3 Comments
Mar 6, 2023Liked by Steven Craddock

Steven I like your opinion piece. My criticism of your reasoning would be that you use CIA’ supposed intent to come up with wether or not the intelligence report should be trusted. I doubt that CIA would show their cards, or that someone can figure out their intent. They manipulate the narrative, and the actual intent remains hidden. We apply this logic to figuring out the intent of people we know well. But we definitely don’t know CIA true agenda. And thus, this approach doesn’t sound reliable to me.

What does sound reliable, is the good ole scientific method, which is not about having evidence in support of a particular hypothesis, but in the inability to falsify it.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for reading!

I see your point and I agree. As I mentioned in the piece, I don't trust intelligence agencies. I didn't necessarily mean that this latest intel report should be trusted completely, just that based on the CIA's history of blaming Havana Syndrome on countries like Russia, this one seems to merit more trust than the average intel report because it at least seems to go against an obvious interest they might have.

However, I'm completely open to the idea that there may be more to the story, and now that we're actively engaged in a proxy war with Russia, using Havana Syndrome as propaganda against them has basically served it's purpose and now the IC needs to cover up it's part in whatever the truth behind the situation is.

I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Mar 6, 2023Liked by Steven Craddock

You are welcome, Steven. Just my two cents: If the interest of a spy agency is obvious, that’s probably the interest they want you to assume they have. Creating false narrative is the weapon CIA perfected. And we get fooled time after time after time, only to find out 50 years later what was really going on.

Expand full comment