Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Tag: Attacks

  • 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.

  • U.S. Confirms Weapons in Space — and Targeted Individuals Say Their Claims Deserve a Second Look

    For years, people who identify as “targeted individuals” have claimed that sophisticated directed-energy or electromagnetic technologies are being used covertly against people, with some alleging that weapons can operate from satellites or other space-based platforms and specifically pointing to the U.S. Space Force. Those allegations remain unproven, but roundly dismissing targeted individuals as simply “crazy conspiracy theorists” because the technologies they describe sound impossible is no longer a sufficient response. On September 14, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink publicly acknowledged for the first time that the Space Force has deployed “on-orbit space control weapons” capable of defending U.S. forces against hostile action. The following day, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Douglas Schiess was even more explicit: “Guardians operate on-orbit weapons.” Officials, however, have not publicly disclosed precisely what those systems are or how they operate. 

    For targeted individuals, the disclosure will understandably be viewed as vindication of at least one premise they have advanced for years: sophisticated military weapons really can operate in space, while significant details about their capabilities can remain outside public view. But that is very different from vindicating the much more consequential allegation that directed-energy weapons have been secretly used against civilians. Nothing in Meink’s announcement establishes that the newly acknowledged systems are directed-energy weapons, that they are designed to strike people on Earth, or that they have ever been employed against Americans. The Pentagon’s description instead places them in the context of defending the Joint Force from adversary space capabilities. 

    That distinction should cut both ways. Targeted individuals cannot reasonably cite the announcement as proof that their particular injuries or experiences were caused by government weapons; establishing that would require independently verifiable evidence connecting an actual system and operator to an alleged incident. But skeptics should likewise distinguish between questioning the evidence for an allegation and declaring the underlying technology inherently impossible. The government has now acknowledged operational weapons in orbit while withholding important information about their nature. That alone makes rigorous investigation—and demands for specific answers—more appropriate than ridicule.

    There is also a broader question of government transparency. Critics of national-security agencies have long argued that secrecy can produce a familiar pattern: officials decline to acknowledge classified capabilities until disclosure becomes strategically useful, technically unavoidable, or otherwise appropriate. In this case, Space Force leadership itself has explained that the public acknowledgment was deliberate; Schiess said officials believed “it was time” to say publicly that such weapons existed, citing the evolving space threat.  That history of secrecy does not establish that targeted individuals’ allegations are true. But given that some targeted individuals allege extremely serious consequences from supposed directed-energy attacks—including alleged deaths—and have raised claims about nonconsensual experimentation, the appropriate response should be evidence-based scrutiny rather than assuming either guilt or impossibility.

    That is where the Pentagon arguably owes the public considerably more specificity. Have any directed-energy or other advanced weapons under U.S. military control ever been tested or deployed against civilians inside the United States? Have unwitting civilians ever participated, without informed consent, in experiments involving such technologies? If either occurred, under what statutory, constitutional or other legal authority was it conducted, what oversight existed, and what avenues for investigation and compensation would be available to anyone harmed? Those questions incorporate allegations made by targeted individuals without treating those allegations as established facts. The government’s admission that weapons are operating in orbit does not prove their case—but it makes transparency about what these systems can and cannot do, and the rules governing their use, all the more important.