Talk:Gerald Bull

Date Problem

The dates on this article don't match, it states he converted to Catholicism in 1909, but was born in 1928. It also states he was 58 in 1935. 82.18.7.5 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

one more impression

I personally found this guy fascinating and followed his career up until he was killed. I, too, was under the impression that several governments may have been complicit in his death but Mossad probably carried it out. Bull had the bad luck (or judgement!) of working with Saddam and Israel considered this new weapon a threat.

From my understanding the correct journalistic way to report his death would be something like, "It is widely believed that Mossad...." or "It is usually assumed that Mossad..." Obviously, if it was a covert operation -- and it likely was -- the public will never know definitively what happened. But it is not reasonable to then not report on the likely truth behind covert operations. --Calan 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Customs Seizure

The date for the seizure by UK customs is May 1990 in the Project Babylon Article and November 1990 in the Gerald Bull article. Anyone know a source to clear this up?

Obviously, if it was a covert operation -- and it likely was -- the public will never know definitively what happened

That may be true - but surely modern day forensics techniques (that only require a nanoliter, ie: one thousandth of a millionth of a litre) of genetic material from bullets, etc... taken from the scene would at least be capable of pinning down the ethnicity of whoever committed the crime (if the individual were on the Police National Computer, then the police could successfully pursue a prosecution). Do the police still have some of the evidence from the scene of the assassination to pursue an investigation?

I don't know about this, but it would answer some interesting questions at least - and I'm guessing someone out there would want to know. --Nukemason

If you want to know the whole truth about Gerald Bull, you should read my book published in 1993, just a few years after Bull's assissination. The title: The Guns of Babylon. Toronto: Lugus Publishing, 1993 If you need a copy, I will send you one. Send me your address and Zip code. Best Jean-Pierre de Villers

I'm not sure that just because a book is written about a subject, the subject is true. And another assumption here is that Bull was actually developing a supergun that could reach Israel. None of these statements about such in ANY of the articles I've found here on Wikipedia are cited correctly. We seem to have a very powerful rumor mill operating here, but it should be made clear in the article's text that these references are merely SPECULATION. As it is, they're neither cited properly nor disclaimed at all.71.61.64.113 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This story about his materials for the supergun being caught was reported many years ago in the mainstream press. No rumor mill there. --Tilman 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CADRE vs. CARDE and Core

The article seems to use the spellings CADRE and CARDE interchangeably. To make a wild guess, this is because of French Canadian spelling. Would it not make sense to mention the variant spellings on first mention in the article, if it is untenable to use a single spelling in the article.

Also, I would like feedback on whether Paul Preuss's Core (novel) should be mentioned in passing, since the story is clearly allusive of Gerald Bull in many ways. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is? The article just says something about scientists traveling to the Earth's core, which doesn't sound anything like Bull's work... --Gwern (contribs) 18:13 20 August 2008 (GMT)

To this end he designed the Project Babylon "supergun" for the Iraqi government. He was shot outside his home in Brussels, Belgium.

This reads like he was shot by a supergun. Mathiastck (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

;) --Martinor (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Theories on Bull's death

Well I remember watching the Discovery Channel in Canada (when they used to have a show called Discover magazine) that mentioned that the US, Canada, and Israel is implicated in the death of Bull. It might not be the case that the Mossad actually did the work, but my impression from that show was that the agencies in these 3 countries worked together to stop Bull from further corporation with the Iraqis. Suggestions that Bull was killed over Project Babylon didn't make much sense. These are stationary guns that can be easily found if you're a country with a spy satellite. And the Israeli air force is good enough to make sure that this gun is destroyed if anything happened. The same show mentioned that Bull was developing howitzers for the Iraqis in exchange for funding for building a satellite lobbing gun. Calyth 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Bull's work on Project Babylon didn't really upset the Israelis, it was his work on improving the range of Iraq's Scud missiles that they didn't like. After all, it was those upgraded Scuds that Saddam fired on Israel during 1991. That said, as the article mentions, Mossad didn't quite have that much motive to kill him as he would give them whatever details they wanted on what he was working on. Still, it cannot be ruled out that they killed him to prevent further work on the Scuds.

There is another theory that the Iraqis killed him because they no longer needed him, and because they were afraid he would reveal too much to the Israelis, but that doesn't appear to have gained much prominence. I think we'll never really know. Imp i 23:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/gerald_bull has the same text. whose is original? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.94.65 (talk • contribs) .

