that langly va is part of mclean va, and is only six miles from arlington where he lives. and is in the same congressional district, and the cia headquarters is in langly, and the suggestion that she was hypnotized, and all the talk of cia and mind control.

could the cia have their very own congressional representative. could he be just one of their sleepers.
is not as far far fetched as some theories i've seen here.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I watched the entire video "clip" of 1:41 late Thursday night, then several times Friday and a couple more times Saturday. Alice you are correct when you say he did react, he did about 5 seconds into it and only glances at her once he does react, it's a passing glance. If you notice all the other people (aside from grey jacket lady) not only look up at Diane, the ones who are sitting stare and the ones who are standing gather around the podium. Meanwhile this guy, who was on his phone within seconds of her standing up, gives a passing glance at her, the room and then back to his phone he goes.

This whole thing has smelled of haddock from the start, and Diane Reidy's rant was far from the start! I'd say the Navy yard shooting was the starting point for whatever this fishy smell is! Her rant won't be the last though, mark my words... something wicked this way comes.

WhiteAlice

Wookiep
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

The video presentation in the OP does show the CSPAN video. It's not altered in any way. The guy does look in her direction in both videos, there is no difference so I have no idea what you are going on about.

The premise in the Truthmedia video is that the man does not react to the stenographer. If you had actually watched the original C-SPAN video, you would realize that he absolutely does react to her within 5 seconds of her beginning her rant.

I think the premise (which I believe is also the premise of the OP) is that the lady was talking to the guy, then stops what she is doing then walks up to the podium. As she walks off, the guy immediately sends a text message. The presenter of the OP's video states that when she starts ranting, he is still texting, which is true. Everything to this point is strange, hence the discussion here. Also the audio given by the media did not match the moment on the podium. The fact that he looked in her direction after this moment is not refuted, in fact it is expected. Also, we ARE talking about the original CSPAN video, which is included in the OP's video. It's the EXACT same video.

I'm not trying to come down on you, but I think it's important to understand the premise of the OP without trying to scream "misinfo!" when there is no misinfo in this video. The presentation in the OP was made well, and allows for discussion about what was actually said on the podium.. and it's important that we understand that nothing was left out from the original CSPAN video.

i'm not buying the hypnosis thing. i think ti's exactly what it looks like. she is having a mental breakdown. she and her husband have both come out and said she's hearing voices (of god) talking to her and telling her what to say. pretty much like the first signs of schizophrenia which commonly onsets in a persons 30's -40's. unfortunately, she wound up on national TV with her breakdown....

reply to post by Wookiep


I disagree. He does not simply glance up at her and look away. There is one moment where he does glance away but, for the rest of the video, he is watching what she is doing until she's dragged off. Then he turns to the men closest to him and says something. Watch it again.

Now, that isn't to say that their little exchange isn't interesting. It is. I'd love to have been a speck on her papers to hear just what it was that he said to her in the moments before her rant or why he was looking at his phone. As to the premise that she was hypnotized, her movement was strange but we don't know what her normal gait is. As far as burning one's own career, well, if there was a nice tidy paycheck for it, why not?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


You're making an argument based on the guys reaction, which we don't actually disagree with each other on entirely. The only thing I can say and slightly disagree with you regarding that is the fact that yes he DOES look in her direction and continues to do so while she is dragged away, I can't say I think it's anything more than that. However, we can't speculate much on his reaction because his back is turned to us nearly the entire time. In fact in the original CSPAN vid, the one that you linked, he doesn't even look our way until about 5 seconds before the end of the clip.

The point is, his reaction is the same in both the original CSPAN video and the video presented in the OP, (because it's the same video) and it no way takes away from the credibility of the OP's video.