Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Tag: Military

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Is MSM Waking Up To The Dangers Of Neuroweapons?

    An interesting NY Post article recently explored what has become a growing issue of privacy, public safety, and national-security concern: the uneasy intersection between the remarkable benefits of neurotechnology and its potential for misuse. As the piece notes, advances in brain-computer interfaces, neuro-monitoring tools, and cognitive-enhancement research hold enormous promise for medicine and rehabilitation. Yet those same tools, if left unregulated or developed in secrecy, could be exploited by hostile actors in ways that raise troubling ethical and geopolitical questions.

    For years, mainstream discussion of neurotechnology focused almost exclusively on its medical potential, while any mention of misuse was often dismissed as fringe speculation. That posture has shifted as prominent neuroscientists and biosecurity experts—most notably Dr. James Giordano, a professor of neurology and bioethics and a long-time advisor to the U.S. military—have publicly outlined the real risks emerging at the intersection of neuroscience and national defense. Dr. Giordano has repeatedly warned that neurotechnology can be “weaponized” not only in the traditional military sense but also through subtler means: tools capable of influencing cognition, degrading decision-making, targeting vulnerable populations, or exploiting neurological data. He emphasizes that while these capabilities are still constrained by scientific limits, several countries are actively researching them, and the U.S. should take that fact seriously. His point is not that science-fiction mind-control devices exist, but that neuro-enabled tools—chemical, biological, digital, or data-driven—can be adapted in ways that create new forms of coercion, surveillance, or tactical disruption.

    The NY Post article raises the central policy question of whether Congress is exercising meaningful oversight in this domain. The concern is that many lawmakers are only dimly aware of how far neurotechnology has advanced, and even fewer grasp its defense implications well enough to legislate around it. Those with the deepest knowledge—typically members of intelligence committees—operate under heavy classification restrictions, which discourages open debate and leaves the public largely unaware of how these technologies may be used or misused.

    The article’s broader message is that it is time for Congress to engage this issue with urgency and transparency. Neurotechnology is advancing whether policymakers address it or not, and without clear guardrails, the same tools that promise extraordinary medical breakthroughs could also be adapted in ways that threaten civil liberties, public health, and global stability. The call, essentially, is for lawmakers to act before the risks outpace the regulations designed to contain them.