Absolute Astronomy.com is a mirror site, one of many dozens that mirror Wikipedia's content. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Rest assured, the original content is here, on this site. — Imp i 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of countries that could have assassinated Bull is speculative, and I am not sure that such speculation is appropriate. The list however ought to exclude MI6. The UK does not carry out political assassinations.122.59.167.152 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed

GabrielF (talk · contribs) removed this, saying it was unsourced. --Gwern (contribs) 19:34 10 February 2007 (GMT)

The most common theories are that either; the Israeli Mossad was responsible due to the method used (small-caliber, sound-suppressed pistols), or that it was Iranian Intelligence VEVAK, who had the motive and capacity to easily have it done. Neither VEVAK nor Mossad representatives have denied responsibility for his assassination. Others, including Bull's son, believe that the Mossad is taking credit for an act they did not commit to scare off others who may try to help enemy regimes. The alternative theory is that Bull was killed by the CIA. There are some reports that Bull was demanding both a presidential pardon and money from the CIA or he would disclose all he knew about illegal CIA activities in South Africa. Unwilling to be extorted, it is claimed that the CIA therefore killed Bull. However most experts and analysts believe that either Israeli Mossad or Iranian VEVAK are the key suspected ones behind the assasination. Both strongly had the capacity and motive to stop Saddam from acquiring such an intimidation/terror weapon. A fictionalized version of this story is in the movie Doomsday Gun. Gerald Bull had worked for so many parties in so many critical defence projects that he became an asset and a liability for several powerful groups at the same time.

About the "Assassination" section

There is a logical unexlained inconsistency in that section. How could the Mossad simultaneously deny responsibility for the assassination and (according to Bull's son) "[take] credit for an act they did not commit to scare off others who may try to help enemy regimes"?

Needless to say, that section is quite unclear, and speculative to boot. It reads like a conspiracy theory. 137.14.10.22 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The logical inconsistency, if there is one, is why it took Mossad so long to bump him off!Phase4 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in either. Certainly the first case is entirely common; we often see public figures saying one thing when it is clear they mean another. We call this "politics". Certainly Mossad would find it difficult to officially admit to killing a private citizen in another country. But unofficially? The message is clear enough. As to the second issue, that appears to be Bull's making, not Mossad's. The only thing they cared about was the extended range missiles, the gun was of no concern. According to the reports, they "warned" him repeatedly over a period of time. I don't see anything that suggests there was any sort of extended period of time that requires explanation (yes, I realize the comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Maury 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

has someone changed the article since this comment. The article as written now has no logical inconsistency. It states that Mossad has not denied responsibility and Bull's son thinks that they are using the belief that they did it to scare off others. 68.40.189.25 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The way I understood that was that Mossad could very easily disclaim responsibility, but if they did not do it, a plausible reason for why they have not said as much is that it serves their goals to be thought of as more brutal and murderous than they would actually be. A cheap way to add to a sinister reputation. --Gwern (contribs) 23:02 25 October 2007 (GMT)

Mossad

I have no knowledge of this subject, but it seems highly NPOV to me. Are the Israeli accusations true? -- Zoe

Yep. I'll add a link to the article. What, aren't you familiar with the history of the Mossad? They're like a mini-CIA; they've been active all over the place, and use... well, "controversial" tactics to say the least. Read about what they did to recapture Mordechai Vanunu, for example. Or perhaps read about the Lavon Affair. Or Adolph Eichmann. Or Black September. Or Ahmed Boushiki, or Abu Jihad, or Khalid Meshaal. Heck, there's even some evidence indicating that Elie Hobeika's assasination was committed by the Mossad, although there's not too much evidence. The fact that it came just days after he announced that he was going to testify about Ariel Sharon about the Sabra and Shatila Massacre certainly didn't help, everything else aside. -- Rei

Obviously the Mossad must be smaller than the CIA, but "mini-CIA"? Is Britain a "mini-USA"?

As far as I know, it seems to be an accepted fact that Mossad killed him because the Super Gun had the ability to reach Israel. --24.186.250.37 21:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that Frank Langella played Bull in a movie, and a "Dr. Brattle" appeared in a Punisher storyline; Mike Baron has admitted that Brattle was based on Bull.

