Merged US may close Cuba Embassy over 'health attacks'

[dann]

It occurred to me that I myself have experienced the symptoms described by the American tourist mentioned above - several years before I went to Cuba for the first time:

American tourist says Cuba’s sonic attack may have hit him
(…)
After spending his first day walking the city, he checked into room 1414 of the recently refurbished Hotel Capri. Within minutes of going to bed, he started losing feeling.
The tingling originated in his toes (Remember: "After spending his first day walking the city …"), like that prickly feeling when your foot falls asleep. It spread into his ankles and calves, then to his fingertips. He got up to investigate, and the sensation went away. He got back in bed. The tingling returned, reaching his hands, forearms, ears, cheek and neck.
(my italics, dann, also in the following quotes)

These sensations occur in many people when they use the relaxation technique called autogenic training:

Some people however may experience the relaxation as lightness or tingling or some other sensation. I say that the particular subjective experience isn't important - simply treat my remarks about "heaviness" as a code word for whatever you personally experience as you allow a deepening relaxation response.
http://www.goodmedicine.org.uk/goodknowledge/autogenic-training-session-1

She may experience feelings of tingling or even a temporary numbness in some part of the body
https://patcarrington.com/about-meditation/meditation-articles/1983-2/

So the irony here is that this guy got all worked up when he experienced something that was actually signs that he was relaxing.
When you use this technique deliberately, you focus on your extremities: hands and/or feet, and usually you will soon feel warmth (and/or heaviness, and/or tingling). The sensation quickly disappears if you focus on something else - in particular, if you also get out of bed like he did! But, of course, if you don't do this deliberately and think that the tingling sensations are a sign that something is wrong with you, you may get scared and start annoying MDs for however long they put up with your hypochondria.

 

[Checkmite]

T
… from several kinds of somatoform disorders.

There is no such thing as "several kinds of somatoform disorders". There is only one kind: one in which inexplicable symptoms have presented.

 

[Checkmite]

Someone recorded some sounds. I don't know who, nor where, nor what equipment they used, nor whether what they recorded is what the recordist heard, nor how quiet these sounds were.

You also don't know if all of alleged victims actually reported different symptoms, or if that's just something that's been reported or alleged by unnamed sources. For that matter, you don't know exactly how many people reported supposed symptoms - or whether in fact anyone ever actually did and the entire story from the very top to the very bottom is fabricated.

We can't have a meaningful discussion about this unless we're willing to take at least the consistently reported aspects as "accurate" in a face-value sense. And in such a discussion, there's a kind of obligation to be consistent: if we're going to treat one reported fact (such as that many different symptoms were reported) as credible enough that we can use it to rebut ideas, we can't reject another reported fact, given on equal terms with precisely the same (lack of definitive) provenance, as unusable or questionable based on that lack of provenance.

 

[Sherkeu]

You also don't know if all of alleged victims actually reported different symptoms, or if that's just something that's been reported or alleged by unnamed sources. For that matter, you don't know exactly how many people reported supposed symptoms - or whether in fact anyone ever actually did and the entire story from the very top to the very bottom is fabricated.

We can't have a meaningful discussion about this unless we're willing to take at least the consistently reported aspects as "accurate" in a face-value sense. And in such a discussion, there's a kind of obligation to be consistent: if we're going to treat one reported fact (such as that many different symptoms were reported) as credible enough that we can use it to rebut ideas, we can't reject another reported fact, given on equal terms with precisely the same (lack of definitive) provenance, as unusable or questionable based on that lack of provenance.

Earlier you claimed that there was a "dividing line between media speculation and what the government is actually claiming." Then you listed some things as government 'fact' that the government never stated nor confirmed.

Are claims made by AP reporters, where they give no clue as to their source, the same as the 'facts' officially confirmed by the State Department?

 

[Checkmite]

Earlier you claimed that there was a "dividing line between media speculation and what the government is actually claiming." Then you listed some things as government 'fact' that the government never stated nor confirmed.

That's fair; the "facts" are those specific claims which the news media has attributed to government "sources", not official government statements.

 

[Sherkeu]

That's fair; the "facts" are those specific claims which the news media has attributed to government "sources", not official government statements.

Ok. So where did the AP get that recording? They aren't saying how or where they got it. They simply say they "were obtained".
Any ideas who gave it to them or why they aren't giving even the vaguest hint of a source?

