#1  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:39 AM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
The Heart Attack Gun

I was perusing Listverse and found a new entry on Conspiracy Theories that Have Been Proven to be True. Most of it is pretty standard (Operation Northwoods, etc.) but check out item #1.

Apparently, the existance of the Heart Attack Gun has been known since 1975, but I've never heard of it before. You know they've used it on people; I wonder if we'll ever find out who.
  #2  
Old 05-03-2013, 11:54 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Apparently, the existance of the Heart Attack Gun has been known since 1975, but I've never heard of it before.
Any evidence the thing worked in the first place?
  #3  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:24 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Apparently, the existance of the Heart Attack Gun has been known since 1975, but I've never heard of it before. You know they've used it on people; I wonder if we'll ever find out who.
Hasn't the idea of ice bullets been pretty much debunked? This doesn't sound significantly different than the 'umbrella gun' used to kill Georgi Markov, and probably wouldn't work unless you held the gun up against the person in the same way. Since the cite lists Andrew Breitbart as a possible victim I think the sources are questionable.
  #4  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:32 PM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Any evidence the thing worked in the first place?
The article doesn't say. Bear in mind, however, that if the CIA ever did admit to using it, they would be admitting to having committed murder, since the CIA is at least theoretically prohibited from killing people. The fact that they even developed such a weapon probably qualifies as criminal conspiracy.
  #5  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:37 PM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Hasn't the idea of ice bullets been pretty much debunked? This doesn't sound significantly different than the 'umbrella gun' used to kill Georgi Markov, and probably wouldn't work unless you held the gun up against the person in the same way. Since the cite lists Andrew Breitbart as a possible victim I think the sources are questionable.
Has it? I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a sniper could plunk you from 1000 yards with a bullet made from ice, but from 2 inches with a pellet made of ice is a very different question.
  #6  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:42 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Since the cite lists Andrew Breitbart as a possible victim I think the sources are questionable.
That's pretty much all you find if you Google the thing - a list of people who died suddenly as the result of possible heart attack gun violence (or possibly, you know, heart attacks).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
The article doesn't say.
Right.
Quote:
Bear in mind, however, that if the CIA ever did admit to using it
I didn't ask if there was proof they used it; I'm sure they wouldn't say. I was asking if there was any proof the thing worked as opposed to the CIA saying "Here's an idea we came up with."
Quote:
The fact that they even developed such a weapon probably qualifies as criminal conspiracy.
I really doubt it. The CIA tried to kill plenty of people in decades gone by and even given their track record I assume they must've succeeded at least once, even if only by accident. Ford issued an executive order that specifically barred the use of assassinations by the CIA in 1976, which was after all this.
  #7  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:16 PM
Diceman Diceman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Suburbs of Detroit, MI
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I didn't ask if there was proof they used it; I'm sure they wouldn't say. I was asking if there was any proof the thing worked as opposed to the CIA saying "Here's an idea we came up with."
There's a photo of the senator holding up said gun, so at the very least there was a prototype made.

Anyways, I find your skepticism a bit hard to understand. We're not talking about advanced Atlantean technology or something. An air-powered pellet gun, of the type you could buy at sporting-goods stores across the country, would be perfectly adequate for the task. The exotic part is the projectile, not the gun.
  #8  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:19 PM
Hypno-Toad Hypno-Toad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: By the Caloosahatchee
Posts: 11,609
This part of that entry concerns me:

"Autopsies would discover the presence of shellfish toxin in the bloodstream, but if the victim has died of a legitimate heart attack, unnaturally induced or not, an autopsy is unlikely. The entrance wound of the dart would appear about as minor as a mosquito bite."

That bolded text in particular. Why would an autopsy be unlikely for a "legitimate" heart attack? I mean, the autopsy would be the means of determining whether the heart attack was legitimate (what would an illegitimate heart attack be?), right?

That whole list reads like CT fodder.

ETA: Diceman, I see a pic of a man holding up A gun. There's nothing to show that the image is even related to the entry. In what way is this incontravertible proof of the entry's claim?
__________________
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Last edited by Hypno-Toad; 05-03-2013 at 01:23 PM.
  #9  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:22 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
There's a photo of the senator holding up said gun, so at the very least there was a prototype made.
Give me a few popsicle sticks and some glue and I'll build you a prototype popsicle stick gun.
Quote:
Anyways, I find your skepticism a bit hard to understand.
My skepticism is based on the lack of evidence that this could possibly work, because I don't think it could.
Quote:
The exotic part is the projectile, not the gun.
I'm skeptical of the whole concept. I don't think that's so difficult to understand.
  #10  
Old 05-03-2013, 01:54 PM
Prof. Pepperwinkle's Avatar
Prof. Pepperwinkle Prof. Pepperwinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Chateau Pepperwinkle
Posts: 53,724
The first episode of Mythbusters "busted" the idea of ice bullets, as they are too brittle. It was repeated in episode 14, and busted again.
  #11  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:31 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Has it? I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a sniper could plunk you from 1000 yards with a bullet made from ice, but from 2 inches with a pellet made of ice is a very different question.
Maybe from two inches, if it's propelled with compressed gas and not gunpowder, and as I mentioned that's pretty much the same as the umbrella gun. And I still have my doubts that from 2 inches away these ice bullets could penetrate heavy clothing.
  #12  
Old 05-03-2013, 02:54 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
Bear in mind, however, that if the CIA ever did admit to using it, they would be admitting to having committed murder, since the CIA is at least theoretically prohibited from killing people.
The CIA has killed several thousand people in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries as a part of the War on Terror. (much of the U.S. drone operations are run by the CIA.)

