Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

wisewolfmedia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#41

Post by ProAm »

zosima wrote: post #37
ProAm wrote: post #29

The CIA has done much worse than a heart attack gun. How about giving someone LSD everyday for 18 months for science.

I think tolerance builds up fast enough for that to be a rather boring experiment.

This is also just one example of what the CIA does. They killed an elephant with a single dose of LSD. Used it on foreigners, US citizens, etc... The Rest Is Classified did a great series about it (1,2)

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO0bQGf3uH8 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKnoZhbqTfM

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#43

Post by lenerdenator »

ilamont wrote: post #35
nradov wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should talk to a radiation oncologist. It is extremely hard to target a person with directed ionizing radiation at any distance in a way that would significantly increase the risk of cancer without causing very obvious surface effects.

Are there other ways to induce cancer? It's a remarkable coincidence that Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il died very young within two years of each other (2011 and 2013). Yes, the level of medical care in Venezuela and North Korea is poor, but these were dictators who had access to the best doctors in their own countries as well as imported experts from China, Cuba, etc.

Or maybe it's just two older dudes dying of cancer. Happens literally all the time.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#44

Post by thejazzman »

gosub100 wrote: post #38
almostbasic wrote: post #3

It really makes you wonder what other weapons they have that we don't know about.

In a purely technical ponderance, I wonder if it's possible to design a stun gun that would inflict death by either increasing the current and voltage, or if a specific signal could be sent to the heart that would induce an arrhythmia. Basically the opposite of a defibrillator. A biotech maintenance guy told me that if you receive a shock when your heart is in a critical phase of the complex, it can cause it to shut…

i have no idea if this is possible, but i have to point out that really smart people pondering out loud is heard/read by many people who may have much sinister intentions than the nerd simply pondering out loud.

1984 has become a playbook. be careful what ideas you share. the public internet is not a casual conversation among friends.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#45

Post by RajT88 »

gosub100 wrote: post #38
almostbasic wrote: post #3

It really makes you wonder what other weapons they have that we don't know about.

In a purely technical ponderance, I wonder if it's possible to design a stun gun that would inflict death by either increasing the current and voltage, or if a specific signal could be sent to the heart that would induce an arrhythmia. Basically the opposite of a defibrillator. A biotech maintenance guy told me that if you receive a shock when your heart is in a critical phase of the complex, it can cause it to shut…

Totally possible. This is why stun guns and tasers are referred to as "less lethal" by some instead of non-lethal. Lots of electricity will occasionally stop someone's heart, and they die.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#46

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

imchillyb wrote: post #32
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

> a weapon designed to deliver untraceable assassinations using shellfish toxin darts. How is that untraceable? Gee, we found an extremely sophisticated shellfish toxin dart in the victim, must be nothing! What a stupid article

> There, researchers under Dr. Nathan Gordon, a CIA chemist, mixed shellfish toxin with water and froze the mixture into a small pellet or dart. The finished projectile would be fired from a modified Colt M1911 pistol equipped with an electrical firing mechanism. It had an effective range of 100 meters and was virtually noiseless when fired. > When fired into a target, the frozen dart would immediately melt and relea…

Sounds even more ridiculous, ice bullet handgun "effective" to 100m? Have you ever fired a handgun? That's quite far for even a conventional handgun

I have no doubt they researched it but I highly doubt it was effective or used.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#47

Post by oinfoalgo »

lupusreal wrote: post #9

Besides the Church Committee testimony, is there any evidence for the heart attack gun existing? There's part of me that wonders if they made it up for the purpose of disclosing it to Congress, to make themselves seem like they were authentically participating in the overview and accountability proceedings. Kind of like the way murder suspects in police interrogations might give unprompted and quite possibly fake con…

This is a huge problem IMO.

You have to assume the CIA are the absolute masters of layered deception.

I just listened to Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan drone on about the CIA and remote viewing. I just assume that is all some kind of booby trap nonsense to fall into. I actually think the whole interview was Anna telling the bullshit the CIA showed her to keep her from finding anything that matters.

Same way with classifying the JFK assassination docs for decades even though there is absolute nothing in them.

It is brilliant. Something far beyond gas lighting.

Objectively, I have no idea what to believe with the CIA and that obviously is the strategy.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#48

Post by duffel_bag »

gosub100 wrote: post #38
almostbasic wrote: post #3

It really makes you wonder what other weapons they have that we don't know about.

In a purely technical ponderance, I wonder if it's possible to design a stun gun that would inflict death by either increasing the current and voltage, or if a specific signal could be sent to the heart that would induce an arrhythmia. Basically the opposite of a defibrillator. A biotech maintenance guy told me that if you receive a shock when your heart is in a critical phase of the complex, it can cause it to shut…

Was he referring to commotio cordis? There's a window of tens of milliseconds where a blow to the chest can cause sudden cardiac death, due to the ventricular rhythm being disrupted rather than any mechanical damage to the heart.

Re: When the CIA got away with building a heart attack gun

#50

Post by XorNot »

oinfoalgo wrote: post #47
lupusreal wrote: post #9

Besides the Church Committee testimony, is there any evidence for the heart attack gun existing? There's part of me that wonders if they made it up for the purpose of disclosing it to Congress, to make themselves seem like they were authentically participating in the overview and accountability proceedings. Kind of like the way murder suspects in police interrogations might give unprompted and quite possibly fake con…

This is a huge problem IMO. You have to assume the CIA are the absolute masters of layered deception. I just listened to Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan drone on about the CIA and remote viewing. I just assume that is all some kind of booby trap nonsense to fall into. I actually think the whole interview was Anna telling the bullshit the CIA showed her to keep her from finding anything that matters. Same way with clas…

The JFK documents were classified to protect methods, and are still classified to protect people. People who are still alive, were tangentially involved (e.g. clerical staff or random bystanders who might've been interviewed but reported nothing of note).

It's why releasing more documents never reveals anything: it's stuff that wasn't worth trying to declassify because it's irrelevant, but it might contain a bunch of random names of people who are still alive and did things like sign for lunch that day.

Post reply on HN