For such a big piece of the mysterious puzzle, there are some very basic facts missing in the reporting. We have the 'what' but not the how, who, where, or why.

 

[Checkmite]

Ok. So where did the AP get that recording? They aren't saying how or where they got it. They simply say they "were obtained".
Any ideas who gave it to them or why they aren't giving even the vaguest hint of a source?

If we're going to assume for the discussion's sake that the AP didn't just completely invent the recording on its own, logically there can have been only two possible sources for the various recordings - the government investigators, or the victims who made them.

In the original article, the AP says it "has learned" that the recordings were being analyzed by the US Navy. Again, if this isn't a complete invention by the AP, it's the kind of fact that can only have come from a government source familiar with that development. This necessarily indicates that the government is in possession of the recordings. So the matter must be: either the alleged victims who made the recordings gave copies of them to the government and other copies of them to the AP, or the victims turned the recordings over to the government and a source involved in the government investigation gave copies to the AP.

The AP reports that it has played the recordings for some of the alleged victims who reported hearing sounds during their supposed incidents, and those victims positively recognized the sound in the recordings. Again, unless this is utter fiction, that makes it logically unlikely that the AP or whomever gave the recordings to the AP fabricated them.

 

[dann]

There is no such thing as "several kinds of somatoform disorders". There is only one kind: one in which inexplicable symptoms have presented.

Treatment of somatoform disorders. However, the point in this context is that the people afflicted seem to suffer from a variety of symptoms. And at least one of them now has a hearing aid. You might be able to talk a doctor into prescribing one, but if the story is real, it seems to indicate that at least one case is 'legit', but it doesn't prove that it was caused by a 'sonic attack'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Tonkin Gulf Ghosts were the WMDs of the Vietnam War. They were not what caused the war. They served as an excuse for escalating a war that the USA wanted to escalate.
In the present situation, Trump does believe that "Cuba's responsible" because this belief serves his interest in shutting down the newly established diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Cuba.
However, we are not talking about the need to believe that James Randi has mentioned time and again: In this case, any excuse will do.
And consider the alleged recordings of the "device": Are they even actual recordings or did somebody make them up? Why didn't these recordings appear until more and more experts started to "suspect a psychosomatic disorder linked to high stress in Havana"?! I hope that some acoustics experts will be able to come up with an explanation for how sounds like these can be made and what purpose they might serve …

I know what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was (and was about). I don't find the analogy all that relevant.

 

[dann]

The AP reports that it has played the recordings for some of the alleged victims who reported hearing sounds during their supposed incidents, and those victims positively recognized the sound in the recordings. Again, unless this is utter fiction, that makes it logically unlikely that the AP or whomever gave the recordings to the AP fabricated them.

Yes, the AP claims to know some of the alleged victims who didn't record anything, apparently.

That's the way to do it! That's how a true pro would tackle it! You go to a convention of UFO abductees and instead of asking them what their alleged abductors looked like, you show them a photo of a Grey one from Close Encounters: and ask them: "Is this what your abductors looked like?!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no such thing as "several kinds of somatoform disorders". There is only one kind: one in which inexplicable symptoms have presented.

No, another just no.

Mirriam-Webster: somatoform disorder

Medical Definition of somatoform disorder

any of a group of psychological disorders (as body dysmorphic disorder or hypochondriasis) marked by physical complaints for which no organic or physiological explanation is found and for which there is a strong likelihood that psychological factors are involved...

"Inexplicable" is a poor choice of words here. As for cause, there are multiple causes and related disorders.

Essentially the symptoms fall into related categories in that there is some sensation, pain or other and no correlating clinical findings.

 

[dann]

I know what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was (and was about). I don't find the analogy all that relevant.

We've got something. We have no idea what it is, but we choose to interpret it as an attack and to act accordingly …

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Treatment of somatoform disorders. However, the point in this context is that the people afflicted seem to suffer from a variety of symptoms. And at least one of them now has a hearing aid. You might be able to talk a doctor into prescribing one, but if the story is real, it seems to indicate that at least one case is 'legit', but it doesn't prove that it was caused by a 'sonic attack'.

Without a baseline hearing test and a viable timeframe plus other causes of hearing loss ruled out, all you have here is a guy goes in for a hearing exam and comes out with a hearing aid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We've got something. We have no idea what it is, but we choose to interpret it as an attack and to act accordingly …

The difference is, Johnson knew the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on a lie.

