The “Sonic At­tacks” in Cuba Aren’t What They Say They Are

Trillions - - Contents -

U.S. diplo­mats in Ha­vana suf­fered a se­ries of neu­ro­log­i­cal at­tacks be­tween late 2016 and Au­gust 2017, but the Amer­i­can govern­ment is do­ing its best to keep the truth of what hap­pened quiet.

Dur­ing that pe­riod, 21 of the 24 mem­bers of the U.S. em­bassy’s com­mu­nity were hit with a va­ri­ety of neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms. Af­ter­wards, the U.S. govern­ment warned trav­el­ers to the coun­try to stay away, im­ply­ing that there might be some broad-based prob­lem that could af­fect any­one. It also freely let ru­mors run wild about what the causes might be.

There was even a “level 3” travel alert des­ig­na­tion placed by the United States on Cuba after what hap­pened. That alert rec­om­mends that visi­tors “re­con­sider travel: avoid travel due to se­ri­ous risks to safety and se­cu­rity.” The truth, es­pe­cially when a few facts creep into the pic­ture, may be even stranger than any­thing painted so far.

In a re­cent pa­per, en­ti­tled “Neu­ro­log­i­cal Man­i­fes­ta­tions Among US Govern­ment Per­son­nel Re­port­ing Di­rec­tional Au­di­ble and Sen­sory Phe­nom­ena in Ha­vana, Cuba” and pub­lished in the Jour­nal of the Amer­i­can Med­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion (JAMA), what was dis­cov­ered in the em­bassy was de­scribed in some de­tail. A med­i­cal group from the Uni­ver­sity of Penn­syl­va­nia’s Cen­ter for Brain In­jury and Re­pair there noted that “per­sis­tent cog­ni­tive, vestibu­lar and ocu­lo­mo­tor dys­func­tion, as well as sleep im­pair­ment and headaches, were ob­served among U.S. govern­ment per­son­nel in Ha­vana, Cuba, as­so­ci­ated with re­ports of di­rec­tional au­di­ble and/or sen­sory phe­nom­ena of un­clear ori­gin.” They went on to say that “these in­di­vid­u­als ap­peared to have sus­tained in­jury to wide­spread brain net­works with­out an as­so­ci­ated his­tory of head trauma.”

There was only one prob­lem with their ex­haus­tive re­port. In the pa­per’s con­clu­sions, it said: “At this point, a uni­fy­ing ex­pla­na­tion for the symp­toms ex­pe­ri­enced by the U.S. govern­ment of­fi­cials de­scribed in this case se­ries re­mains elu­sive and the ef­fect of pos­si­ble ex­po­sure to au­di­ble phe­nom­ena is un­clear. Be­fore reach­ing any de­fin­i­tive con­clu­sions, ad­di­tional ev­i­dence must be ob­tained and rig­or­ously and ob­jec­tively eval­u­ated.”

The re­searchers may not have found the cause of what hap­pened, but in their analysis, they did elim­i­nate the whole “sonic at­tack” the­ory. Those who had been hurt cited noises such as “a high-pitched sound,” “buzzing,” “grind­ing metal,” “hum­ming” and “pierc­ing squeals.” Yet the doc­tors said some­what con­clu­sively that the

sound was not likely to be the cause of the in­juries to those af­fected. As Dr. Dou­glas Smith, MD, one of the co-au­thors of the study and the direc­tor of the Cen­ter for Brain In­jury and Re­pair, said, “We think the au­di­ble sound was a con­se­quence of the ex­po­sure, be­cause au­di­ble sound is not known to cause brain in­jury.”

Other pro­posed causes, such as ex­po­sure to a virus or chem­i­cals, were also re­jected by the sci­en­tists.

