The predominant reaction has been "Okay, if it's not a directed microwave weapon, then it must be something else." Many suggestions have been offered. 2/
But that reaction contains a number of assumptions.
1) That there is a defined set of symptoms comprising the Havana Syndrome.
2) That those symptoms are being caused by a malign agent.
3) That the agent is using a directed-energy weapon. 3/
1) That there is a defined set of symptoms comprising the Havana Syndrome.
2) That those symptoms are being caused by a malign agent.
3) That the agent is using a directed-energy weapon. 3/
I didn't address assumption 1, and I won't in this thread, beyond saying that the symptoms are quite varied. This raises questions as to whether there is a single cause. 4/
Assumption 2 is the weakest in any chain, and I address it in the article. There is little to no evidence that any of the sources suggested can cause the symptoms described. If you want to posit a weapon, then show what it does. 5/
The assumption of a malign agent is weak. What is their motivation? Why would they selected the targets observed? Or this -
https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1391915852656689153
Assumption 3 is the subject of my article. The questions raised for microwaves are the same for other putative weapons. 7/
These nonanalytical responses are very much in the technostrategic vein, often gendered as male. Presenting answers rather than analyzing the question. It's something that is valued by a great deal of schooling too. 🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️ 8/
See? You knew I could work Carol Cohn into this! Have a nice night! 😉 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
