Slashdot Mirror


First Cuba, Now China? A Worker In US Embassy In China Experienced 'Abnormal' Sounds, Brain Damage (reuters.com)

amxcoder writes: An American citizen working at a U.S. consulate located in the Chinese city of Guangzhou has reported experiencing "abnormal" sounds (and pressures) for the past several months, starting in late 2017 until April of 2018. Upon medical evaluation, the worker has been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury symptoms. The U.S. embassy is conducting an investigation into the issue, and is issuing warnings to all U.S. citizens in China. The symptoms and several other similarities has drawn comparison to a similar event last year in a different U.S. embassy in Cuba. Officials can not link the two events together at this point, but the U.S. State Department is working with Chinese authorities to investigate the issue further. As a result of the Cuba acoustic "attacks," the U.S. government in October expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from the U.S. for what it said was Cuba's failure to protect staff at the U.S. embassy in Havana. Staff there reported symptoms including hearing loss, dizziness, fatigue, and cognitive issues. Canadian personnel also reported similar health symptoms.

160 comments

  1. Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The embassy in Cuba was renovated in the '70's and has ultrasonic alarms of that vintage. The sound of more than one of them intermodulating with each other (a harmless effect) would be exactly as reported.

    The problem with these reports is that the U.S. has been intensively monitoring for various forms of sound, radio waves, radiation, etc. since the Great Seal Bug. And you've got to be skeptical about anything that all of the intelligence and military agencies of the great and powerful USA can't detect.

    1. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Well, what do the Geneva Conventions on War state about the use of Acoustic Weapons . . . ?

      Oh, wait . . . we're not at war neither with Cuba nor with China . . .

      . . . yet . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Well, given the tendency nowadays, if the intelligence and military agencies of the great and powerful USA can't detect it and it happens in Cuba and China, it obviously has to be Russian technology! Of course they wouldn't use it in Russia if it was...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      A good deal of international law facilitates peaceful espionage against each other. For example, the diplomatic packet - though now somewhat obsolete and more likely to be used for Amazon purchases - wasn't just for coded messages to and from the embassy but to and from the spies.

    4. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Troll

      Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it's happening. An awful lot of stuff is classified to protect sources and methods.

      For instance, we knew within days that Russia was responsible for their criminal and genocidal shooting down of MH17, even as the Russians were robbing the corpses of their victims. We're only hearing about it now through controlled leaks, because it suits the powers-that-be to divulge that fact.

      Also, attribution of cyberattacks is not quite as problematic as we've been led to believe. The right people know what's going on. Count on it.

    5. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The attack doesn't have to happen on the embassy grounds. You can't monitor the entire country.

    6. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Although off-compound travel enlarges the threat surface, embassy staff are often not given the freedom of the entire nation. Even the U.S. is limiting diplomats of Pakistan to 40 km from their posts, in response to a similar limit on U.S. diplomats in Pakistan.

    7. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, the Dutch don't have a horse in this race. I'd much rather trust them than an Anonymous Coward.

    8. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That isn't true in China or Cuba. They have freedom of travel. Most likely these attacks are outside of the embassy grounds (if they are even occurring at all).

    9. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Or it could be a Zika mosquito. Or high blood pressure.

    10. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of those who died on that flight were dutch. So calling them neutral is inaccurate.

    11. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      For example I hear abnormal sounds whenever I hear Trump speak.

    12. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      And my blood pressure rises!

    13. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you think because their own people were killed, they have an interest in blaming it on Russia - which has a 400 year history of peaceful relations with the Netherlands and much greater economic significance for trade - rather than little Ukraine? It doesan't make sense.

    14. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These "attacks" are alleged to have occured at the workers homes.

      The biggest problem I have with this whole story is that all the experts on sound keep saying what the US proposes is happening here violates the laws of physics. That to generate an effect like this at any distance is practically impossible.

      I've been of the opinion that whatever is happening is likely a conflict between two systems exacerbated by some sore of harmonic. Probably a bug / counter bug that are interacting in some bad way, maybe because one of them is broken. I have a hard time believing this is anything other that some accidental harmonic. I won't be surprised in the least if we find out that some fancy new US anti bugging tech is getting into a harmonic sequence with the bug and causing these problems because the US design never accounted for an ultrasonic bug that was broken and using the wrong frequency.

    15. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      We don't know for sure that it couldn't be a satellite-based attack. A sonic attack from space may sound far-fetched but they have been doing very creative things with lasers and microwaves these days.

    16. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by slew · · Score: 2

      Well, the Dutch don't have a horse in this race. I'd much rather trust them than an Anonymous Coward.

      I don't know if I would give the Dutch a free pass about anything in Malaysia or Indonesia...

      https://www.independent.co.uk/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It is likely they have no horse in this race, but the Dutch have had more than their fair share of horses in that part of SE asia since the days of the Dutch East India Company...

    17. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      On top of which, the Cubans actually asked the US to send the FBI down to investigate. I doubt they'd do that if they were responsible for the problem or wanted to keep the cause a secret.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    18. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh, you might want to reconsider that statement, Bruce.

      I had childhood acquaintances on that flight. Big family, wiped out by a BUK missiles. They were Dutch-Australian. PLENTY of Dutch people on that plane.

    19. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Putinist wank.

      Russian does NOT get a veto on who we in Europe can and can't be friends with.

      Russians do NOT get to tell Europe -- a nascent superpower -- what they can and can't do.

      If Putin thinks that, then he can go and fuck himself.

    20. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      One would think that the homes of diplomatic workers are as well monitored for sound, RF, and radiation attacks as the office building.

      Say you have two ultrasonic alarms working at 31 KHz and 36 kHz. The difference frequency is 5 kHz and is most likely to be heard between them rather than close to them. Nontechnical people would have no understanding of this phenomenon.