There's definitely not a prohibition on killing people, and not even one on killing Americans. What the CIA is not supposed to do is operate clandestinely inside the United States.
  #13  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:21 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
There's definitely not a prohibition on killing people, and not even one on killing Americans. What the CIA is not supposed to do is operate clandestinely inside the United States.
There is a ban on political assassinations by the CIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12036
  #14  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:22 PM
Finagle Finagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere near Boston
Posts: 9,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman View Post
There's a photo of the senator holding up said gun, so at the very least there was a prototype made.

Anyways, I find your skepticism a bit hard to understand. We're not talking about advanced Atlantean technology or something. An air-powered pellet gun, of the type you could buy at sporting-goods stores across the country, would be perfectly adequate for the task. The exotic part is the projectile, not the gun.
If you were building a gun for clandestine assassinations, then the last thing you'd do is make it look like a pistol with a telescopic sight on it. You'd make it look more like an umbrella, maybe.

Then there's the problem of keeping your tiny ice bullet from melting while you were waiting to use it. At best you'd need some insulation on the weapon, or liquid nitrogen or something like that.

And yeah, the Mythbusters tried ice bullets. I think you just end up with vapor coming out of the gun.
  #15  
Old 05-03-2013, 03:30 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post

No offense, Telemark, but I'll take the documented thousands of cases of the CIA killing people over the theoretical effect of an Executive Order, which seems to have the large loophole that as long as the killing isn't a "political assassination," it's not prohibited.

I do think the CIA would avoid killing high-profile targets where significant repercussions are a factor, but I don't for a moment believe the CIA would not kill people. Diceman's claim wasn't that the CIA had killed a particular politician, just that it killing people is illegal.
  #16  
Old 05-03-2013, 04:07 PM
Joey P Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,915
ISTM a bullet that small would melt very very quickly. Like, you'd almost have to keep the gun in the freezer so the bullet didn't melt in the chamber. And you wouldn't have time for any "Are you sure you don't want to tell us your secret", so it really couldn't be used for intimidation either.

Also, as someone else said, it would have to be used at point blank range...so why does it have scope?

And I thought autopsies were usually done on heart attack victims, that's how they can find out why the person had a heart attack on the first place.

Last edited by Joey P; 05-03-2013 at 04:07 PM.
  #17  
Old 05-03-2013, 04:09 PM
DataX DataX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,925
I though this was bullshit and was almost sure that photo was of something else. I know I've seen a pic of frank church holding a gun (but if memory serves it was quite different), but it wasn't a heart attack gun.

However, I did find this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LO6tiD5Dy0&sns=em
Which unless completely dubbed or something - supports the idea that was indeed a gun for inducing heart attacks.

Maybe it's cause I think in general of these types of weapons being poison weapons. The method where it works isn't that important (I guess unless you are the victim).

Also, keep in mind that the US, the Mafia, the Israelis don't have great records on assassinations (well of course - one could argue maybe they do - we just don't know about it). The seem to do real well at dropping bombs on people, but actually trying to kill someone clandestinely isn't as easy as you might think - case in point...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassi...oud_Al-Mabhouh

The succeeded in killing the person, but they needed to involve apparently at least 2 dozen people to get the job done. If they had some gun that worked easily - I don't think they would have needed that much. The Israelis had unsuccessfully tried to use a poison in this case...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Mashal
Which apparently was an opiod - and the Israelis were forced to hand over the antidote (which apparently the doctors had already guessed)
  #18  
Old 05-03-2013, 04:51 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
No offense, Telemark, but I'll take the documented thousands of cases of the CIA killing people over the theoretical effect of an Executive Order, which seems to have the large loophole that as long as the killing isn't a "political assassination," it's not prohibited.
What's prohibited is assassination, I never claimed otherwise. There have been subsequent executive orders that spelled out what is allowed in the "war on terror". As noted in the Wiki page for Executive Order 12333:

Quote:
As early as 1998, this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism.
The CIA is certainly involved in killing people. But they are still prohibited from "political assassinations". As is always, the devil is in the details. The gun in question here could be used against terrorists but it seems an unlikely weapon to choose.
  #19  
Old 05-03-2013, 10:38 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diceman
Bear in mind, however, that if the CIA ever did admit to using it, they would be admitting to having committed murder, since the CIA is at least theoretically prohibited from killing people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets
The CIA has killed several thousand people in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries as a part of the War on Terror. (much of the U.S. drone operations are run by the CIA.)