There is an­other the­ory – one put forth by com­puter sci­en­tists and en­gi­neers from Zhe­jiang Uni­ver­sity in China and the Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan – that the grind­ing noises heard by the U.S. per­son­nel may have been caused by mul­ti­ple ul­tra­sonic car­ri­ers. Those car­ri­ers might have come from eaves­drop­ping and jam­ming tech­nolo­gies, with the car­ri­ers col­lid­ing to cre­ate harm. In that study, the pos­si­bil­ity was raised that “at this point, a uni­fy­ing ex­pla­na­tion for the symp­toms ex­pe­ri­enced by the U.S. govern­ment of­fi­cials de­scribed in this case se­ries re­mains elu­sive and the ef­fect of pos­si­ble ex­po­sure to au­di­ble phe­nom­ena is un­clear.”

An­other ru­mor about the neu­ro­log­i­cal ef­fects – that those af­fected had suf­fered brain dam­age – was also de­bunked by the sci­en­tists in the JAMA ar­ti­cle. De­spite an early re­port dis­sem­i­nated via As­so­ci­ated Press (AP) ar­ti­cles in De­cem­ber, there was no sub­stan­tive ev­i­dence of brain dam­age in any of those af­fected. As the JAMA ar­ti­cle noted, MRI test­ing in all 21 of the sub­jects af­fected showed that “most pa­tients had con­ven­tional imag­ing find­ings.”

What the study did re­fer to – but with­out con­clu­sions – was that the U.S. cit­i­zens who had health prob­lems in ho­tel rooms in Ha­vana turned out to be “U.S. govern­ment per­son­nel serv­ing on diplo­matic as­sign­ment in Ha­vana, Cuba.” There were 11 women and 10 men in this group. They were de­scribed by U.S. of­fi­cials as “mem­bers of the em­bassy com­mu­nity.” Strangely, for those at­tempt­ing to un­der­stand what had hap­pened, none of that group have gone pub­lic about their symp­toms and none have iden­ti­fied who they are.

After in­ves­ti­ga­tion by CNN, AP and Prop­ub­lica, the truth is fi­nally com­ing out. The first four Amer­i­cans who said they’d been af­fected by what­ever hap­pened were all CIA of­fi­cers “work­ing un­der diplo­matic cover.”

In the Prop­ub­lica story pub­lished on Fe­bru­ary 14, “The Sound and the Fury: In­side the Mys­tery of the Ha­vana Em­bassy,” au­thors Tim Golden and Se­bas­tian Rotella said that CIA of­fi­cers ex­am­in­ing who was hit by the phe­nom­e­non saw “a pat­tern that was any­thing but co­in­ci­den­tal.” Even more specif­i­cally, the re­port said that “the first four Amer­i­cans to re­port be­ing struck by the phe­nom­e­non were all CIA of­fi­cers work­ing un­der diplo­matic cover, as were two oth­ers af­fected later on.”

That was fur­ther sup­ported by a par­al­lel sur­vey of 42 travel agen­cies by the Cen­ter for Re­spon­si­ble Travel (CREST). That study found that there were zero trav­el­ers hosted by all those agen­cies in 2017 who had come down with any of the neu­ro­log­i­cal symp­toms. A spokesper­son from Cuba Ed­u­ca­tion Travel (CET), an agency that brings trav­el­ers to Cuba, said, “We have brought more than 10,000 Amer­i­cans to Cuba over the last few years – in­clud­ing thou­sands in 2017 and 2018 – and not one has re­ported any sim­i­lar health is­sues dur­ing or after their visit.”

In con­trast to what one might have imag­ined from the cases of that small group that was hurt by some­thing, the CET rep­re­sen­ta­tive said, “On the con­trary, a lead­ing re­sponse on post-trip sur­veys is how safe trav­el­ers feel in that coun­try.”

