'Energy Attacks' on US Soil?

[Machismo]

Nope, but you've already chosen that is the case, and I could write an entire book on why I said something wrong and all the acts of where that came from, and it wouldn't matter, you are not interested in explanation, you are only interested in submission. And I'll never give that to you, because it only reinforces that terrible habit of yours.

So I'll repeat; go chase someone else, I have literally no interest in your inane blaming habit and relentless vapid intelligent, gotchas.

Here's the thing, you are trying to say your comment was no longer true... but it was never true.

This is an attempt to hedge your nonsense, and retaliate as if you have any argument at all.

[Howel]

Here's the thing, you are trying to say your comment was no longer true... but it was never true.

Go chase someone else, I have literally no interest in your inane blaming habit and relentless vapid intelligent, gotchas.

[Machismo]

Go chase someone else, I have literally no interest in your inane blaming habit and relentless vapid intelligent, gotchas.

It's great that you admit you were completely wrong, and shouldn't have been speaking from a position of such ignorance. I accept your apology for trying to hedge after being caught pushing the misinformation.

[Howel]

-Posts completely incorrect information

-Becomes hostile when confronted about said incorrect information

-Derails thread defending why it's okay to be wrong and an asshole. All while claiming not to care

Yea you are going to fit in here just fine

I can certainly see why so many people have left over the years, it takes like one blunder and an ill tempered response, and you are public enemy number one. I guess one just has to let it flood over one, and run with the river

- - - Updated - - -

It's great that you admit you were completely wrong, and shouldn't have been speaking from a position of such ignorance. I accept your apology for trying to hedge after being caught pushing the misinformation.

Pushing misinformation...

Good lord, you are literally insane. I misremembered something and acted a bit too quick to relay that information, and didn't even try and argue that it was wrong when someone said it was.

[cubby]

Yeah, yeah, go chase someone else, I have literally no interest in your inane blaming habit and relentless vapid intelligent, gotchas.

I was wrong, I've said that all along. But I am not gonna do some penance, as if I slighted anyone because I said something that was no longer true.

But see, we all knew you wouldn't apologize - even a quick and quirky "my bad". All of us solid posters have done that, we've all been wrong in the past, and we've all owned up to it. You haven't, you won't, and you never will - and worse, you tried to squirrel out of it at the end.

@Machismo is entirely correct. You shitposted from a position entirely devoid of thought, with a link literally in the post you quoted from, that would have shown you wrong. And when it was pointed out to you, what was your response? You certainly didn't disappoint our expectations.

[Howel]

But see, we all knew you wouldn't apologize - even a quick and quirky "my bad". All of us solid posters have done that, we've all been wrong in the past, and we've all owned up to it. You haven't, you won't, and you never will - and worse, you tried to squirrel out of it at the end.

@Machismo is entirely correct. You shitposted from a position entirely devoid of thought, with a link literally in the post you quoted from, that would have shown you wrong. And when it was pointed out to you, what was your response? You certainly didn't disappoint our expectations.

Seeing as I have literally done so in the past, that's hilarious. Wanna know why I don't here? Because I was insulted because someone went full ham and then demanding an apology. If you had just said, hey that's wrong, it is there in the text, I would have apologized no problem.

Now, I also acted very poorly, that is on me, I can be ill tempered when I see something as a slight. But holy heck, you are now trying to call it pushing misinformation and shitposting; when I made a human error of stating old facts that have been outdated as a prevelant theory, and now has to just brush that off, grit my teeth and bend the knee? I am sorry, but that's pushing people into a corner, with very little reason to do so.

Oh and please don't act as if "you knew", that's not normal decorum for me, which if you did know me, you'd know.

[Lynarii]

Yes I wonder if the effects on personnel is just the side effect and not the intent. Incidents appear to relate to installations/locations so maybe its an easily portable (stick in a van or aim out a window) active emitter for localised high resolution mapping. Aim it out an apartment window at the Embassy to map out the interiors, identify and track individuals inside. "metal plate in left knee man and man with glasses and 3 fillings has gone to the crypotographic office again".

I kinda agree that it is most likely to be something along these lines. The fact of the matter is that as an intentional weapon, it makes VERY little sense. If the US ever determined that a foreign power was firing weapons upon their diplomats and support staff at an embassy, that's an act of war. Neither China or Russia are stupid enough to do something like that without an overwhelmingly important strategic goal in mind, and the fact that nothing of significance seems to have come out of any of this suggests that simply isn't the case.

[cubby]

Seeing as I have literally done so in the past, that's hilarious. Wanna know why I don't here? Because I was insulted because someone went full ham and then demanding an apology. If you had just said, hey that's wrong, it is there in the text, I would have apologized no problem. You are the only one that "acted poorly" - but it's adorable you're trying the 'both sides' argument.

You mean if we had asked you to read what was linked in evidence to the statement that was made? Are you confused about how forum posts work.

Now, I also acted very poorly, that is on me, I can be ill tempered when I see something as a slight. But holy heck, you are now trying to call it pushing misinformation and shitposting; when I made a human error of stating old facts that have been outdated as a prevelant theory, and now has to just brush that off, grit my teeth and bend the knee? I am sorry, but that's pushing people into a corner, with very little reason to do so.