There's definitely not a prohibition on killing people, and not even one on killing Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark
There is a ban on political assassinations by the CIA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
What's prohibited is assassination, I never claimed otherwise.

I'm sorry, Telemark - I just don't get the point of our exchange here - are you defending Diceman's statement about the CIA being prohibited from killing people? Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.
  #20  
Old 05-04-2013, 07:05 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
I'm sorry, Telemark - I just don't get the point of our exchange here - are you defending Diceman's statement about the CIA being prohibited from killing people? Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.
I wasn't defending anyone or any statement. I was attempting to provide information on what the current law is regarding the CIA and assassination.
  #21  
Old 05-05-2013, 12:11 AM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
I wasn't defending anyone or any statement. I was attempting to provide information on what the current law is regarding the CIA and assassination.
Oh, I thought you were trying to say something else. Sorry, carry on!
  #22  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:12 AM
blindboyard blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,102
I once read a book which I believe was called "With Extreme Prejudice", which mentioned a completely different, Soviet, heart-attack gun. Can't have a heart-attack-gun gap, I suppose. That used compressed air to fire glass pellets designed to break in mid-air and release a toxic gas (I want to say it was prussic acid vapour) which induced heart attacks in the subject. The assassins were required to breath through a special rag to avoid killing themselves at the same time, and it was eventually discovered because it was too powerful and the tiny shards of glass lacerated the face of one of their victims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Pepperwinkle View Post
The first episode of Mythbusters "busted" the idea of ice bullets, as they are too brittle. It was repeated in episode 14, and busted again.
Could always use Pykrete.
  #23  
Old 05-05-2013, 01:49 PM
garygnu garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
...Could always use Pykrete.
Adding stuff that isn't water ice to an ice bullet would eliminate the untraceable value you're looking for. I also don't think it would help any, but it would be a Mythbustable test.
  #24  
Old 05-05-2013, 04:05 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,525
Wouldn't it be less suspicious to use a form of Jet injector and introduce an effective amount of Potassium Chloride that would cause cardiac arrest? AFAIK KCI wouldn't be detected during an autopsy. Even if there were no other signs of heart disease (clogged arteries, etc) the medical examiner might conclude acute atrial fibrillation. Case closed.
  #25  
Old 05-05-2013, 04:48 PM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,476
Sorta related..the 1930's Mob killer Abe "Kid Twist" Reles killed people with an ice pick (he would shove an ice pick into the victim's ear-it would pierce the brain and cause fatal cerebral bleeding). From what I read, most medical examiners would miss it.
  #26  
Old 05-05-2013, 05:14 PM
Tarwater Tarwater is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 892
Continuing the sort-of hijacks, I've always wondered if it'd be possible to carve a bullet from human bone and whether that's something that'd be easily missed during an autopsy.
  #27  
Old 05-05-2013, 05:22 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarwater View Post
Continuing the sort-of hijacks, I've always wondered if it'd be possible to carve a bullet from human bone and whether that's something that'd be easily missed during an autopsy.
It would be easily missed if another bone was hit and fractured. I don't know how well a bullet made from bone would do that, but it's unlikely anyone is checking each bone fragment to make sure it came from the victim. But all that does is leave the bullet undiscovered, which happens in a lot of shootings, the cause of death would still be obvious.
  #28  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:57 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,525
How about shadowing the victim until he/she goes into a restaurant. Get the same type of meat they order and when they go into the restroom grab them and shove it down their throat making it look like they choked to death.
  #29  
Old 05-05-2013, 09:11 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,321
Autopsies are often done on heart attack victims, especially if there wasn't any medical history suggesting the person was at risk. If the person also was on a political hit list, the odds of an autopsy would increase. If the autopsy does not disclose characteristic findings of atherosclerotic heart disease (but does turn up shellfish toxin assuming someone looks for it), there'd be some 'splainin to do.

Also, note the introduction to the list of conspiracies:

"Conspiracy theorists believe in a lot of crackpot ideas and deserve their reputation as an amusing distraction, but once in awhile, they get one right"

Actually, I don't see a single item on that list that was revealed by conspiracy theorists as we have come to know and love them. For instance, I haven't heard of the "ice gun" being exposed by Internet conspiracy discussion groups or books written by conspiracy groupies. I'm still waiting for a counterpart to 9/11, the Kennedy assassination or other major "controversy". where conspiracy theory nuts actually revealed anything noteworthy.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017