Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Category: DEWs

  • Did MKUltra End—or Simply Change Shape?

    An intriguing infographic bearing the TargetedJustice.com name advances a provocative argument: MKUltra never truly ended; it evolved. Its timeline moves from Cold War experiments involving drugs, hypnosis, and sensory deprivation to alleged electromagnetic manipulation, remote neural monitoring, and artificial intelligence. The argument rests on a distinction between ending a named program and abandoning its objectives. However, while the graphic presents these developments as an established historical progression, its claims vary considerably in their supporting evidence.

    The starting point is documented. Congressional investigations exposed CIA-backed behavioral research involving unwitting human subjects, including covert drug testing. Many records were destroyed in 1973, leaving significant gaps in public understanding. There is also documented evidence of organizational continuity: CIA Director Stansfield Turner’s September 1977 testimony described MKSEARCH as a follow-on project that funded portions of MKUltra’s activities. This gives the infographic’s “morphing” argument a factual historical foothold: some work continued under another designation. It does not, however, establish an uninterrupted operation extending into the present. (intelligence.senate.gov, cia.gov)

    The infographic’s next move is to interpret advances in electromagnetic technology and neuroscience as later stages of that same enterprise. These scientific fields are real: the Government Accountability Office documents military directed-energy weapons, and researchers have demonstrated systems that reconstruct aspects of language from brain recordings. But their capabilities require careful qualification. A prominent brain-decoding study relied on an fMRI scanner, extensive individual training, and participant cooperation. Such research does not demonstrate the graphic’s claims that satellites, cellular networks, or “synthetic telepathy” enable covert, worldwide reading and alteration of people’s thoughts. The infographic supplies no verifiable evidence connecting those allegations to a continuing MKUltra program. (gao.gov, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

    The graphic is therefore most persuasive as a warning about institutional accountability, and weakest where it treats alleged technological capabilities as settled facts. Its orderly timeline creates the impression that each stage naturally proves the next, but chronological sequence cannot substitute for documentary links. Establishing the proposed continuity would require authenticated records, corroborated testimony, identifiable funding arrangements, and independently reproducible technical evidence. People reporting harassment or distress deserve respectful attention, while the explanation for their experiences must remain open to investigation rather than being predetermined by an infographic.

    Ultimately, the image raises a legitimate question: how can the public verify that prohibited experimentation has ended when intelligence work operates behind classification barriers? MKUltra’s history supports demands for stronger oversight, preservation of records, informed consent, and meaningful avenues for investigating credible complaints. It does not establish that every subsequent development in surveillance or neuroscience belongs to a single hidden program. The strongest conclusion is that MKUltra’s documented abuses make continued scrutiny necessary—while the much broader assertion that it has merely morphed into today’s alleged remote mind-control network remains unproven.

  • A UK Legal Challenge Could Offer Lessons for Targeted Individuals in America

    A British advocacy effort involving people who identify as “targeted individuals” is seeking international scrutiny of allegations of organised harassment and electromagnetic abuse. In a circulated announcement, Justice4All says group applications were filed against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights on August 10, 2026, alleging government failures to disclose and regulate microwave weapons. For people who have struggled to have their complaints heard, the reported filing represents a potential avenue for seeking accountability. Its significance, however, must be measured carefully: submitting applications does not establish that the Court has declared them admissible or found the allegations credible. (echr.coe.int)

    The announcement also highlights a graphic describing a Metropolitan Police response of “neither confirm nor deny” to a freedom of information request concerning microwave devices and through-wall sensors. That language can frustrate people seeking clarity, but it does not establish that the alleged abuse occurred. A separate, documented 2024 Information Commissioner decision upheld the Home Office’s refusal to confirm or deny holding information about such devices on national security grounds. The decision concerned the government’s disclosure obligations; it did not find that individuals had been subjected to electromagnetic attacks or torture. Maintaining that distinction is essential to understanding what these proceedings can—and cannot—demonstrate. (ico.org.uk)

    Behind the dispute lies a legitimate public question: how can governments protect sensitive capabilities while ensuring that allegations of abuse receive meaningful examination? People reporting harassment, pain or unexplained injuries deserve respectful treatment, appropriate medical care and an impartial assessment of their complaints. Determining what caused those experiences requires reliable evidence, including documented incidents, independently assessed medical findings and technically sound measurements where relevant. Secrecy should be subject to lawful oversight, while allegations should be tested through a process capable of distinguishing substantiated misconduct from explanations the evidence does not support.