    21. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, less reactionary to gulag. I hope they suffered.

    22. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Sorry about your acquaintances. But my comment meant that the Dutch didn't have a reason to blame the Russians if they didn't think the Russians were responsible.

    23. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Sorry Bruce, but I am shocked at the Putinist apology coming out here. Seriously, as a reputable public figure, I'd expect better of you. You have a public profile, and you're doing yourself and the world a great disservice by parroting the Putinist party line.

      The fact that Russia and its cut-outs/proxies murdered those people in cold blood is not in dispute. You disrespect the memory of the their victims by doing so.

      P.S: you are assuming that the corrupt mafia-Chekist junta that runs Russia is as rational as the leadership of an equivalent Western country. They are most certainly not. "Thinking with one's dick" is a phrase that springs to mind, when discussing the actions of Putin and his followers.

    24. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Bullshit Russian-style deflection tactics.

      Tu Quoque is the state religion of Russia.

      Don't be like them.

    25. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Dutch. Then duck!

      While the economic and military weight of those large nations is obvious, the Dutch are nobody's puppets. Just spend some time there. And especially today, when they (and most Europeans) find Trump possibly more repulsive than Putin.

    26. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by yuriklastalov · · Score: 0

      You're right, that's the US's job.

      Now get back to patting yourselves on the back for being able to dedicate so much of your GDPs to social programs because Uncle Sam has been keeping you safe since the last time you superior and enlightened beings plunged the world into the most incredible violence the world has ever seen.

    27. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      A sonic attack from space may sound far-fetched but they have been doing very creative things with lasers and microwaves these days.

      Obviously there isn't going to be a sonic attack from someplace with no atmosphere.

      Lasers actually do spread, one from space is going to end up being larger than someone's house, and easy enough to detect. Microwaves will never get that narrow a beamwidth and are easy to receive.

    28. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Whoa! You totally misread me. I wrote that the Dutch did not have any reason to blame Russia if they didn't think Russia actually did it. I certainly believe them when they say that Russia did it.

    29. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not Bruce but you need to re-read Bruce's post. He wasn't defending Russia per se. He was defending the Dutch to be impartial as to whether the Russians (obviously) or the Ukranians (not) kill the people on MH17.

    30. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be a 5 kHz amplitude modulation of a 33.5 kHz signal, which would _not_ be audible.

    31. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The NSA and CIA like US embassy workers to travel deep into a China and Cuba.
      Look at things, photograph things. Talk to people. Collect soil, air samples. Look for local wifi networks.
      Talk to civil society groups, academics, artists, engineers. Sway them over to the US side with offers of charm, cash, "democracy" and "freedom".
      Embassy staff have freedoms in many nations. The CIA uses that freedom of movement every day for its embassy "workers" in China, Cuba.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    32. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Cuba wants the US embassy investigations to stop. Cuba has too many of their own spies deep in the US gov to keep undercover.
      Generation of spies all over the USA. Why would Cuba do and risk the one thing to make the USA to do more security work that would find Cuba spies?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    33. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is very admirable that many European countries have built extensive welfare systems. Unfortunately current European governments are trying to dismantle the social programs. Americans should not gloat about or cheer this process. They should work to build social programs up to the European standards in the US and aid the people of Europe in defending against attempts to roll back welfare.

    34. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are these International Laws people are always going on about? Who enforces these laws? Embassy grounds are considered sovereign territory for the foreign country. Host countries are charged with defending all the embassies located in their country. The diplomats staffing the embassies are afforded diplomatic immunity by the host country. That's why half of the embassies staff are usually intelligence agents conducting espionage programs. It is SOP and every country knows about it and does it. Its not International Law that protects the embassies it is mutual self interest. And there are countries who have broken from the diplomatic norms when it in their interest. Although they have basically forfeited protections for their own embassies and diplomats by doing this.

      And if you are going to keep trying to invoke International Law then be prepared for the consequences. Under International Law Iran invaded US territory in 1979 and killed and imprisoned everyone working in the US Consulate. If they tried this today they would most likely watch as the US started leveling one city per hour until the hostages were released. If they killed the hostages than the entire country would be nothing but rubble.

      Not many people remember but the US attacked and destroyed several of Iran's offshore Oil platforms in 1987-1988 along with a sizable piece of Iran's Navy at the same time. The World Court ruled the US attacks could not be justified as self defense but this same group of imbeciles also ruled that the US did not break the treaty between the US and Iran at the time. So basically they ruled that the attacks were not self defense but because the treaty did not include a clause specifically prohibiting the US from blowing up oil rigs and sinking the Iranian navy than a no fault judgment was recorded and the case was closed.
      And Iran has been playing with fire for years. Their government sponsored "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" marches ensure the majority of US and Israeli citizens consider Iran an enemy. Iran's mullahs need to unwind their turbans a bit and re-evaluate the wisdom in antagonizing the two countries that really have no qualms about targeting anything related to Iran and stealing it or blowing it up. Israel has already demonstrated their capabilities by stealing the entire library detailing Iran's Nuclear Program from the middle of Tehran. They have had almost all of their military assets destroyed in Syria with impunity. And they now have a US President getting ready to re-start starving the Iranian economy through sanctions. Until the Iranian leadership cease their public threats and remove "Great Satan" and "Little Satan" for their school curriculum and government press releases they can expect more grief.

    35. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no Proof of any kind has been made public yet

    36. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all started when apple released EarPods. I guess the staff is so bored that listens to death satanic metal at full volume for 16 hours a day

    37. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't, except for the ubiquitous condescension from Europeans about how uncivilized Americans are. The contempt didn't just come out of nowhere, after all.

    38. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      One would think that the homes of diplomatic workers are as well monitored for sound, RF, and radiation attacks as the office building.

