CIA revealed a “heart attack” gun in 1975. A battery operated gun which fired a dart of frozen water & shellfish toxin. Once inside the body it would melt leaving only a small red mark on the victim where it entered. The official cause of death would always be a heart attack.
19 replies on “CIA revealed a “heart attack” gun in 1975. A battery operated gun which fired a dart of frozen water & shellfish toxin. Once inside the body it would melt leaving only a small red mark on the victim where it entered. The official cause of death would always be a heart attack.”
The scope seems a little silly
If they had that in the 70’s, imagine what they have now. Sneaky bastards.
I am sorry about the title. I forgot that frozen water was solidified dihydrogen monoxide.
The shellfish toxin obviously attacks the mussels of the heart..
Looks like Joe Don Baker was pretty damn serious about researching his movie roles.
Can us Texans carry this in Wal-Mart?
CIA watches the deathnote once and tries to become Kira
This should be in r/ididntknowiwantedthat
My kid asked me how come we aren’t having assassinations now like we did in the 60’’s.
I told him the CIA doesn’t need anybody dead, the have Facebook et.al., for disinformation.
Works as well, less mess
Light’s second favorite weapon
The gun has widely been considered a fake since it was first exhibited. Too much is unexplained. For example, what does “battery operated” even mean? As has already been mentioned in this thread, the heat from gunpowder would melt the dart. With technology from that era, that leaves us only a few practical options to propel the dart:
1. Air compressed by a piston
2. Pre-compressed gas
3. Combustion of a gas
4. Dieseling of a liquid propellant
5. The dart is catapulted by being in contact with a moving piston
None of these require the use of batteries. 1, 4, 5 require only a spring or captive gas piston. 3 could be accomplished with a piezoelectric mechanism. 2 was common in recreational air guns at the time.
All have drawbacks making them impractical. A dart tiny enough to leave only a small red mark would have very little mass and, therefore, very little range and penetration. Penetration of even light clothing is unlikely.
It would also melt very quickly. Likely due to friction, just from the trip down the barrel. Any means of propulsion that generates heat is a non-starter
Such a dart would also be prone to shatter under the shock of sudden acceleration. There is no way to avoid that if you want a projectile moving fast enough to break the skin.
The gun, IMO, was a lie. Why make it all up? Disinformation. Worry the enemy that US agencies have weapons like this available.
ETA: A far simpler method to do something like this would be to use one of the little springloaded lancet things that diabetics use to draw blood to test their blood sugar. The wound is little more than a tiny scratch. Coat the blade in the lancet with the sooper-de-dooper shellfish toxin. Yes, it has to be used at contact range, but so would this gun if it were made to be workable at all. The beauty of the lancet over a simple coated needle is the reduced possibility of clumsily poisoning yourself.
This post comes back every month. When u repost it next time can you at least put “ice” instead of frozen water.
This just seems like McDonald’s with extra steps
So you are telling me CIA has a battery operated water gun since 1975?
And we had to wait till 1989 before we had super soaker?
Good thing the CIA is bound by the law, morality and institutional oversight 🙂
America is much more efficient nowadays. The average American is now working on their own heart attack all the time.
How would they keep the darts cold?
How would an ice dart be able to hit and deliver poison and only leave a small red mark? Wouldn’t the dart break the skin? Wouldn’t it need to in order to deliver the poison?
Show me a non-poisoned water dart fired from a gun into ballistic media that simulates skin. I’m guessing that it would tear the skin, as well as cause deep bruising. Unless it was using compressed air as a propellant and fired at much slower velocity than typical handgun rounds?
BTW, that is not aCIA official revealing the existence of the gun. That is Sen. Frank Church of Idaho questioning aCIA officials about the gun. And that’s Sen. John Tower if Texas looking on. They were the ranking officials of the Church Commission which investigated CIA abuses.