Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokai | Hacker News Reader

I know. I wrote "no evidence for".

I think they're just establishing a scope for the "no evidence for," because "no evidence for" doesn't necessarily imply "evidence against" but it's often interpreted that way.

I mean the fact that they did this before, I think should go in the evidence column

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

After they got caught they put extra cladding up on the building, and the soviets in turn responded by just making their signal transmission stronger.

That is far, far most likely an RF signal used to power espionage devices. Both the US and the USSR played with putting passively powered espionage devices. The idea it was done to injure embassy staff at this point is a conspiracy theory.

It's not meaningful to call a hypothesis a "conspiracy theory" in this everyday sense when the world of espionage is concerned. Many things that people would intuitively put into conspiracy theory territory have occurred or are even common in clandestine service scenarios. Bugs have been put into buildings during construction years before they were used, radioactive substances were used to track people, one-time pads written by secretaries on typewriters were broken in deciphering efforts that took many years, hardware devices were intercepted and modified during ordinary mail order process, Swiss companies specialized in encryption were entirely compromised and run by the CIA, people have been murdered with poison pellets from a gun looking like an umbrella, etc.

It is a conspiracy theory because the CIA spent 20 years trying to find any effects on health and failed, because medical research spent 50 years trying to find a way how non-heating, non-ionizing radiation could have ill effects on health, and because RF fields to power passive spy devices has been demonstrated many times. Anyone believing at this point that a microwave signal weaker than the leakage of a microwave oven was design to hurt people at the embassy is at the level of a conspiracy theory.

There is no scientific basis for the theory, there are decades of research failing to find either a theoretical or empirical basis, while there are other plausible and precedented hypotheses. Every single example you provided however, was immediately technically plausible at the very least. So yes, the theory it was somehow detrimental to the health of the embassy staff is essentially a conspiracy theory. There is nothing behind it beyond motivated reasoning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com