Communications with FAA 4/17-5/17/21

Federal Aviation Administration  

Email correspondence (PDFs)

These PDFs contain links which should still be active. On 4/29/21, the day I reported worsening attacks, I made this video of an oily-looking ring around the sun. 

Phone conversation 4/21/2022

Only my side of this conversation is recorded. I was speaking with the same person with whom I’d been corresponding, Timothy Sisk. What I recall from the conversation was that Sisk was making the assumption that when I said “drones” I meant civilian or commercial drones which are smaller and look and operate differently than the aircraft I’m referring to. He basically told me he couldn’t take any action without me providing an identification number for the aircraft. Occasionally some of these aircraft fly low, but I’ve never seen an identification number, and they’re not reported on publicly accessible flight trackers like radar box. Some of them don’t even fly, but hover, and can only be seen if they’re lit, as some of them are, almost always only at night.

My phone conversation with the FAA took place at 9:24am. Ten hours later, about 7:30pm, I took the following two videos

 

 

 

 

 

A letter was mailed to me on May 4, closing the case.

Letter from FAA 4/29/2021
Letter from FAA – dated 4/29, postmarked 5/4/2021

There are a number of problems with this letter, and these go to the heart of the matter with regards to attacks on citizens with directed energy weapons and biomedical implants. The first problem is that the FAA would conclude “based on videos” that there are no operations in violation of FAA regulations, or that “display” a threat to safety. The entire modus operandi of these biomedical and directed energy attacks is that they cannot be seen. The modus operandi of directed energy weapon / biomedical implant denial is to refuse to acknowledge that this technology even exists, much less that it’s being used in this manner. It’s a disingenuous argument that looks to me like an obvious cover up. The drone activity is so obvious above the skies of Portland that many people must know about it, and have been trained to cover it up. 

If these drones are operating as they seem to be – doing unlawful surveillance and biomedical attacks, including creating cancer, heart attacks, etc – is it really the right thing for the FAA to deny that they are accountable for any given person’s “personal health” – if that person can also show evidence of biomedical implants? The lack of responsibility by the FAA would seem to me to be contingent on the assumption that military-style aircraft are not in the sky, involved in directed energy attacks – an assumption that the evidence shows is false.

The third problem is the advice to call local law enforcement. Local law enforcement have told me with no room for interpretation that they are unable to do any kind of analysis of frequency based weapons or devices (including, apparently hidden cameras and microphones). I already know what would happen if I tried to report this to them, as I’ve already been through this several times. First, they wouldn’t answer the phone for a long period of time and/or I’d be cut off while on hold. Second, when they finally answer, they will refuse to take a report. Third, if I press the issue, they’ll threaten to call a mental health services ambulance. I think we can be pretty confident that local law enforcement doesn’t want to hear about this issue. So this advice is bad almost to the point of being gaslighting.

The problem wasn’t and isn’t solved. 

There are a number of reasons why I find the dates around this letter interesting – written April 29 after I’d been experiencing particularly bad attacks to my head, and sent on May 4, the day I discovered all the bruises on my legs. Chris lost all strength and mobility in his legs on the night of April 30-May 1. It’s possible that we were retaliated against for filing this complaint.

image of winged aircraft that may be a drone, and white line in sky
21 April 2021

web page updated 24 September 2022