You are the only one that "acted poorly" - but it's adorable you're trying the 'both sides' argument.

Oh and please don't act as if "you knew", that's not normal decorum for me, which if you did know me, you'd know.

And yet I called it spot on - weird, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

I kinda agree that it is most likely to be something along these lines. The fact of the matter is that as an intentional weapon, it makes VERY little sense. If the US ever determined that a foreign power was firing weapons upon their diplomats and support staff at an embassy, that's an act of war. Neither China or Russia are stupid enough to do something like that without an overwhelmingly important strategic goal in mind, and the fact that nothing of significance seems to have come out of any of this suggests that simply isn't the case.

I think the attacks certainly appear to be deliberate - especially how it's affecting U.S. diplomatic personnel in more than one country (Cuba & U.S - there might be more). Would be really interesting if it ever got tied back to a country. The only weird thing to me is why are they doing this - like what is the point, aside from the obvious disruption and putting the U.S. on the defensive.

[Howel]

And yet I called it spot on - weird, huh?

Nope. I do apologize for being quick to state something that was no longer a theory, hence being wrong and not do my due diligence in reading the post, and also for saying some mean things to you.

You gonna admit to being wrong about calling it?

[cubby]

Nope. I do apologize for being quick to state something that was no longer a theory, hence being wrong and not do my due diligence in reading the post, and also for saying some mean things to you.

Much appreciated - I have been on the very same page as you a number of times, so I know exactly how that can go.

You gonna admit to being wrong about calling it?

(read this with some humor, please - it's well intended)
I don't know how to answer this...I'm comfortable admitting I'm wrong, but in this thread, with this interaction, didn't I call it? Help me out here - are you saying that I was wrong because you typically don't respond this way, so my comment was incorrect because usually discussion don't go down this path with you, even though this one did? If I'm understanding here - and I seem to be on a journey of discovery on my own as I'm writing this - the reason you responded that way this time is because most/all of the other times you don't, so when someone incorrectly called you on it, you responded out of character.

Am I close here?

[PACOX]

I kinda agree that it is most likely to be something along these lines. The fact of the matter is that as an intentional weapon, it makes VERY little sense. If the US ever determined that a foreign power was firing weapons upon their diplomats and support staff at an embassy, that's an act of war. Neither China or Russia are stupid enough to do something like that without an overwhelmingly important strategic goal in mind, and the fact that nothing of significance seems to have come out of any of this suggests that simply isn't the case.

It's as much a war crime as other acts of espionage. There are certain 'games' that are played between the countries, this would be one of them. As long it's not overly blatant, they aren't targetting VIPs/civilians, no one is seriously hurt, its 'fair'. The US retaliates by expelling some foreign nationals or hacking something.

[Lynarii]

It's as much a war crime as other acts of espionage. There are certain 'games' that are played between the countries, this would be one of them. As long it's not overly blatant, they aren't targetting VIPs/civilians, no one is seriously hurt, its 'fair'. The US retaliates by expelling some foreign nationals or hacking something.

I mean, the targets have included some VIPs and civilian staff and permanent career-ending debilitation qualifies as 'seriously hurt' in my books. That's like saying that shooting a civilian in the head is 'fair' if it doesn't kill them, which generally is not considered to be the case.

[Shalcker]

"Explanation" looks quite contorted; no examples of such devices being used are provided. "Trust us, they probably have them! No, we cannot show any."

I guess either details aren't shared because such device is trivial in modern day and so would invite a lot of copycat attacks (plenty of orgs aren't happy with Americans), or there are no such devices known to be used but dangling possibility of "enemy attack" explanation allows to get some benefits.

Some skepticism on "energy weapon" version is probably warranted.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll easily admit to be wrong, and that I am behind on the facts in this matter; but I am sure as heck not going to apologies to some internet rando, seeing as what I wrote is a thing that happens, and was the leading theory for a time.

The recordings embassy staff made was crickets - that didn't change at all.

Later report didn't prove "directed energy attack".

The committee finds that many of the acute, sudden-onset, early phase signs, symptoms and observations reported by DOS employees are consistent with RF effects. In addition, many of the chronic, nonspecific symptoms are also consistent with known RF effects, such as dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, anxiety, cognitive deficits, and memory loss. It is not necessary for RF energy sources to produce gross structural damage to cause symptoms. Rather, as with the Frey effect or potential thermoelastic pressure waves, RF sources may trigger symptoms by transiently inducing alterations in brain functioning.
There are several types of data that would be helpful and could improve both the findings and their level of certainty. While there are several studies on the health effects of continuous wave and pulsed RF sources, there are insufficient data in the open literature on potential RF exposure/dosage characteristics and biological effects possible for DOS scenarios. Specific experiments would be needed with RF exposure and dosage characteristics (frequency, pulse repetition frequency, pulse width, incident angle between potential source and subject, duration of exposure, number of repeated exposures, etc.) to quantify the biological effects, but would be ethically difficult to justify. In the absence of such data, it is difficult to align specific biophysical effects within the potential RF exposure regime that could explain specific medical symptoms reported by DOS personnel and the variability in specific experiences and timelines of individualsp.

