Company That Bragged It Could Track U.S. Spies Hired to Investigate “Havana Syndrome” 46%

By Sam Biddle81%

7/12/2026, 9:51:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 34.9% saturation with 229 hits. Analysis detected 1,441 faulty-reasoning hits from 656 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.8% and a BS Rank of 46% (12,025 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.90% of the article peer group.

The U.S. military inquiry into the so-called Havana syndrome, the mysterious illness claimed by a litany of American intelligence officers, is tapping a controversial contractor: a private surveillance firm that once boasted of its ability to stalk American intelligence officers. 
Documents obtained by The Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that technology from the Virginia-based startup Anomaly 6 has been used to assist the “Anomalous Health Incidents Cross Functional Team,” the Pentagon’s official Havana syndrome investigatory task force . 
That group studies a cluster of strange symptoms claimed by personnel from U.S. spy agencies, the State Department, and elsewhere in the federal government. 
Related 
American Phone-Tracking Firm Demo’d Surveillance Powers by Spying on CIA and NSA 
In 2022, The Intercept revealed that Anomaly 6 had used a provocative demonstration of its surveillance prowess in a closed-door business pitch. 
The company, which purchases bulk cellular location data harvested from millions of unwitting smartphone users around the world, showed a potential customer that its data stores were so vast and accurate that it could pinpoint the movements of employees of both the CIA and NSA , tracking them as they commuted between their homes and their respective agencies headquarters. 
It was a remarkable demonstration of the advanced capabilities of private sector surveillance brokers, who lean on unscrupulous smartphone apps and advertisers that indiscriminately share and sell users’ location data . 
For any military, the appeal of this technology is obvious, and the Pentagon has used commercial device tracking for years. 
Although Anomaly 6 previously marketed its wares by showing how it could spy on fellow Americans, the pitch also showed how the company could track a foreign adversary’s naval assets abroad, for example. 
It’s not clear on what basis the U.S. 
Air Force Concepts, Development, and Management Office chose Anomaly 6 for its Havana syndrome investigation; federal records note the contract is worth nearly $6 million and set to run through September. 
Anomaly 6 and the Air Force did not respond to a request for comment. 
The Air Force redacted most of the document before releasing it to The Intercept, providing only fragments of information about how Anomaly 6 is help investigate “anomalous health incidents.” 
The contract, described in public procurement records as Project Yellowfin, notes that the Anomalous Health Incidents Cross-Functional Team will make use of the company’s “expertise in location intelligence” to “identify actors and activities of interest,” and that the “Contractor shall produce data visualization products capable of being utilized as stand-alone brief materials by decision-makers and senior leaders. 
These products will enable briefers to highlight geographical distribution, temporal patterns, patterns of life, and interconnectivity of events and actors.” 
Related 
TikTok Threat Is Purely Hypothetical, U.S. 
Intelligence Admits 
This reference to actors of interest may relate to the intensely held belief by Havana syndrome patients that their suffering is due to a covert energy-based attack by a foreign government . 
In its 2022 pitch, Anomaly 6 singled out its ability to track the movements of Chinese and Russian military personnel, both countries that have been implicated in hypothesized Havana syndrome schemes. 
Last year, the U.S. intelligence community released a report that stated most of its constituent agencies believe it is highly unlikely the symptoms are the result of actions by a national adversary. 
When asked if Anomaly 6 location data had been used to investigate this proposed nexus or contributed to the intelligence report, the Air Force did not respond. 
In February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the reorganization of the Anomalous Health Incidents Cross-Functional Team, now a division of the Office of the Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering, helmed by former Uber executive Emil Michael. 
Michael’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 
The post Company That Bragged It Could Track U.S. 
Spies Hired to Investigate “Havana Syndrome” appeared first on The Intercept . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Sam Biddle: 7.3%The Intercept: 5.3%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Sam Biddle: 3.8%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 3.0%Sam Biddle: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Sam Biddle: 10.8%The Intercept: 9.2%Framing Effect19.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.0%Sam Biddle: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Sam Biddle: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias4.9%This article: 29.9%Sam Biddle: 18.7%The Intercept: 12.3%Negativity Bias29.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 1.4%The Intercept: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 1.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Sam Biddle: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect9.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Sam Biddle: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 2.2%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Sam Biddle: 5.4%The Intercept: 3.4%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 3.0%Sam Biddle: 2.0%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.4%Sam Biddle: 8.5%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization18.4%This article: 2.1%Sam Biddle: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring2.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.8%Sam Biddle: 4.7%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.7%Sam Biddle: 2.7%The Intercept: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 4.1%Sam Biddle: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque4.1%This article: 4.4%Sam Biddle: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.4%Sam Biddle: 3.6%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.5%Sam Biddle: 3.0%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.7%Sam Biddle: 5.5%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote20.7%This article: 0.3%Sam Biddle: 3.1%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.3%This article: 34.9%Sam Biddle: 15.3%The Intercept: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice34.9%This article: 4.9%Sam Biddle: 0.9%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 4.4%The Intercept: 6.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Biddle: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

656 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers15%attributed speech555writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAir Force Concepts, Development, and Management Office • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. intelligence community • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words38% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+65.6 ptsWriter: 34.4%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-24.5 ptsWriter: 24.5%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.