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

51–60 of 99 posts

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

#51

Post by Melatonic »

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…

Defibs dont actually work like the movies - once a persons heart has truly stopped you need to provide proper CPR.

Defib is for patients with hearts that are beating incorrectly - and now are mostly automated.

Heart stopped and zapped with electricity makes for better movies though!

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

#52

Post by eth0up »

Qem wrote: post #6
almostbasic wrote: post #3

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

There was claims of a possible cancer "gun". See https://www.ibtimes.com/hugo-chavez-says-us-could-be-giving-...

I'll gladly jump into the gray with you. Or hopefully that changes.

My dear old friend, now on the yonder side, showed me research that showed the intravenous injection of nothing more than mineral oil consistently causing a form of cancer that I can't remember the type for.

He had a low level position in the NSA via the Navy prior and was persistently interesting, to me. Foremost an exceptionally fine person who I sorely miss. I remember him being fervently berated by a few intellectual (IT inclined) adversaries for attempting to explain more than a few things that came out in the Snowden docs almost a decade later.

Personally, I've no doubt cancer can be quickly, efficiently induced, albeit probably not with a mineral oil squirtgun. I've heard of things I wouldn't discuss here.

I've always wondered why we've not experienced the evil terrorist version of David Hahn, say from a guy in a major food production facility. The bright side of surveillance I guess.

I may be a worthless, irrelevant moron, but I think for anyone with a bit of intelligence and a big imagination, the world is a very frightening place in this regard. I try not to think of it, but many scenarios have occurred to me and I'm often surprised, quite pleasantly so, that so far as I know, only to me, for now, and indefinitely I hope.

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

#53

Post by john-h-k »

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…

> When fired into a target, the frozen dart would immediately melt and release its poisonous payload into the victim’s bloodstream

Ah yes, a gun which can send a chunk of ice fully intact 100m yet it will still puncture the victim unnoticeably and immediately melt

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

#54

Post by Scipio_Afri »

Arturo525 wrote: post #22

The Church Committee investigated excesses at CIA. The article deals mainly with creating agitprop which the administration creates regularly on its own.

Nearly everything controversial about them can be simplified to most entirely being before the existence of the Church committee.

The reforms put in place since then has prevented any rouge sort of activity which might not have been in the interests of the US to peruse, be legal, or otherwise explicitly asked for by the president or congress for them do

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

#55

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 »

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…

My basic assumption is that were a top-level CIA officer or several involved in the JFK assassination, they probably wouldn't leave behind mountains of documents in a clear paper trail.

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

#56

Post by throwup238 »

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.

Injecting undifferentiated stem cells is pretty effective at causing cancer.

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

#57

Post by yupyupyups »

dyauspitr wrote: post #26
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

Ice needle projectile maybe

That one was so famous that people actually tried it out and eventually debunked it.

The US establishment, just like any other state engages in propaganda. Like the whole thing about Russia being able to nuke the entire world 1337 times over.

All of these claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.

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

#58

Post by lisbbb »

throwup238 wrote: post #56
ilamont wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Injecting undifferentiated stem cells is pretty effective at causing cancer.

[flagged]

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

#59

Post by lisbbb »

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…

[flagged]

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

#60

Post by lisbbb »

johnea wrote: post #10

The information in the article is shocking and disturbing, and largely known to most informed people. So I'm not sure what's meant by the "got away with" part. It's hard to call it "getting away with", when it's the standard operating procedure of the agency. What is it exactly that they don't get away with? With people being routinely killed worldwide. When I saw a little old lady, literally in a doily hat, in the B…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN