Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Tag: Herridge

  • Havana Syndrome and the Question of Intelligence Influence on the Media

    Catherine Herridge’s appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room, where she said independent journalism allowed her to investigate Havana syndrome and directed energy weapons more deeply, raises a legitimate question: how much does dependence on intelligence sources shape what mainstream audiences hear? An “Operation Mockingbird” analogy captures the concern that agencies could influence reporting about matters they would prefer to keep secret. However, the screenshot does not establish that Herridge herself invoked that operation or alleged a coordinated media campaign. Her stated experience invites scrutiny of editorial independence; it does not, by itself, prove intelligence interference.

    The historical basis for concern is real. The Church Committee documented covert CIA relationships with journalists and media organizations, demonstrating that intelligence involvement in journalism is more than an invention of suspicious readers. Nevertheless, that history cannot establish that today’s Havana syndrome coverage is being secretly directed. A more immediate vulnerability is ordinary dependence on official sources: journalists need access, agencies control classified information, and authoritative briefings can determine which explanations receive attention. That arrangement can narrow coverage even without covert payments or explicit orders. The useful question is whether reporters independently challenge their sources, particularly when those sources belong to institutions whose conduct is under examination. (intelligence.senate.gov)

    Havana syndrome illustrates why official conclusions require careful qualification. In 2020, the National Academies identified directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy as the most plausible mechanism among those considered for certain distinctive symptoms, while acknowledging limited information and possible multiple causes. That finding did not establish an attack or identify a perpetrator. Subsequent intelligence assessments broadly discounted foreign responsibility, but in June 2026, Tulsi Gabbard rescinded the 2023 and 2025 assessments. According to CNN’s reporting, her office alleged that relevant intelligence had been excluded and alternative analysis suppressed. Those allegations deserve independent examination: withdrawing an assessment undermines its authority, but does not automatically establish the competing weapons theory. Nor does an assessment about foreign responsibility settle every question about what caused the illnesses. (nationalacademies.org, ktvz.com)

    There is also substantial evidence against treating mainstream media as a single obedient instrument of intelligence agencies. CNN reported in January 2026 that the Pentagon was studying a device acquired through an undercover operation that some investigators suspected could be connected to Havana syndrome. Its coverage also discussed investigative work by The Insider and 60 Minutes examining possible Russian involvement. Such reporting complicates any sweeping claim that major outlets uniformly suppress the subject. Still, reporting a suspected device is different from demonstrating that it caused particular injuries. Responsible skepticism must work in both directions: journalists should interrogate official dismissals while demanding corroboration for allegations of attacks. (transcripts.cnn.com)

    The strongest case for concern, therefore, centers on the possibility of undue influence through secrecy, selective disclosure, and excessive deference—not an established modern Mockingbird operation. Evidence of coordinated suppression would require something more concrete, such as documented pressure on editors, concealed relationships, or communications showing deliberate efforts to bury credible findings. Meanwhile, newsrooms should disclose uncertainty, explain disagreements, and revisit headlines when their underlying assessments change. Independent journalists should apply those same standards to their own sources. People reporting serious symptoms deserve care and a rigorous investigation, while the public deserves coverage that neither turns an official denial into certainty nor turns an unresolved possibility into a proven attack.

  • 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.

  • 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.