    For targeted individuals in the United States, the potential value of the British effort would largely be indirect. The United States is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and a judgment against the United Kingdom would not bind American courts or prove an American claimant’s allegations. Nevertheless, credible evidence or substantive findings emerging from the proceedings could inform American advocacy, research and public debate. A carefully documented case could also offer practical lessons about framing complaints, challenging secrecy and identifying the evidence needed for meaningful legal scrutiny. Any influence would depend on what the proceedings actually establish. (app.echr.coe.int, wsj.com)

    The reported applications are therefore worth following with both interest and discipline. Their importance will become clearer through official documentation, admissibility decisions and any eventual findings. For Americans seeking answers, the greatest contribution would be a verifiable record that lawyers, researchers and oversight bodies can evaluate independently. Whatever the outcome, the principle remains compelling: people deserve a fair hearing, serious allegations warrant careful examination, and accountability is strongest when transparency is paired with evidence.

  • Geral Sosbee’s Allegations: What His FBI Background Tells Us

    An X post by Jim’s Coffee, @RealCoffeeJim, draws attention to Geral W. Sosbee’s allegations of stalking, psychological harassment and directed-energy attacks by the FBI and CIA. The handle shown in the screenshot matches the account’s X posts. Sosbee’s claims resemble accounts shared by people who call themselves targeted individuals. Does his professional background lend those allegations credibility—and how far can that credibility reasonably extend?

    Geral W. Sosbee alleges that the FBI and CIA have subjected him and other civilians to stalking, psychological harassment and directed-energy attacks. His claims resemble accounts shared by people who call themselves targeted individuals. The question is whether his professional background lends those allegations credibility—and how far that credibility can reasonably extend.

    Sosbee’s FBI service is real. A federal appeals court opinion identifies him as an FBI special agent who participated in a 1972 arrest, and the State Bar of Texas confirms that he later became a licensed attorney. Those records substantiate significant parts of his résumé. I found no independent record establishing that he worked for the CIA, however, and the court opinion alone does not confirm the exact 1971–1978 service dates stated in the circulating post. app.midpage.ai

    Sosbee has set out his allegations in a sworn affidavit, describing what he believes are electronic attacks and a broader campaign against him. His former FBI role is a reason to examine that account seriously. But an affidavit records what its author swears to; it does not independently verify the cause of his experiences or prove that the FBI and CIA operate the program he describes. His service in the 1970s also cannot, on its own, establish knowledge of alleged operations decades later. stop007.org

    The similarities to targeted individuals’ accounts are striking: sleep disruption, surveillance, isolation and suspected electronic attacks recur in both. Similar reports warrant careful investigation and humane treatment of those making them, but they do not by themselves identify a common cause or perpetrator. The FBI’s documented history of COINTELPRO gives the public reason to scrutinize allegations of government abuse. It does not establish that Sosbee’s particular allegations are true. www.fbi.gov

    There is room here for both skepticism and accountability. A 2025 U.S. intelligence assessment acknowledged that personnel reporting anomalous health incidents experienced genuine symptoms; it also found no compelling intelligence linking a foreign actor to any specific reported incident. That assessment did not resolve Sosbee’s claims about civilians or domestic agencies. His FBI credentials and the parallels with targeted individuals’ reports make his account worth examining, while independent records, witnesses and technical evidence remain necessary to determine what happened. www.odni.gov

  • Havana Syndrome and the Cars at the Center of Catherine Herridge’s New Report

    Catherine Herridge has reported a striking new allegation in the Havana syndrome investigation: since early August, a senior official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a senior defense official involved in directed energy technology have reported being targeted. According to Herridge, the incidents involved suspicious vehicles that may have contained a directed energy device. That word matters. The report raises the possibility of attacks on U.S. soil, but the material made public so far does not establish that the vehicles carried a device or that an attack occurred.

    The cars are the part of this story that demands the closest scrutiny. A vehicle could allow someone to approach a target, move away quickly and change locations. But a suspicious car near someone who becomes ill is not, by itself, evidence that the car caused the illness. Investigators need to establish where the vehicles were, who occupied them, whether any equipment was detected, and whether medical findings and other records support the reported sequence of events. Those are questions that can be investigated without dismissing the officials’ accounts.