      Why? I mean why the trouble? If you are that concerned about the well being of the diplomats and staff, why not just build apartments into an embassy compound? I would assume that if it was believed to be safe enough for embassy workers to live outside the embassy, then that would mean we didn't feel it was necessary to build radiation attack detection systems into the homes.

    39. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Being diplomatic staff in Cuba was never an ordinary job. I don't know what all of the arrangements and rules are regarding staff housing, but I am sure they have 24-hour security, bug sweeps, and monitoring for various forms of attack.

    40. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embassy ground are not sovereign territory. Not entering them is convention

    41. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      In russia death metal listens to you, so staff are safe

    42. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference would be audible at 5 kHz. Modulation of one signal with another? Remember the inverse square law. The strongest combination of the two signals is between them, not at the transducers. Where sum (too high to be audible) and difference would be the strongest signals after the fundamentals (also too high to be audible). Air and the ear are sufficiently nonlinear.

    43. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, most likely, it could have been an abuse of US patented, made-in-India antidepressants.

    44. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would constitute "a proof" in your world, comrade? There was plenty of evidence on the first day of the shooting who's guilty:

      1. We had Igor Girkin and Russia's Live News site boasting about downing the plane minutes after it was shot. I literally witnessed that first hand, because I was at home that day and got an alert from FR24 (had an alert b/c I used to fly MH16/17 to Europe from Asia regularly)

      2. Within the HOUR after the first news from the ground it wasn't an Ukrainian transport plane, we had Igor Girkin and all Russia news sites REMOVE all their boasting

      3. Bunch of phone chatter of Russians in the area recorded by the Ukrainian security services, which was released hours after the shooting, a very, very short time to fake it.

      4. Russia's Ministry of Defense first briefing put out OUTRIGHT lies, which they subsequently denied themselves:
            - about Ukraine jets (football field-sized, no less) being on radar
                (subsequently refuted by the same Ministry, but in 2016)
            - about the B777 aircraft making 'turns', which it didn't on the FR24 track
                (subsequently refuted by the Russian ATC authority, but in 2016)
            - about various aircraft (B778, B772, etc) which don't exist
                (never mentioned later)

      5. There were many other idiotic stories of Russian origin about Spanish ATCs, and what not.

      6. A crapload of lies about the rocket used, finally refuted by the manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, which accepted the conclusions of the Dutch investigators about the KIND of rocket used, but came up with a fake story as to where it was shot from.

      7. Lies of the "we've never been there" kind despite obvious evidence to the contrary -- the JIT released the Buk trailer track in Ukraine last year, and the track in Russia yesterday.

      That's more than enough to get you convicted in a Russian court, you know.

    45. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try and tell us what Europeans think because most of us our Europeans.

      Yes, Trump is broadly despised, but he's not undermining our democracies with billions in funding for far right parties, nor is he actively trying to tear apart the EU as much as he expresses his dislike of it. He's also not invading nor annexing foreign sovereign territory of independent foreign nations, nor shooting down civilian airliners in Europe, nor carrying out nuclear and chemical weapons assassinations in foreign states. He's not a dictator, nor is he able to suppress the free press as much as he might keep hinting that he'd love to.

      Don't try and pretend Putin is not a massive fucking threat to peace and economic prosperity in Europe - for all Trump's faults, he at least isn't that.

    46. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce, don't spend too much time sprouting bullshsit on Slashdot, go get an ejucation instead. There oughta be a good mechanics intro course on EDX or Coursera.

    47. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait . . . we're not at war neither with Cuba nor with China . . .

      There have been no formal declaration of war by congress since WWII, the rest have been "military engagements".

      So, you know, you can get to Korean or Vietnam war level of shooting at the Chinese without "being at war" with China.

    48. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      And Islamic States.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    49. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      :|
      I don't have the words to really articulate the dumbfounded look on my face right now.

      Yes, we know for sure it couldn't be a satellite-based attack.
      There is no satellite emitter that is going to cause sonic waves to travel further than the collimated radiation that creates them via its interaction with the atmosphere (if such a thing is even possible).
      Basically, you have to pump out a *lot* of laser light or microwave energy to affect the atmosphere in any appreciable way. I posit that enough to cause sonic waves to hit the ground from space is enough to vaporize whatever the fuck is on the other end of that radiation emission.

    50. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, this is quite possibly the most sensible thing I've heard about Trump, because of the context. Bravo.

    51. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The problem with these reports is that the U.S. has been intensively monitoring for various forms of sound, radio waves, radiation, etc.

      Sounds like the monitoring devices are causing brain damage. (Seriously? Brain damage?)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      We don't take orders off the Americans either, as they're all-too-familiar.

      See, it's funny taking shit off Putin-loving scum on the Internet for European-style welfare states and our poor military readiness. Seeing as Russia's economy is half the size of Italy's, Russia's military readiness is terrible, they're lying about their nuclear arsenal (about the ONLY leverage, besides their ability to spread evil and chaos throughout the world with their spies).

      No matter, the evil and hatred that Russia is spreading, attacking the civilized and moral countries, is going to pay big dividends, when resources are diverted to the military. Russia is now rightly seen as the great world evil it is, and soon will face full-spectrum power never before seen in the history of the world.

    53. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Dustie · · Score: 1

      We don't take orders off the Americans either, as they're all-too-familiar.

      What Europe do you live in? Clearly not the same as me! Pretty much all decisions made in Europe are done thinking what the US will think of it and how not to make master angry. So much that when "we" don't agree it is in every paper. Just look at the fines against Google by the EU or stories about Iran these days. Or look at the F-35...

    54. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try and tell us what Europeans think because most of us our Europeans.

      So are most Russians.

