6 ms·

I wont fault people for lacking a basic understanding of science but at least using basic fact checking should be doable. Like maybe google "microwave attacks

I wont fault people for lacking a basic understanding of science but at least using basic fact checking should be doable. Like maybe google "microwave attacks snopes" or something: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-sonic-weapons-explain-the-health-diplomats-cuba/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-sonic-weapons-explain-t... (Written in 2017(!) but hey just lets just warm up the story again and again). I am sorry for being snarky but between having to explain grown ass adults why they should wear masks during a pandemic I am tired for arguing against all the misinformation. The average person has no idea how microwaves work so they are basically magic and easily to make some scary story up. Why change the time tested cold war approach of just throwing ridiculous lies against any perceived enemy of the US of A and see what sticks. If it doesn't stick the first time, just repeat and repeat it. The more often people hear it the more believable it seems.

GVIrish 6y ago
That article doesn't disprove a microwave attack at all, it just says there is no known public evidence that matches up with what is described. Fact is that if this is real, it is the work of a sophisticated adversary that may have found a novel way to attack people. Even going back to the 60's there was stuff done in spycraft that would seem implausible to most people even today. A relevant example is the use of microwaves to activate a passive antenna through walls to eaves drop on conversations (look up "The Thing Listening Device). Again this was done many decades ago. Not too far fetched to consider that maybe Russia intelligence services found a way to weaponized microwaves.
- markdown 6y ago
  It isn't real.
- cardanome 6y ago
  > That article doesn't disprove a microwave attack at all, it just says there is no known public evidence that matches up with what is described. I can not disprove that there is a magic man in the sky. Or a teapot revolving around the sun. [1] The burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the other way round. Yes, lack of evidence is enough to reject it. Not to mention that the claim goes against established scientific knowledge and therefore would need some serious evidence for it to be taken serious. > Even going back to the 60's there was stuff done in spycraft that would seem implausible to most people even today. There is lot's of things we do not know but that does not make a good argument for the existence of something. > A relevant example is the use of microwaves to activate a passive antenna through walls to eaves drop on conversations (look up "The Thing Listening Device). Again this was done many decades ago. Not too far fetched to consider that maybe Russia intelligence services found a way to weaponized microwaves. Not really, there is no clear quantitative development patch from The Thing Listening Device to the Havana style microwave attack. Now we know the hypotheses requiring the fewest assumptions to be more likely true. [2] So what is more likely? The whole Havana Syndrome is fabricated propaganda that is typical and in line of many similar cases of proven lies? Or that Cuba has some advanced secret technology that even the US has no access to and that they are using on US diplomatic personal without any good motivation. In fact it will hurt their reputation. So we need to also claim that they are irrationally evil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    > lack of evidence is enough to reject it This is a pseudo-skeptical[1] finger in the ear reaction. There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either. All I see is a total a priori dismissal which is not good practice for either a skeptic or a scientist. Here's what would've told me that this is a good faith exercise (by either you or Snopes): You show that you understand what the claimed evidence is, you present it in the most generous and strong terms, then you explain why it's wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566408/#sec0017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566408/#sec0017
    - leoc 6y ago
      There's little in the Snopes article which opposes the microwave theory, as opposed to the sound theory. It quotes two US experts in favour of the idea, and the strongest evidence it gives against microwaves is a dismissive reaction from an expert who, as the article makes clear, was acting as a spokesman for the Cuban government.
    - cardanome 6y ago
      > There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either. I have debated that topic multiple times during different years. Yes, I am not fully up to date with the newest version I you were a police man and some guy came up and claimed to be a victim of a crime and you find out the details don't add up, well that happens. Now if he came back next year with a slightly different story about the same crime, yeah that is fishy. If he constantly keeps changing his implausible story you would at some tell him to get lost for wasting police time.
      - fighterpilot 6y ago
        > if he came back next year with a slightly different story So the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine keeps changing their story? Do you have evidence for this?
candiodari 6y ago
But the problem with this sort of attitudes is that governments constantly lie. In a number of cases this is explainable. For instance, one way we do nuclear weapon containment is by lying about certain properties of Uranium (and of course mostly lie about lying, and of course, most researchers don't think it's particularly effective. While you need uranium to find the correct values, uranium + an old tv can tell you exactly what's being lied about and what the correct values are. Any experimental physicist leans how to do this). But we are now in the situation that media in Europe are lying every day about the constant violence used by the police in Paris (and Brussels, and Madrid, and ...) against COVID-protestors. For example, just from today: https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 (Paris is usually much worse btw) So you cannot trust these messages. Your argument is essentially an appeal to an authority. It is critically dependent on the authority not lying, and not leaving out critical information, and since you have no ability to figure out what they would lie about (and the State Dept has lied about their own people getting hurt and the causes many times). That doesn't mean other sources are believable or not. The sources of these conspiracies do mean 1) people who were here were hurt. 2) the state department is not helping them. 3) the purpose of these denial messages is, at least in part, to justify 2). I'm willing to bet that you at the very least think 2) is not true. So your careful fact checking has in fact lead you astray as well, because authorities, just like anyone else, serve their own interests.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > For example, just from today: > https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 I don't know if it was correct for the police to get those people away, but from the video the police 1. didn't use force until someone started kicking against them etc 2. when people continued moving away police immediately left them alone I was expecting police to run after someone who hadn't done anything or something but this looks like a quite ordinary example of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". You don't kick after a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) and act surprised when you get a beating. That said I agree with much of the rest.
- cardanome 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
leoc 6y ago
Is your claim that the US EE professor and the US professor of neurosurgery quoted in the Snopes article are lying for their government, or that they are grossly incompetent?

