• @ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1592 months ago

    One death is coincidental, two is suspicious, any more and it’s gonna become plainly obvious, and now there’s 10. That’s just delicious. They can’t silence them all.

      • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        So in other words, very plausible deniability.

        https://allthatsinteresting.com/heart-attack-gun

        We had that tech in 1968. I’m pretty sure it would be a matter of a phone call and some change from the couch cushions for Boeing to create the recent outcome.

        Does this mean they did it? No.

        Does it warrant the reaction folks are having about it? Absolutely yes. (Edit - In light of their current troubles and the fate of the prior whistleblower.)

          • @hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            92 months ago

            From the article:

            All that would be left behind was a tiny red dot where the dart entered the body, undetectable to those who didn’t know to look for it.

              • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 months ago

                Well that’s it. Case closed. The existence of a heart attack gun in 1968 proves Boeing killed 2 whistleblowers in 2024. Good job gang.

                Literally no one has made that statement, including me, the guy who brought up the heart attack gun. Take a breath man.

          • @maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 months ago

            They may have ironed that out, this article is talking about tech that is more than half a century old. We got from first aeroplane to man on the moon in less than that.

          • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Does this mean they did it? No.

            Does it warrant the reaction folks are having about it? Absolutely yes. (Edit - In light of their current troubles and the fate of the prior whistleblower.)

            I stand by that statement, and don’t feel like trying again to connect the dots on the relevancy of my example for you. Whatever you are arguing about is - not the same.

      • @Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        152 months ago

        And it is suspected that thousand of elderly people are murdered every year, but it is ruled as a natural death, because the demographic is prone to natural deaths and nobody bothers to check further.

        At the very least demanding a throughout investigation in both cases is absolutely reasonable.

      • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        Well, iirc he didn’t show for his deposition, or the day after, or the day after that, at which point the lawyers sent people to find him and found he “committed suicide”.

        This is after he said “I am absolutely not going to commit suicide over this. If I die and people say it was suicide, I was killed.”

    • AggressivelyPassive
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 months ago

      Can’t or won’t?

      Seriously, though, I wouldn’t be surprised, if a bunch of suicides or “retractions” are happening soon.

      How about 2 million if you shut up? No? How about we publish this dirt on you? Would be a shame, if some nameless robber orphans your children.

    • @PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      Any serious issue should have a paper trail of some sort. Emails, meetings, part rejections, that sort of thing. There are processes in place to allow anonymous reporting of some of these things.