Very same report used similar language when assessing possibility of poisoning too:
With regards to the overlap of symptoms between chemical exposures and the Havana cases, epidemiologic and clinical studies have linked occupational or environmental chemical (including OP and pyrethroid insecticide) exposures to a subset of the distinctive early phase symptoms and many of the nonspecific chronic problems suffered by some of the U.S. Embassy Havana cases (see Appendix D). (even if they found acute exposure to be unlikely as a source).

Nothing actually changed. Biden's agencies taking a look at it again isn't proof that there is something behind it.

[jonnysensible]

snip

this part seems pretty important

But what is so striking about Beck’s case is that its origins were two decades earlier – and that it produced official confirmation more than eight years ago that such weapons had been developed by America’s adversaries.

That raises more questions about why the CIA and state department were so reluctant to believe their own officers could have been targeted by such weapons when cases appeared in Cuba and then China in 2018 and elsewhere around the world.

“The reality is that this has been an intelligence community issue for decades,” said Mark Zaid, a lawyer representing both Beck and Havana Syndrome victims.

An NSA statement declassified in 2014 for Beck’s work injury compensation case stated: “The National Security Agency confirms that there is intelligence information from 2012 associating the hostile country to which Mr Beck traveled in the late 1990’s, with a high powered microwave system weapon that may have the ability to weaken, intimidate or kill an enemy, over time, and without leaving evidence.

“The 2012 intelligence information indicated that this weapon is designed to bathe a target’s living quarters in microwaves, causing numerous physical effects, including a damaged nervous system.”

[Shalcker]

this part seems pretty important

Is the fact that biological weapons were developed for many years means any given epidemic is result of one such program?

Does the fact that "there was intelligence about it" means that this unspecified thing with unspecified capabilities from 1990s is in use now?

CIA and State Department are "reluctant" because they know their employees (and people they get intelligence from) can bullshit them for plenty of reasons (like with unsupported/debunked "Afghan bounties" story), and given no independent confirmation cannot be relied upon.

Have you checked even ballpark range of how powerful such emitter would have to be to go through walls?

"May have an ability" doesn't sound like high confidence.

[Howel]

(read this with some humor, please - it's well intended)
I don't know how to answer this...I'm comfortable admitting I'm wrong, but in this thread, with this interaction, didn't I call it? Help me out here - are you saying that I was wrong because you typically don't respond this way, so my comment was incorrect because usually discussion don't go down this path with you, even though this one did? If I'm understanding here - and I seem to be on a journey of discovery on my own as I'm writing this - the reason you responded that way this time is because most/all of the other times you don't, so when someone incorrectly called you on it, you responded out of character.

Am I close here?

That's about as close as one can explain it, yes. You basically hit my pride, on a particularly bad IRL day, so I angered and lashed out, because I felt slighted.

[Easo]

Cuba comes to mind.

So tell me Shalcker, what exactly happened to US diplomats in Cuba, in your opinion?

[cubby]

That's about as close as one can explain it, yes. You basically hit my pride, on a particularly bad IRL day, so I angered and lashed out, because I felt slighted.

Well shit man, you and I should have already seen each other at the meetings - I have been there and done that my friend.

Back on topic: did you see that the CIA is briefing lawmakers on what they are calling the "energy attacks"?

[Howel]

Well shit man, you and I should have already seen each other at the meetings - I have been there and done that my friend.

Glad we resolved this curfumble

[Shalcker]

So tell me Shalcker, what exactly happened to US diplomats in Cuba, in your opinion?

How would i know? Do i look like international investigator?

Quoting "An Assessment of Illness in U.S. Government Employees and Their Families at Overseas Embassies - A Consensus Study Report":
Clarity about the nature of the illnesses that first began to affect DOS employees in Cuba in 2016 and subsequently in China, and the causative mechanism(s), remains elusive. What is clear is that a distinct set of unusual clinical manifestations occurred abruptly in some individuals at the onset of their illness, and that the illness became chronic and debilitating for some, but not for all individuals. It is also clear that there is significant heterogeneity among a larger population of affected employees; some did not experience the distinct set of manifestations at onset, and some have had only nonspecific common manifestations. This heterogeneity may reflect evolution of the illness over time, multiple mechanisms at play within and between individuals, and the varying methods used to investigate these individuals at different clinical study sites.
Among the plausible mechanisms that the committee considered, directed radio frequency (RF) energy, especially in those with the distinct early manifestations, appears most germane, along with persistent postural perceptual dizziness (PPPD) as a secondary reinforcing mechanism, as well as the additive effects of psychological conditions. The committee cannot rule out other possible mechanisms (see Section 4), and again, considers it likely that a multiplicity of factors explains some cases and the differences between others. Commencement of appropriate neurological rehabilitation methods early in these illnesses, even without a diagnosis, would have been helpful.

Even US scientists that should had all information available to them cannot reach any definitive conclusion.

Their recommendation is basically "gather more data on more events if they happen again, respond faster to any health problems even if you have no idea why they happen".