    55. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      The Dutch are deeply committed to the US and they will exploit the MH17 incident for maximum damage to Russia, regardless of facts.
      If the facts support the claims and allow to shift blame from the Ukranian rebels to Russia then that's convenient. If not, they'll do it without the facts.

    56. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      ...and has ultrasonic alarms of that vintage....

      What exactly would be the point of an ultrasonic alarm? If you see the dogs running, follow them?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    57. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      You don't know the Dutch. The press and the state are entirely US puppets (okay, not entirely, there are vocal exceptions) and that includes their ideas on Trump.
      Take this case:
      The dutch state has just approved the 'sleepwet' https://dutchreview.com/news/p...
      This law has been handed down to them from the US and has been passed without discussion - or knowledge actually. There has been opposition to it which has led to a national referendum on it , which has subsequently been ignored, and the law has been enacted regardless.

    58. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Have we heard of other embassies in Cuba or China having the same issues?

      If not, I'd say the issue was more likely to be with how the US chooses its Embassy staff than some secret ultrasonic weapon.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    59. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Well, what do the Geneva Conventions on War state about the use of Acoustic Weapons . . . ?

      Oh, wait . . . we're not at war neither with Cuba nor with China . . .

      . . . yet . . .

      And what if it is neither Cuba nor China directly who were using them? What if the damage is a side-effect not the intended outcome. Much more likely the damage is a side-effect of some sort of listening device or espionage and not an actual weapon. It's probably not even Cuba and China, but another state spying on us because they are suspicious of our activities in those two countries.

      Who wouldn't want us getting closer to Cuba and China? Who is traditionally closer to those two countries than the US... and invests heavily in military and espionage?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    60. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      ... Oh and as an addendum to my previous comment.

      What if the US is actually doing it to itself? That's another possible scenario. Those are two countries we might expect espionage in, so what if the US has some sort of device that is designed to mask what goes on inside the embassy to listeners outside (acoustic or electronic listeners) and that device is making people in the embassy go deaf?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    61. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The Dutch are committed to the US because we have proven we will defend them from militarily expansionist dictatorships like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and Putinistic Russia.

      These are good things, not bad, Russian shill.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    62. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is either a dictatorship employee shilling, or what used to be called a Blame America Firster, now called someone with America Derangement Syndrome.

      Rorschach: "Old joke. American man says, 'In America, we have freedom of speech. I can go up on the steps of the Capitol Building, and say how terrible the President of the United States is.' (Putin shill): ' We, too, have freedom of speech. I can go up to the Kremlin and say, also, how terrible the President of the United States is.' Funny. Gets lots of laughs."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    63. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      So it can't happen and is accidental.

      Happy shilling, comrade!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    64. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      First, do I have to be aware if I'm a russian shill? Or is it enough if Russian propaganda has secretively entered my brain and taken over my thoughts without me knowing it? I've been on here longer than you. So am I some kind of Russian sleeper? Or did I get 'turned' more recently?
      Second, apparently you think the Dutch have the duty to act as American shills. That explains it. You don't object to shills, you just object to the wrong 'disloyal' type of shills .I believe people should try to think for themselves and not just be someone's shill.

    65. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      Well, if it were spaced based, why would they do it to an embassy to overseas? If some foreign power had this and wanted to use this, they could get the capital building and White House in DC.

    66. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I didn't bother speculating on the why given the obviously impossibility of the how, but you're right. It's a little weird to point your proposed Dr. Evil space weapon at an embassy... in Cuba. Particularly with how trivial it is for any advanced country to turn a satellite into debris at will.

    67. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That joke appears to be from the times of Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt in Yalta in 1945.

    68. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Does Canada count?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    69. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian embassy staff and/or their families in Cuba were also deeply affected, and at a different time. So far, not the Canadian visitors. Cuba and Canada have had diplomatic relations throughout the decades-long Cuba–U.S. freeze.

    70. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about your acquaintances.

      That 'sorry' does not look entirely sincere, "Mr. Perens", given the number of MH17 dead and those of the entire Russia vs. Ukraine conflict, the 2008 conflict against Georgia, and the two Chechen wars — and in light of your arguments that are unambiguously pro-Kremlin, which arguments are also anti-freedom by association.

      You have no idea what it is to not live in freedom.

      The Dutch investigators are most likely the kind who prefer to do things quietly. They collect the evidence first, connect the dots, and then publish their findings. Like Special Councel Muller in ye olde United States.

    71. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like almost everyone is hating Putin these days and tries to do maximum damage to them.
      I wonder why that is. I hear he's such a good guy who's only friends with other super honest and good people. Not shady at all. So everyone who criticizes him must be part of a global conspiracy that wants to hurt this loving good and honest family father who cares for his country as much as for his own billionaire children. Leave Putin alone! *cries*

    72. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya really admirable. So admirable my low income building is now hosting 80% of unemployed third world bottom feeders living on free handouts while my family is quite literally one of the last few still going to work in the entire residence. But let the delusion carry on while we keep placing work order to repair the broken doors/cars/bus stop/windows and report stolen properties on a weekly basis

    73. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Before anyone made an infrared motion detector based on an IC, intrusion alarms were based on sonar. They would detect the doppler from any moving object, which would be a difference from the fundamental frequency. Ultrasonic ones had the advantage that they did not make audible noise. At least most of the time. There were audible ones too. These ran around 10 kHz, I think using the same speaker for the alarm siren and for the sonar emitter.

    74. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      A similar thing happened to me in '08 in Albuquerque --I lived right next to Kirkland AFB, too.

      I was overly-tired, sometimes mental fog. Then one day, BAM! I hear a 'whoosh,' a light ringing, and then the ringing got louder over the coming hours.

      Eventually I lost the ability to hear anything over 3 kHz in one ear... it took over a period of 5 hours to really understand what seemed to be going on. I was more perplexed than scared, but I still haven't got my hearing back--I'm really, really looking forward to stem cells, as this ringing is getting like 10-years old!