The con­clu­sions from all the data sug­gest a cou­ple of things. The first is that the tar­gets were nei­ther gen­eral em­bassy per­son­nel nor or­di­nary tourists. They were CIA, with per­haps some col­lat­eral dam­age of those who worked closely with the CIA per­son­nel. The sec­ond is that this was likely a de­lib­er­ate at­tack of some sort rather than an ac­ci­dent. The the­ory about pos­si­ble neu­ro­log­i­cal harm from over­lap­ping ul­tra­sounds men­tioned ear­lier may sound plau­si­ble, but such a thing would likely have af­fected a broader range of peo­ple than just the small CIA group. The third is that the at­tack was of a very dif­fer­ent na­ture than what most in the pub­lic might know of.

For those fa­mil­iar with mind-con­trol tech­nol­ogy, the most log­i­cal and ob­vi­ous ex­pla­na­tion is that the neu­ro­log­i­cal ef­fects were a re­sult of mi­crowave based mind con­trol that the U.S. mil­i­tary first de­vel­oped in the 1960s. Mi­crowaves can eas­ily pass through the walls of a build­ing whereas high fre­quency sound can­not.

Mi­crowave weapons have been used for decades to in­duce sounds within vic­tim's heads and at high enough lev­els the phys­i­cal dam­age matches that de­scribed in the Cuban em­bassy per­son­nel. Longterm ef­fects in­clude brain tu­mors and other brain dis­eases and di­men­tia.

In a rare pub­lic lec­ture, mil­i­tary sci­en­tist Dr. El­don Byrd de­scribed some of the mind con­trol tech­nol­ogy he helped de­velop and he even played an au­dio record made by plac­ing a mi­cro­phone on the skull of a vic­tim who heard voices in his head. The mi­crowave was able to clearly pick up the sounds in­side the per­son's head.

An au­dio record­ing of Byrd's lec­ture can be found on our web site at:


Warn­ing, the lec­ture con­tains graphic and dis­turb­ing con­tent.

The at­tacks in Cuba were cer­tainly not the first mi­crowave at­tacks on U.S. em­bassy em­ploy­ees. In the 1960s Rus­sia used a mi­crowave weapon against the U.S. em­bassy staff in Moscow. The power level mea­sured in the em­bassy was about 5 watts per square cen­time­ter, which is about 50 times stronger than is emit­ted by most mod­ern cell phone tow­ers.

When the U.S. govern­ment be­came aware of the at­tack they did not alert staff or block the sig­nal. In­stead they lied to em­bassy staff and stud­ied the symp­toms of the mi­crowave ex­po­sure but called it the Moscow Vi­ral Study. The study was ac­tu­ally part of a clas­si­fied Ad­vanced Re­search Projects Agency (ARPA) project named Plan 562, or Project Pan­dora, which was a study on of the psy­cho­log­i­cal and phys­i­o­log­i­cal ef­fects of mi­crowaves.

ARPA was re­named De­fense Ad­vanced Re­search Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1972.

DARPA'S most re­cent un­clas­si­fied project to study the im­pact of mi­crowave ra­di­a­tion on cells is called Ra­dio­bio, how­ever, the project is likely just a de­coy or psy-op as the re­search de­scribed was al­ready done decades ago.

Given the bla­tant of­fi­cial dis­in­for­ma­tion sur­round­ing the case, it is quite pos­si­ble that the CIA or an­other rogue mil­i­tary agency tar­geted the Amer­i­cans in or­der to jus­tify rolling back the im­prove­ment in re­la­tions with Cuba. Cer­tainly Cuba, China, Rus­sia, Is­rael, Syria, Iran or an­other one of Amer­ica's many en­e­mies or al­lies could have tar­geted the agents as reprisal for the CIA'S many of­fenses. Since a clever teenager could eas­ily build a mi­crowave weapon, it could have even been the Cuban ex­ile mafia try­ing to re­store the lu­cra­tive fund­ing from the CIA which they en­joyed for 60 years.

Psy­chotronic weapons are very real and used more com­monly than one might imag­ine. In fact most peo­ple are now car­ry­ing their own per­sonal psy­chotronic de­vice — their cell phone.

If you sus­pect that you may be tar­geted by a mi­crowave or other elec­tronic weapon, a good source for de­tec­tion me­ters is

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.