GVIrish 6y ago

That article doesn't disprove a microwave attack at all, it just says there is no known public evidence that matches up with what is described. Fact is that if this is real, it is the work of a sophisticated adversary that may have found a novel way to attack people. Even going back to the 60's there was stuff done in spycraft that would seem implausible to most people even today. A relevant example is the use of microwaves to activate a passive antenna through walls to eaves drop on conversations (look up "The Thing Listening Device). Again this was done many decades ago. Not too far fetched to consider that maybe Russia intelligence services found a way to weaponized microwaves.

markdown 6y ago
It isn't real.
cardanome 6y ago
> That article doesn't disprove a microwave attack at all, it just says there is no known public evidence that matches up with what is described. I can not disprove that there is a magic man in the sky. Or a teapot revolving around the sun. [1] The burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the other way round. Yes, lack of evidence is enough to reject it. Not to mention that the claim goes against established scientific knowledge and therefore would need some serious evidence for it to be taken serious. > Even going back to the 60's there was stuff done in spycraft that would seem implausible to most people even today. There is lot's of things we do not know but that does not make a good argument for the existence of something. > A relevant example is the use of microwaves to activate a passive antenna through walls to eaves drop on conversations (look up "The Thing Listening Device). Again this was done many decades ago. Not too far fetched to consider that maybe Russia intelligence services found a way to weaponized microwaves. Not really, there is no clear quantitative development patch from The Thing Listening Device to the Havana style microwave attack. Now we know the hypotheses requiring the fewest assumptions to be more likely true. [2] So what is more likely? The whole Havana Syndrome is fabricated propaganda that is typical and in line of many similar cases of proven lies? Or that Cuba has some advanced secret technology that even the US has no access to and that they are using on US diplomatic personal without any good motivation. In fact it will hurt their reputation. So we need to also claim that they are irrationally evil. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  > lack of evidence is enough to reject it This is a pseudo-skeptical[1] finger in the ear reaction. There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either. All I see is a total a priori dismissal which is not good practice for either a skeptic or a scientist. Here's what would've told me that this is a good faith exercise (by either you or Snopes): You show that you understand what the claimed evidence is, you present it in the most generous and strong terms, then you explain why it's wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566408/#sec0017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566408/#sec0017
  - leoc 6y ago
    There's little in the Snopes article which opposes the microwave theory, as opposed to the sound theory. It quotes two US experts in favour of the idea, and the strongest evidence it gives against microwaves is a dismissive reaction from an expert who, as the article makes clear, was acting as a spokesman for the Cuban government.
  - cardanome 6y ago
    > There's nothing in your posts here that tells me that you've reviewed the evidence that's been put forth[2] and rejected it, and it seems Snopes hasn't either. I have debated that topic multiple times during different years. Yes, I am not fully up to date with the newest version I you were a police man and some guy came up and claimed to be a victim of a crime and you find out the details don't add up, well that happens. Now if he came back next year with a slightly different story about the same crime, yeah that is fishy. If he constantly keeps changing his implausible story you would at some tell him to get lost for wasting police time.
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      > if he came back next year with a slightly different story So the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine keeps changing their story? Do you have evidence for this?

candiodari 6y ago

But the problem with this sort of attitudes is that governments constantly lie. In a number of cases this is explainable. For instance, one way we do nuclear weapon containment is by lying about certain properties of Uranium (and of course mostly lie about lying, and of course, most researchers don't think it's particularly effective. While you need uranium to find the correct values, uranium + an old tv can tell you exactly what's being lied about and what the correct values are. Any experimental physicist leans how to do this). But we are now in the situation that media in Europe are lying every day about the constant violence used by the police in Paris (and Brussels, and Madrid, and ...) against COVID-protestors. For example, just from today: https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 (Paris is usually much worse btw) So you cannot trust these messages. Your argument is essentially an appeal to an authority. It is critically dependent on the authority not lying, and not leaving out critical information, and since you have no ability to figure out what they would lie about (and the State Dept has lied about their own people getting hurt and the causes many times). That doesn't mean other sources are believable or not. The sources of these conspiracies do mean 1) people who were here were hurt. 2) the state department is not helping them. 3) the purpose of these denial messages is, at least in part, to justify 2). I'm willing to bet that you at the very least think 2) is not true. So your careful fact checking has in fact lead you astray as well, because authorities, just like anyone else, serve their own interests.

skinkestek 6y ago
> For example, just from today: > https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 https://twitter.com/KevinTONON_/status/1388575836387880965 I don't know if it was correct for the police to get those people away, but from the video the police 1. didn't use force until someone started kicking against them etc 2. when people continued moving away police immediately left them alone I was expecting police to run after someone who hadn't done anything or something but this looks like a quite ordinary example of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". You don't kick after a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) and act surprised when you get a beating. That said I agree with much of the rest.
cardanome 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

leoc 6y ago

Is your claim that the US EE professor and the US professor of neurosurgery quoted in the Snopes article are lying for their government, or that they are grossly incompetent?