      And here's the kicker...I think I figured out what caused all those symptoms and eventual ailments... my roommate and I were exposed to massive amounts of carbon monoxide. Maybe these embassies have bad wiring causing various physical effects from EM... or maybe a bird tried to make its nest in the water heater's vent!

      Occam's Razor always fails the person who can't know (lack of knowledge) or imagine (lack of creativity) all possible variables.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    75. Re: Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Building wiring causing EM that effects people seems really unlikely. And this is easy to measure so would not go undetected.

    76. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      well ... there's chinese solar panels on the roof here and i get beeping noises too, difficulty to focus, headaches, insomnia, permanent fatigue ... the lot so i can blame the chinese now ? since i had an mri and that quack said there was nothing physically wrong so it's all in my head, or actually its not ...??!? hm ...

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    77. Re:Still need to take this with skepticism by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, I seem to be really sensitive to vitamin B. Blood pressure, palpitations, all from a few sports drinks or that vitamin C powder stuff. And it turns out that all vitamin C is made in China. So yeah, that's the ticket, definitely the Chinese are to blame.

  2. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why u racist?

  3. The logical explanation: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Clearly US embassies are haunted. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Re:Thanks Obama! by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

    Damn, son! You didn't even post as an AC!

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  5. We take privacy very seriously. by MS · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Beware! Whenever a company claims "we take privacy very seriously", you should run! That company will do whatever possible to collect as much private data as possible about you to control and abuse you for its own purposes.

    1. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which happened under Obama in Cuba, so all thinking people know that wasn't true. The embassy people just whine about nothing, but now this is a real problem. Trump is doing nothing.

    2. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by greenwow · · Score: 1

      Wait. People are blaming Trump for something that started under Obama?

    3. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Trump's fault even though it happened before he was elected. Cuba knew Obama was weak and do nothing and that Trump would care more about workers in the US than workers outside of the US, so this was the fault of Trump.

    4. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it happened before Trump was elected doesn't make it not his fault.

    5. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. For 8 years we hear, "Bush's fault". Now we hear, "Trump's fault" which began the day after he was elected and hadn't even taken office yet.

    6. Re:We take privacy very seriously. by Megane · · Score: 1

      Which Bush? I still remember in 1992 how the mainstream media kept shilling about the "worst economy in forty years". Then, on election night, once Bubba had won enough electoral votes to win, Dan Rather said "here we are on the verge of an economic recovery", as though the mere election of his favorite candidate had suddenly changed the world, two months before he would even take the oath.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  6. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vatnik shitpost brigade will be along to mod you Funny and post whataboutism shortly.

  7. misplaced by MS · · Score: 1

    I posted that to another story...

    1. Re:misplaced by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Aging affects us all.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  8. Common Factor: US Embassy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy. Presumably, these are stocked with a variety of high tech equipment both to enable and prevent spying. Is it possible that there is some undesirable interaction of this equipment? The alternative, that someone is targetting US officials in disparate parts of the world with a bizarre ultrasonic non-lethal weapon seems somewhat less likely in the absence of any evidence for either scenario.

    1. Re: Common Factor: US Embassy by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could also be a case of mass psychosis. When you have hundreds of workers and you start warning them both internal and give credence through the media, you get these sort of results. Anticebo effect.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re: Common Factor: US Embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nocebo is the phrase you are looking for

    3. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy. Presumably, these are stocked with a variety of high tech equipment both to enable and prevent spying. Is it possible that there is some undesirable interaction of this equipment? The alternative, that someone is targetting US officials in disparate parts of the world with a bizarre ultrasonic non-lethal weapon seems somewhat less likely in the absence of any evidence for either scenario.

      Yeah the latter doesn't seem like a realistic scenario, because if you did have some secret new cool weapon why would you risk exposing it by testing it like this. You'd test it on poor people somewhere in the middle of nowhere, then unleash it on a high value target when appropriate. I suspect that there's something else going on here that we're not being told

    4. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A Cuba and China would try to flood a US embassy with its own spies.
      Long term, nice and productive, totally trusted by the US embassy.
      Humans walking out with all kinds of sensitive US information.
      No tech needed to risk collection just lots of totally trusted human. Lots of split loyalty staff reporting back to Cuba, China that are totally trusted by the US gov/mil.
      Why would a China and Cuba do the one thing to induce US security to look at all the embassy and find the spies using spy tech in place?
      Cuba and China would want a happy relaxed US embassy so their spies could collect and be safe and stay in place.
      Relaxed US officials are embassy workers not calling in US security to find problems and hunt down well established human spies.

      What is the sound? US spying hardware projected out of the embassy using methods to avoid detection.
      Someone got their gps wrong and has soaked the embassy in narrow, directional contractor collection communication system.
      Great when pointed out of the US embassy for a site to site burst of data. Positioned the wrong way and that powerful direction beam is staying in the US embassy.
      More a location and set up problem than any outside spying.

      Have the contractor look at their spying equipment and ensure all of it is working out into a Cuba, China. Not beaming back into the office and hallways.
      Do that and everything will return to normal. Spies can get o/n with their work and the rest of the staff will not be distracted by electronic communications from the tent/shack on the embassy roof.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re: Common Factor: US Embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just apple releasing EarPods

    6. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy.

      Two American Embassies so far - not really a large sample, statistically speaking. Also, it may be we only hear about it because it happened in those places - would we get to know it if even a largish number of ordinary people were affected elsewhere?

      What bothers me about this is that we don't seem to have any plausible means of attack; on the the surface, at least, it seems more plausible that you can start hearing odd sounds (ie. tinnitus) after some sort of mild brain damage (ie concussion). It is quite possible to get this sort of injury from eg. repeated, minor impacts to the head, such as heading a football, and there may well be many other ways, that we haven't really thought about yet.