Singling out Mossad for his death seems very NPOV to me. I don't see that it's "commonly understood" at all to have been Mossad's doing, except in the cited Slate article, which cites THIS wiki article. Mossad might have had motive, and they might even be a likely suspect, but so are the intelligence agencies of Canada, the U.S., and Britain. Rasi2290 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No proof

Get it right there was no proof which agency assainated him so don't point to the Mossad.210.24.125.187 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no logical proof of anything in history; we do the best we can. In this case, the Mossad has the means, the history & inclination to assassination, the motive, and have been repeatedly fingered as the culprit (besides incidental considerations like not denying it). --Gwern (contribs) 13:59 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Slate points towards Mossad, which warrants the inclusion of a quotation of their journalist, Juliet Lapidos, in this article. Wikipedia is not about proving things, it's about restating what others have already written. No original research. - Please do not remove properly sourced material. --Martinor (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As well, there are numerous other sources we can draw upon. Google Books alone gives ~200 hits for '"Gerald Bull" Mossad': http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Gerald+Bull%22+Mossad - any of which would be good enough, such as Arms and the man which attributes the accusation to Austrian officials & also Iraqi intelligence. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55 19 February 2010 (GMT)

Neutrality Issue

As the popular theory is more than one agency (some conflictory, such as Mossad AND Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran) is responsible, blaming Mossad with what could generously be called incomplete evidence reeks to high Heaven (and low Hell) of anti-Semitism; Anti-Semitism disguised as “journalism” is worse than NaZI propaganda. (The article, as written, is not Anti-Semitic any more than it bashes on everyone else that ‘could’ have been involved, and should be left as-is until evidence otherwise is developed.) 174.25.142.178 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

And your point is....? You seem to be contradicing yourself. First you say 'reeks of anti-semitism' and then the opposite and leave article alone. :S 1812ahill (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Uniformity when referring to countries and intelligence agencies

I'm not sure if there's a style guide for this but at least for this article we should try to be uniform on how we name intelligence agencies and the countries they belong to, specifically when listing multiple ones. I modified the intro [1] to try to standardize that list but it still feels clumsy so there may be another better way. Cat-five - talk 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They should be referred to by whatever name their nation refers to them as (even if it’s not English). However, there is no set convention in the matter. 22:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Converting inches to mm

An editor converted a gun size to something he found in Bull's notes regarding the size of a gun. The "convert" template was cast aside. I changed one back. Thinking this through, I would rather go with the notes. If Bull gives a figure (mm, most likely), that should be used. But instead of looking for an exact inches match, just don't convert or convert. Either way, leave a note for future editors why the size may "look funny" in inches. This is a Canadian article and we can justify using mm first. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

European Poudreries Reunies de Belgique as a JV with PRB not subsidiary ?

I'm doing an article on Poudreries Reunies de Belgique (PRB) (my draft here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttiotsw/Test1) but we have here that SRC had a subsidiary of European Poudreries Reunies de Belgique but this ( http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/20/world/mysterious-death-of-owner-then-arms-company-closes.html?pagewanted=2) NYT article says it was a joint-venture in the 1970's with the Belgian munitions company Poudreries Reunies de Belgique (then part of Societe Generale de Belgique) and that the company (Societe Generale de Belgique I guess says this) said it ended the venture when Dr. Bull was sent to jail. The thing is that PRB was known to have sent propellant to Iraq via Jordan in 1989. This suggests that SGB talking crap and that SRC and PRB had a JV, probably just a memorandum of understanding, known within SRC and Bull as "European Poudreries Reunies de Belgique" but for which there is no other legal record that I can find. So my change is to remove subsidiary and call it a joint venture and use the NYT article as my reference. OK ? Ttiotsw (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

¿Inside Or Out?

I saw a documentary on his assignation that depicted him as being shot on his own sofa; If this documentary is in error, then they should be ashamed, but I’d like someone to confirm which version of events is correct. 174.25.142.178 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Full Bore

I am very surprised there is no page for "full bore" which has two meanings, one, the commonly used synonym for wide open throttle, or anything going "all out", and two, the finned projectile/ rifling used by Bull. Is the latter the origin of the phrase? What is the earliest usage?Drgrit (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bombing the gun

During WW2 the Aliies bombed German constructions after the cement had been poured but before it had set. This meant that with the shuttering blown the concrete would flow over the site then set hard.

The Israeli miltary must have been aware of this possibilty and they had the capabilities to blow the site at any time. Did the Mossad ever really need to assasinate Gerald Bull?AT Kunene (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)