    Herridge’s reporting also refers to a government analysis of a suspected device described as “far advanced.” Even if that analysis is accurate, it does not yet connect the device to these particular vehicles or incidents. The broader intelligence picture has been contested: a publicly released 2025 assessment said most U.S. intelligence agencies continued to judge foreign involvement in anomalous health incidents very unlikely, while two agencies had become more open to the possibility of a foreign capability.  Neither that assessment nor the new allegation should be treated as the final word on the reported car incidents.

    Herridge says she sought comment from the CIA, defense and homeland security officials, and the DNI’s office about the device analysis and suspected domestic attacks. She reported that the CIA acknowledged receiving her questions but that she had received no substantive response. Silence does not confirm the allegations, yet these claims warrant a clear accounting from the agencies that can examine the evidence.

    If the vehicles were used to target officials, the implications for their safety and national security would be grave. If the evidence points elsewhere, the people who reported symptoms still deserve a careful investigation and appropriate care. The public deserves to know what investigators can substantiate about the cars, the suspected device and any connection between them. That is where this potentially explosive story must go next.

  • Government Expert Says Directed Energy Technology Can Be Weaponized and Used Domestically

    In a recent interview with NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich, Dr. James Giordano discussed the growing capabilities of directed energy technology, arguing that portable systems—including devices that could potentially be carried in backpacks—have advanced to the point where they should be taken seriously as a national security concern. According to the excerpt shared here, he said the technology is “not science fiction,” that it can be weaponized, and that adversaries are developing and employing such capabilities. He also suggested these systems could present risks in public spaces and other everyday environments.

    For years, targeted individuals have claimed they were being attacked with concealed microwave or other directed energy devices, but those accounts have often been dismissed as conspiracy theories or written off as impossible because many people believed no such technology existed. Dr. Giordano’s comments do not confirm those individual claims, but they do underscore that directed energy technology is real, can be weaponized, and is viewed by at least some national security experts as a legitimate concern. That has prompted renewed discussion about whether some claims that were once broadly dismissed deserve to be examined more carefully in light of advances in the technology.

    The conversation may therefore be shifting away from whether directed energy technology exists—it clearly does in military and research settings—to how governments will address the possibility of its misuse. If portable directed energy weapons can be weaponized and concealed, the focus naturally turns to what measures will be put in place to detect them, deter their use, investigate credible reports, and protect the public. As these technologies continue to evolve, transparent public discussion, rigorous scientific investigation, and appropriate security policies will be essential to distinguish demonstrated capabilities from speculation while ensuring society is prepared to respond to any legitimate emerging threats.

  • Are TIs Close To An Answer Given New Havana Syndrome Decision?

    Catherine Herridge reported today that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has rescinded two Biden-era Intelligence Community Assessments related to Havana Syndrome and Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs). According to Herridge’s reporting, the decision was based on concerns that the original assessments suffered from analytic bias, selectively excluded evidence, mischaracterized intelligence, and relied on what Gabbard reportedly described as an ethically flawed medical study.

    Source: https://x.com/c__herridge/status/2065142509370581071

    The significance of this decision cannot be overstated. For years, many of those who reported suffering debilitating neurological symptoms believed the government had already reached a final verdict on their cases. The prevailing intelligence assessments effectively closed the door on the possibility that a foreign adversary, a novel technology, or a directed energy weapon could be responsible for injuries experienced by diplomats, intelligence officers, military personnel, and others.

    According to Herridge’s reporting, that door has now been reopened.

    What makes this development particularly important is not that it proves any specific explanation. It does not. Rather, it challenges the assumption that the previous conclusions were beyond question. If the Director of National Intelligence has determined that the assessments suffered from analytic bias, selective use of intelligence, exclusion of contradictory evidence, and flawed methodology, then the debate surrounding Havana Syndrome has fundamentally changed. The issue is no longer whether the matter was settled. The issue is whether the original investigation itself was conducted objectively and comprehensively.

    For targeted individuals and ordinary civilians who have long claimed they were victims of directed energy attacks, this decision will likely be viewed as a major turning point. For years, many of these individuals have argued that government agencies dismissed reports of unusual symptoms, neurological injuries, cognitive decline, and other health effects without fully investigating their claims. Critics frequently pointed to the Intelligence Community’s assessments as evidence that such allegations lacked credibility. The rescission of those assessments removes a powerful argument that was often used to shut down further discussion.