    7. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the common factor is that they work at a US Embassy.

      Probably this is the natural reaction of being exposed to Trump's foreign policy documents.

    8. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      One plausible theory is also that it's the interaction of gear deployed to spy on the embassy by the host country and the anti-spying gear deployed by the embassy to thwart it.

      Think of it this way, the US probably has some mock/test environment where they validate equipment and conduct offensive tests on it. At that point, they would notice any weird interaction of their own gear. But they didn't notice it till it went to the embassy, meaning that the interaction is likely between their gear and something else that's not in their testing environment.

    9. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by infuriatedweasel · · Score: 1

      This! I thought they'd determined that the cause in cuba was likely some interaction of anti-eavesdropping tech that the US was using. They were doing it to themselves: https://www.spectrum.ieee.org/...

    10. Re:Common Factor: US Embassy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Cone of Silence is causing it?

  9. bull shi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The case of Cuba is a bull shit invented by Trumps friends in order to break relations with cuba!

  10. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought it was poisoning or an illness or at the most high tech, a microwave beam (but surely there are detectors for that in an embassy building, right?)

    Now I am beginning to suspect mass hysteria instead.

    Captcha: alcohol (tinnitus from too much loud music and alcohol at entertainment venues?)

  11. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you are quite the racist.

  12. Russia did not shoot down MH17 by willy_me · · Score: 4, Informative

    Russia did not pull the trigger - they gave a powerful weapon to untrained rebels who did pull the trigger. The distinction is minor - but relevant.

    If Russia was operating the AA missiles MH17 would probably be intact. The Russian military is well trained and would verify the identity of a plane before firing. The rebels - not so much. Giving AA missiles to the rebels is like giving a BB gun to a 10 year old --- do not be surprised when you find a pile of dead birds with BB shaped holes in them.

    After MH17 was brought down, the AA missiles were withdrawn back to Russia. This is a sign that Russia is embarrassed by what happened and was taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Too little too late... After this there was an increase in Russian military activity - probably due to the fact they could not trust the rebels to do the job for them.

    So Russia is to blame but they did not pull the trigger. Giving the AA missiles to the rebels was probably a political decision that had nothing to do with the military. I imagine that, at the time, the Russian generals did not approve of the decision and were probably not surprised by the result.

    And a note regarding Russians looting the victims --- it did not happen. The looting was from the local rebels. Basically gangs of undisciplined assholes tasked with driving out anyone who did not speak Russian. Once again, the Russians facilitated this behavior and are partially responsible, but they did not do it.

    1. Re: Russia did not shoot down MH17 by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Russian military is well trained and would verify the identity of a plane before firing.

      Actually, yes, they would.

    2. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I actually find this marginally credible. If MH17's transponder was working, there would have been little doubt about it's identity. I doubt even a questionable AA crew would choose to fire a missile at it. Unless there was a more legitimate target in the area and the missile locked on to the wrong target. OTOH, I can sort of conceive of the Russians handing Ukrainian rebels the keys to a missile launcher, giving them a few hours of very basic training on how to use it and turning them loose. (But only if they planned to keep Russian aircraft well clear of "rebel airspace")

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Wow what a crock. Evidence, hmm, nobody can decide, motivation, totally Ukrainian but what the fuck, bullshit will suffice. What's with the propaganda on slashdot.

      You put fear into people about shit and they will find shit, they will feel it and they will believe it and they will end up harming themselves and Americans are just full of it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by willy_me · · Score: 3, Informative

      And an intercepted recording of the incident...

      CNN

      It could have been faked, but unlikely. Most of the Ukrainian assertions claim that Russia was more directly involved. It is doubtful they would fake a recording that counters their assertions.

    5. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling the Russian military "well trained" is like calling Donald Trump "a very stable genius". There's basically only one person who says that about him with a straight face.

      We know the missile was fired from a Russian anti-aircraft brigade battery. It was inside Ukraine at the time, but had recently crossed from Russia, and shortly thereafter crossed back. There is still some room for doubt as to who, exactly, was in control of the battery at the time.

      It's at least possible that its owners were trying to train the rebels in its use, and neglected to check, or mention, that the missiles were armed. That would be of a piece with normal Russian operating procedures. See also: Chernobyl.

    6. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was the Russian crew that "pulled the trigger". You can even listen yourself to the radio chatter preceding and following the shooting, it is in Russian Russian, and not East Ukraine Russian. It was an illegal Russian operation, and, as often happens, botched badly.

      And the funniest part is that it was possible to track the Buk across Russia because Russians use video-registrators in cars en masse, because their corrupt police and court system doesn't provide them with adequate judicial process. That is, they botched their police and courts as well.

      Peddling the line "it wasn't the Russians because they would have done better" means all your "knowledge" about Russia is from Tom Clancy books and the like.

      Fucking zadrots.

    7. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Russia did not pull the trigger - they gave a powerful weapon to untrained rebels who did pull the trigger.

      I am sorry, but a random Cossack or a coal miner from Donbas is not going to figure out how to operate such a complex piece of machinery as the Buk SAM system after taking only a two-week crash course. It had to be operated by full-time Russian professionals.

    8. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, I can sort of conceive of the Russians handing Ukrainian rebels the keys to a missile launcher, giving them a few hours of very basic training on how to use it and turning them loose.

      No. that is also bullshit.

      At least they would have a couple of Russian soldiers assisting Ukrainian rebels, but the more likely scenario is that they were all Russian soldiers posing as Ukrainian rebels.

    9. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most of the Ukrainian assertions claim that Russia was more directly involved

      Surprise!