... In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8] In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."[9]

That's different from simply taking advantage of a convenient hysterical reaction. And in Trump's case, he has a history of believing crap like this.

 

[Sherkeu]

If we're going to assume for the discussion's sake that the AP didn't just completely invent the recording on its own, logically there can have been only two possible sources for the various recordings - the government investigators, or the victims who made them.

In the original article, the AP says it "has learned" that the recordings were being analyzed by the US Navy. Again, if this isn't a complete invention by the AP, it's the kind of fact that can only have come from a government source familiar with that development. This necessarily indicates that the government is in possession of the recordings. So the matter must be: either the alleged victims who made the recordings gave copies of them to the government and other copies of them to the AP, or the victims turned the recordings over to the government and a source involved in the government investigation gave copies to the AP.

The AP reports that it has played the recordings for some of the alleged victims who reported hearing sounds during their supposed incidents, and those victims positively recognized the sound in the recordings. Again, unless this is utter fiction, that makes it logically unlikely that the AP or whomever gave the recordings to the AP fabricated them.

There are other possible sources: Cuban government, Cuban spies, family of victims, Canadian embassy, Swiss Embassy, French Embassy, talented North Korean hacker... etc.... I don't doubt that the AP found it to be credible.

The odd thing is that whoever the source is, they didn't provide the story behind the sound. e.g., "AP sources say this sound was recorded at a diplomatic residence with technology provided to embassy staff last summer. This particular sound is said to be linked to a victim with mild head trauma and other undisclosed ailments that have been medically confirmed."
Odder still is that they don't acknowledge that these facts are missing. e.g "At this time, the AP is not at liberty to disclose confidential details relating to the recording..." (<---note that I have made up all those quotes as examples)

All we get is "we obtained this sound of the attack in Havana".

It's weird journalism, right?

*If it was made personally by a victim and then shared secretly by the government to other victims, then it really isn't authenticated at all, is it? It is the victims say-so. That is not a good source, especially for something that could be initially delusional. (I happen to have a lot of experience with 'proof' offered by delusional people! They are pretty clever!)

 

[Checkmite]

Treatment of somatoform disorders. However, the point in this context is that the people afflicted seem to suffer from a variety of symptoms. And at least one of them now has a hearing aid. You might be able to talk a doctor into prescribing one, but if the story is real, it seems to indicate that at least one case is 'legit', but it doesn't prove that it was caused by a 'sonic attack'.

And therein lies part of the problem I'm trying to bring attention to, which is this fixation on a "sonic attack". The earliest reports revealing physical symptoms like brain injury were already pointing out that sound could not have been responsible for those injuries. While it was reported that government investigators initially considered a sonic weapon because of the number of "victims" positively heard sounds when they began developing symptoms, it was also reported that other supposed victims did not hear sounds.

So from a big-picture standpoint it would seem that, if something is going on here at all, sound could easily just be one component - and not necessarily a primary or particularly damaging one at that. If one takes time to actually read the earliest articles and those with new information to impart this impression isn't hard to come by at all - but it seems as if a lot of people, including some of this thread, would prefer to instead focus on "ZOMG sonic attack!" and insist that some kind of physically impossible BattleStarTrekWars science-fiction sound-weapon-device is central to the entire issue because that makes it easier to laugh at.

 

[Checkmite]

There are other possible sources: Cuban government, Cuban spies, family of victims, Canadian embassy, Swiss Embassy, French Embassy, talented North Korean hacker... etc.... I don't doubt that the AP found it to be credible.

Of the recordings? Yes, out-of-context. But I think the other arguments I made effectively preclude any source other than the US government or the victims themselves.

 

[Sherkeu]

Of the recordings? Yes, out-of-context. But I think the other arguments I made effectively preclude any source other than the US government or the victims themselves.

I did look for what must be other people asking my same questions to the AP.

Oct 12 Josh Lederman tweet:
"We don't discuss our sources."

So there you have it! They aren't gonna say if the source was even human! haha

At best, I think they can say it's a recording of what the US government believes could very well be the exact or similar sound to what some of the victims claim to have heard at the time they were allegedly attacked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of the recordings? Yes, out-of-context. But I think the other arguments I made effectively preclude any source other than the US government or the victims themselves.

I'm confused, are you now arguing it was either hysteria or the US government?

 

[Checkmite]

I'm confused, are you now arguing it was either hysteria or the US government?

"Source" in that post refers to the AP's source for the recording they published.