    At the same time, it is important to recognize what this development does and does not establish. The reported memo does not acknowledge that directed energy weapons have been used against civilians. It does not conclude that targeted individuals are correct. It does not confirm the existence of a covert campaign against members of the public. What it does suggest is that at least some senior officials believe previous analyses may have been incomplete, biased, or insufficiently rigorous.

    For those who have long maintained that advanced technologies can be used to harm individuals without leaving obvious physical evidence, the decision may be interpreted as validation of a broader concern: that unconventional injuries and unexplained neurological symptoms deserve serious investigation rather than automatic dismissal. Even if future reviews ultimately reach different conclusions, the willingness to revisit prior findings represents a departure from the perception that the case was permanently closed.

    The story of Mike Beck, as highlighted by Herridge, further underscores why this issue continues to resonate. If an experienced counterintelligence officer who believed he had been targeted spent decades seeking answers before ultimately passing away with a Parkinson’s-like condition, many will argue that the government has an obligation to ensure every credible lead is thoroughly examined. Whether one accepts the directed energy hypothesis or not, there is broad agreement that individuals reporting serious health effects deserve an unbiased investigation.

    Ultimately, the most important consequence of this decision may be procedural rather than scientific. It signals that conclusions reached by intelligence agencies are not immune from review and that questions once considered settled can be revisited when concerns arise about the integrity of the underlying analysis. For targeted individuals and civilians who feel their experiences were dismissed, that alone will be seen as a significant development. Whether it leads to definitive proof of directed energy attacks remains unknown. But it does mean that the conversation is no longer taking place under the assumption that the matter has already been conclusively resolved.

  • Is This Proof That Regular Civilians Are Also Attacked By DEWs?

    A remarkable and deeply controversial claim is now circulating after a New York Post report highlighted the story of journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, who says she is leaving the United States after allegedly experiencing what she describes as “directed energy weapons” attacks connected to her reporting on Jeffrey Epstein and his New Mexico network. According to the article, Valdes-Rodriguez believes she suffered symptoms resembling what has often been referred to as “Havana syndrome,” a term tied to mysterious neurological incidents reported by diplomats, intelligence officers, and other government personnel.

    For years, discussions surrounding directed energy weapons and Havana syndrome have largely been confined to the world of intelligence agencies, embassies, military operations, and classified national security conversations. Governments, particularly in the United States, have generally framed the issue as one affecting diplomats, CIA personnel, or other officials operating overseas. The public narrative has consistently suggested that these incidents are rare, specialized, and tied to geopolitical conflict. That framing has frustrated many so-called “targeted individuals,” ordinary civilians who have long argued that similar technologies or tactics can also be used domestically against non-governmental people.

    Valdes-Rodriguez’s claims are now drawing attention precisely because she does not fit the traditional profile that officials have usually associated with these alleged attacks. She is not a diplomat stationed abroad. She is not an intelligence officer operating in a hostile foreign capital. She is a journalist and author who says her work investigating Epstein’s New Mexico connections placed her in dangerous territory. Whether people believe her claims or not, the significance lies in the fact that a mainstream media outlet is reporting on a civilian making allegations that resemble the same kinds of symptoms and experiences previously associated almost exclusively with government personnel.

    That matters because targeted individuals have spent years arguing that the public conversation surrounding directed energy weapons has been artificially narrow. Many of them believe the government has dismissed or ignored civilians who report neurological symptoms, unexplained auditory phenomena, pressure sensations, sleep disruption, cognitive issues, or other unusual experiences. Critics have often labeled such claims as paranoia or conspiracy theories, particularly when they come from ordinary citizens without institutional backing. Yet when diplomats reported similar symptoms, the issue suddenly became a matter of congressional hearings, intelligence reviews, and national security investigations.

    The contradiction has fueled enormous anger within targeted individual communities. Their argument has always been simple: if advanced technologies capable of affecting the human body exist at all, why would civilians automatically be excluded as possible targets? From their perspective, the government’s position has appeared inconsistent. On one hand, officials acknowledge mysterious neurological incidents affecting American personnel overseas. On the other hand, civilians making similar allegations are frequently dismissed outright before any serious inquiry occurs.