      To be clear I'm not sure who did it and not taking sides, but I also don't believe a single shred of evidence the Ukraine brings against Russia, and I don't believe a single shred of evidence that Russian brings against the Ukraine.

    10. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The distinction is bullshit. Russia is not a person. Russia can't actually do anything. It will always be people acting in the interest of a cause called "Russia", and what passport those people hold makes no fucking difference.

      *this* distinction is important because otherwise you can distance yourself from any Russian actor by saying "well, they were't realy Russian", "well, they acted alone", "well, they were soldiers on vacatoin", "well, the general acted alone", "well the Kremlin didn't know"... blah blah blah.

      For whatever unknowable reason, MH17 was destroyed for Russia, by Russian equipment, by people who, at the greatest distance, worked in close cooperation with Russia to satisfy Russian objectives.

      Russia killed those people.

    11. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It could have been operated by Russians who were 'on holiday'(I've actually encountered this description), but going from coal miners without military experience to Russian professionals making their own decisions seems like you're skipping a lot of possibilities in between.

    12. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

      MH17's transponder was not found to be either inoperative or switched off. You may have confused this with MH370.

      The problem is that a BUK system deployment normally contains both the TELAR (launcher) and a surveillance radar system known as the TAR. By itself, the TELAR has limited target acquisition capabilities and a very basic military IFF interrogator but it is supposed to be tasked by the TAR so multiple TELARs can engage different targets simultaneously but each has to be "pointed" in the correct general direction. The TAR usually has a full 360deg surveillance capability and can interrogate civilian transponders (depending on the model). For whatever reason, only a TELAR was used not a TAR. Perhaps the latter was considered too high a risk if lost?

    13. Re:Russia did not shoot down MH17 by guacamole · · Score: 1

      going from coal miners without military experience to Russian professionals making their own decisions seems like you're skipping a lot of possibilities in between.

      The international trade and transfers in the surface to air missile systems that are capable of hitting a passenger jet liner (or a fighter jet) at the cruise altitude are some of the most well-monitored, regulated, and politicized in the world. If Russia transferred the weapon to be in the hands of the possibilities in between, that probably still qualifies as a crime.

  13. Link by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Officials can not link the two events together at this point

    Of course they can. The obvious link is US itself!

  14. Re:Thanks Obama! by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Project much?

    How's the weather in Vladivostok?

  15. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok then, Adolf.

  16. Re:Thanks Obama! by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Takes one to know one. Russonazi.

  17. Here's something interesting to think about by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of talk of explanations, but I've yet to hear anyone blame this on anything supernatural. Yeah, yeah, it's 2018, but it's good to think that science is pervasive enough that nobody blames it on witches or demons or ghosts or something. From a historic standpoint it wasn't too long ago they'd be calling a priest in.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Here's something interesting to think about by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The ghosts of NSA and CIA communications attempts for the US embassy deep into China and Cuba?
      Some 1960's long forgotten Room 641A in the US embassy is still functional. The haunted paper scanner prototype is emitting a haunting glow up into the AC ducts Set to warm up ready for a 1970's US communications satellite pass over.
      The satellite is long gone but the spy fax machine warms up every day ready to send documents.
      A room nobody has keys and clearance to go into.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Here's something interesting to think about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time a possible sonic emission has been suspected to have had a mysteriously devastating effect on people, is the Dyatlov Pass incident.

  18. Re:Thanks Obama! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Why did I read your post with Stewie Griffin's voice?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  19. dental by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    I wonder if any of the affected people have any metal tooth fillings.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  20. microwave auditory effect. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    microwave auditory effect

  21. What are the symptoms? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Funny

    Staff there reported symptoms including hearing loss, dizziness, fatigue, and cognitive issues

    So lawyers, poli-sci grads, international studies grads :
      - Are noticed to be misinterpreting everything they hear in a way that seems like they are suffering hearing loss
      - Are dizzy after lunch and dinner... maybe having a little bit of trouble walking a straight line, can't touch their noses, etc...
      - Appear to be lazy as shit and are hoping people will believe they have fatigue?
      - Have cognitive issues... I mean beyond the aforementioned being a lawyer, poli-sci/international studies grad...

    I seriously don't see how this isn't a bigger problem in all embassies around the world.

    Is it possible this has always been the case but now, they're in a communist country and want to blame it on that?

  22. I have troubles believing this by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

    Audio attack? This has supposedly been happening for months (in Cuba). The very first thing any competent investigator would do is put microphones on the 'targets', to confirm the hypothesis of audio attack, to start understanding where and how the attacks are taking place, and to have evidence to present to the world that the attacks are real. I've seen no claims of there being such evidence. (I'm not perfect, so if I've missed something in the news, I'm happy to be corrected.)

    On the other hand, the mass hysteria hypothesis explains the known facts very well - except that we have to also assume US State Department incompetence, given that they expelled diplomats over this.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re: I have troubles believing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been recordings of the sounds and it was also happening to the Canadian embassy as well.

    2. Re: I have troubles believing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean evidence like this:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/recording-sound-cuba-sonic-weapon-attacks-2017-10

  23. Re: Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do conspirators trying to get a candidate elected normally release information deleterious to their preferred candidate right before the vote?

  24. This is plain silly. by xxxLCxxx · · Score: 1

    Considering that it's quite easy to record (even high frequency) sound, this is just plain silly.
    Either there was 'sound' and they recorded it or there wasn't.

  25. Still presented as acoustic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know its high gain masers...

  26. Re: Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin and his fascist bum buddies

    Those are maybe fewer than 100 people among 144 million other Russians. Saying that is racist is much like saying Clinton opponents are sexist because they refer her as a 'woman'.

    No doubt, Stalin did win the war in Europe. If you want to use a hyperbole here you could say that he had more disposable soldiers than the enemy had bullets. Without Stalin's push into Germany the war would probably have raged on for some time, costing claiming the lives of more people in combat. But the Nazis would have been defeated eventually.

