• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 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
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 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
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 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
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 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.