    The Valdes-Rodriguez story is therefore being interpreted by some as a potential crack in that wall of skepticism. Again, none of this proves her allegations are true, nor does it independently verify the existence of a domestic directed energy campaign against civilians. But the mere fact that a journalist connected to high-profile Epstein reporting is publicly describing experiences she believes are linked to directed energy attacks gives new visibility to a conversation that has long existed on the fringes.

    The Epstein angle also intensifies public intrigue because his network has remained the subject of endless speculation regarding intelligence ties, elite protection systems, blackmail operations, and institutional failures. Whenever someone connected to investigating Epstein makes alarming claims, those claims inevitably attract attention far beyond the usual audience interested in Havana syndrome debates. That combination — Epstein, intelligence speculation, and alleged directed energy attacks — creates a story that many people will view through the lens of secrecy and distrust toward powerful institutions.

    Skeptics will naturally argue there is still no publicly verified evidence proving that civilians are being targeted with directed energy weapons inside the United States. They will point to psychological explanations, environmental factors, stress responses, or misinformation spreading online. Others, however, will argue that history shows governments often acknowledge controversial technologies only years after denying or minimizing them. To those people, the Valdes-Rodriguez story reinforces the belief that the official narrative surrounding Havana syndrome and related phenomena may be incomplete.

    What cannot be denied is that the conversation itself is evolving. A topic once limited to intelligence briefings and diplomatic circles is increasingly spilling into mainstream media discussions involving journalists, activists, and private citizens. Whether one sees that as validation, speculation, or something in between, stories like this ensure that the debate over directed energy weapons and civilian targeting is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

  • Was UFO Scientist Killed Using Directed Energy Weapons?

    The post circulating on X, attributed to Congressman Eric Burlison, does something that the mainstream conversation around this topic has long resisted: it cracks open the door, however slightly, to the possibility that claims dismissed for years may not be as easily waved away as “conspiracy theories.” When a sitting member of Congress goes on Fox News and says a death “should be investigated” in connection with a directed energy weapon, that is not fringe internet chatter—it’s a signal that these ideas have moved into institutional discourse.

    For decades, individuals who identify as “targeted” have described patterns of harassment, surveillance, and in some cases, alleged attacks using technologies they could not fully explain. These accounts have been overwhelmingly dismissed by major media outlets and often pathologized rather than examined. The label of “conspiracy theory” has functioned less as a conclusion and more as a barrier, shutting down inquiry before it begins. Yet here we have Burlison referencing testimony involving Michael Shellenberger and information from Franc Milburn—names that carry institutional weight, not anonymous message board users.

    What makes this moment notable is not that it proves the existence of targeted directed energy attacks, but that it disrupts the long-standing narrative that such claims are inherently unserious. When discussions like this enter congressional hearings and televised interviews, they gain a legitimacy that forces a shift in how they are perceived. Even the act of calling for an investigation implies that the allegation clears a basic threshold of plausibility—otherwise, it would not be raised in that setting at all.

    There is also a broader context that cannot be ignored. Advanced military technologies have historically existed years, sometimes decades, ahead of what is publicly acknowledged. Programs once considered speculative have later been confirmed, often after sustained public denial. This pattern fuels skepticism toward blanket dismissals. While directed energy weapons are publicly known in limited forms, the full scope of their capabilities—especially in classified environments—remains largely opaque. That opacity creates space where claims from targeted individuals, once ridiculed, begin to feel less easily dismissed.

    The media’s longstanding approach has been to frame these reports as fringe beliefs, often without deeply engaging with the underlying assertions. But when a public official references a specific case—Amy Eskridge—and connects it to testimony and intelligence-linked sources, it complicates that framing. It suggests that, at minimum, there are questions being asked in places of power that mirror what individuals have been saying for years.

    This does not mean every claim made by self-identified targeted individuals is accurate or that all interpretations of their experiences are correct. But it does mean the conversation is shifting. The gap between what is considered “unthinkable” and what is considered “worth investigating” is narrowing, and that shift alone changes the landscape. Once a topic enters that space, it becomes harder to dismiss outright and easier to examine with a more open, if still critical, lens.

    What we are witnessing may be the early stages of a broader reevaluation—one where claims that were previously marginalized begin to receive at least partial acknowledgment, not as established truth, but as subjects that can no longer be ignored.

