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.
Any evidence the thing worked in the first place?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Right.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
Give me a few popsicle sticks and some glue and I’ll build you a prototype popsicle stick gun.
My skepticism is based on the lack of evidence that this could possibly work, because I don’t think it could.
I’m skeptical of the whole concept. I don’t think that’s so difficult to understand.
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.
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.
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.
There is a ban on political assassinations by the CIA:
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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…
Which apparently was an opiod - and the Israelis were forced to hand over the antidote (which apparently the doctors had already guessed)
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:
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.
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.