    But with Stalin in central Europe it required the presence of another super power - the US - to keep him at bay. Otherwise Stalin would have turned all of Europe into the Soviet Union and raped the crap out of everything. Stalin certainly wasn't stupid when he started his counter offense against Germany. When the Nazis turned against Russia he knew that this wasn't Hitler's act of triumph, like he wished for in 'Mein Kampf', but rather an act of desperation. He was aware that the rest of Europe was ravaged by the war and ready for taking by a force that was large enough to occupy everything. You think the UK would have been able to hold Stalin back? Or their peace treaty with Finland would have stopped him? You can ask Poland how well their Treaty of Riga played out.

    Maybe Stalin was better to suffer under than Hitler, because the former only wanted to have more slaves instead of exterminating you, but neither of them were exactly good for Europe. It's a bit like if you were a black guy that's held hostage by the KKK and then ISIS comes along and beats the KKK. Sure, ISIS is not going to kill you just because of your skin colour, but they're still going to kill you if you do convert to their religion.

  27. This is starting to look a lot like by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    This is starting to look a lot like something that America is doing in its embassies, at least in "non-allied" countries. Maybe some leakage from something aimed at the host country's infrastructure

  28. Re: Thanks Obama! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Without Stalin's push into Germany the war would probably have raged on for some time

    Not sure I agree with you, there.
    While I do agree that it would have gone on for some time without an eastern front, by the time the Soviets pushed into Germany, the writing was on the wall for the Germans, and it was simply a race between which front would slam into Berlin first.

  29. Re: Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Soviet push did cost Nazi Germany a lot. I can imagine that it would have lasted until the completion of the first atom bombs which might have been dropped over some larger cities in Germany. Which is a likely scenario if the Russians hadn't already made it into Berlin and other parts of the country. Of course that would also make the progress of the war in Asia a lot more interesting.

    My general point being that Hitler would have lost anyway. If it wasn't for the Soviets, Europe would not speak German and probably a lot fewer people would speak Russian. Stalin did not come to save Europe from the Nazis and give people freedom, he wanted it for himself.

  30. Re: Thanks Obama! by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    If Germans forces wouldn't get tied up on eastern front they would be able to make any sort of allied landing in Europe an impossibility. Thus the war would end in stalemate, since German actions against Britain on its home island weren't very successful either and they were so mostly due to situation in air and sea, something that early soviet defeat would do little to change.

  31. Re: Thanks Obama! by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

    Germany had lots of restrictions regarding their army due to WWI, Staling made pact with Hitler and supported him military and let German troupes be trained in Russia, then together they partitioned Poland. Hitler and Stalin were cooperating till 1941, so I would be quite resistant to give Stalin any credit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    http://www.historynet.com/devi...

  32. It sounds like.... by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

    Some of the affected people say the sound resembles "Yanny", while other swear it sounds more like "Laurel".

  33. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you have your own Xenophobia liberal.

  34. Re: Thanks Obama! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Definitely not an impossibility. Just would have taken longer.
    The western allies had air superiority, and the number of German cities that still had functioning war production was dropping every day. In the end, it was an economic fight that they could not win. I'm not banging the 'Murica drum here- the fact is simply that we had more money and people and production. We weren't going to lose the war of attrition, they were.
    We could inflict losses on them faster than they could replace them, they could not do the same. Not even close.
    The eastern front sped things up, but it didn't save us from a stalemate.
    Ultimately, though, I said the eastern front is what helped- not the push into Germany. By the time the Soviets pushed into Germany, the Germans were well and fully fucked and their military capacity was collapsing at an irreversible rate.

  35. Re: Thanks Obama! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we don't actually disagree, I was just adding nuance.
    I maintain the Germans were already done, even if the Soviets had never gone west of Poland. The fight in the USSR/Poland combined with overwhelming allied air superiority and carpet bombing in Germany proper completely depleted their war machine's production capacity.

  36. Re: Thanks Obama! by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

    And of course the world's biggest aircraft carrier stationed right off of Europe- Britain

  37. Re: Thanks Obama! by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Well, allied landing only happened when Germany's defeat was imminent. This pretty much means that if things worked out the other way they would never land. Instead they'd be content to let axis have entire Eurasia while keeping Africa and rest of world for themselves. Attrition works both ways and they wouldn't risk fighting Germany in Europe considering that there's little to gain by this.

  38. White Noise Generators by Tim12s · · Score: 1

    Multiple whitenoise generators / ultrasound generators - Wasnt that the verdict discovered a while back? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

    Wasnt that being used in Cuba? Two different teams setting up protection equipment in the same office sending off inaudible sounds. Since there were two they created worse interference that was undetectable to the ear.

    Sounds like the same two idiots.

  39. Probably not external by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect that these symptoms are not the result of something external, such as ultrasound, subsonic sound, RF, etc., but rather some kind of poisoning due to what they have ingested. For example, some crappy embassy coffee, or crappy embassy liquor, or crappy embassy ibuprofen pills. Or even bad air due to crappy materials used in remodeling.

  40. Hmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Tom Clancy's spy books, even 30 years ago embassies were allegedly wrapped in all sorts of physical and electronic shielding in order to block eavesdropping attempts.

    I agree with other posters that it seems more likely that the U.S. has done this too themselves, either deliberately or accidentally. They're just too arrogant to be able to admit it, possibly even to themselves.

  41. Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm... it was chem trails, no, ermm... brainwashing, no, ermm... those weather stations near the North Pole, ermm... no, it was an acoustic attack! Have Massive Attack actually ever done an MTV Unplugged performance?

  42. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another "sonic" microwave radiation story.

  43. Re: Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is a race now?