  •  Directed Energy, Havana Syndrome, and the Thin Line Between Dismissal and Disclosure

    The viral post circulating on X from Furkan Gözükara makes a dramatic claim: that the Pentagon is preparing to deploy a “soft kill” microwave weapon on Black Hawk helicopter platforms, capable of directing pulsed energy into the human skull with devastating physiological effects. Taken at face value, it reads like something out of speculative fiction. Yet what gives the claim unusual traction is not necessarily the credibility of the source, but how closely it echoes long-standing allegations from so-called “targeted individuals,” as well as the still-unresolved mystery surrounding Havana Syndrome.

    For years, individuals claiming to be targeted by directed energy weapons have described symptoms that sound eerily similar to those reported in Havana Syndrome cases: intense head pressure, disorientation, auditory sensations, and neurological disruption without visible external cause. These accounts have typically been dismissed by mainstream institutions as psychological or conspiratorial. However, the emergence of credible government concern over Havana Syndrome—impacting diplomats, intelligence officers, and military personnel—has complicated that narrative. The U.S. government has acknowledged that something real is happening, even if the precise mechanism remains contested.

    This is where the tension becomes difficult to ignore. If directed energy technologies capable of affecting the human nervous system are even theoretically plausible—and there is open-source research suggesting that microwave or radiofrequency energy can interact with biological tissue—then the categorical dismissal of civilians making similar claims begins to look less like certainty and more like institutional reflex. The question is no longer whether such technologies could exist in principle, but rather who possesses them, how advanced they are, and under what conditions they are deployed or tested.

    At the same time, it’s important to separate what is publicly verified from what is speculative. There is no confirmed evidence that the Pentagon is deploying a weapon exactly as described in the X post, nor that such systems are being actively tested in Iran. Military research into directed energy systems—such as high-powered microwaves or laser-based tools—has been ongoing for decades, often framed in terms of disabling electronics or non-lethal crowd control rather than directly targeting human biology in the extreme manner described. That distinction matters, because it highlights how quickly a kernel of truth (ongoing research into advanced weapons) can be amplified into a far more sensational claim.

    Still, the overlap in language and effects between alleged “soft kill” systems and Havana Syndrome symptoms raises a legitimate question: if the U.S. government is seriously investigating the possibility that personnel were affected by directed energy attacks, why is the focus so heavily placed on foreign adversaries? Intelligence assessments have pointed to countries like Russia or China as potential culprits, but critics argue that this framing conveniently avoids scrutiny of domestic capabilities or classified programs. In other words, if such weapons exist, the assumption that only “bad actors” would use them may be more political than evidentiary.

    This dynamic creates a credibility gap. On one side are officials urging caution and emphasizing the lack of definitive proof. On the other are individuals—both civilians and government personnel—reporting consistent, sometimes debilitating experiences that defy easy explanation. When the government validates one group’s experiences (diplomats) while continuing to dismiss another’s (targeted individuals), it inevitably fuels suspicion that the line between acknowledgment and denial is being drawn selectively.

    None of this proves that the claims in the viral post are accurate, nor that targeted individuals’ accounts are definitively caused by directed energy weapons. But it does underscore a broader issue: the boundaries of what is considered “possible” have shifted. Technologies once relegated to the fringe are now openly studied, funded, and in some cases deployed in limited forms. As that boundary moves, so too must the willingness to reexamine past assumptions—especially when those assumptions involve dismissing people outright.

    In that sense, the real significance of posts like this one is not whether every detail holds up under scrutiny, but how they intersect with an evolving public conversation about secrecy, emerging weapons, and the credibility of lived experience. The Havana Syndrome investigation has already forced a partial reckoning. Whether it leads to a deeper, more transparent understanding—or reinforces existing narratives about external threats—will likely shape how seriously these overlapping claims are taken going forward.

  • Havana Syndrome Goes Mainstream

    Television show on Prime Video had its first episode of its first season based on Havana Syndrome and directed energy weapons

    Clearly shows that the topic has over from the “conspiracy theory” realm into a real national security threat discussion.

    Importantly, the attacks happen on regular civilians working at an office that handles sensitive government contracts. The narrative from the government has always been that the attacks are only aimed at government officials in the intelligence community.

    The show however depicts rogue South American actors attacking a private company in the United States

    Hopefully this will lead to some concrete action from Congress regarding the real threat these weapons pose, and importantly how these new weapons also threaten regular civilians