• ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 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.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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.)

        • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          So “it can be done” is now evidence of a grand conspiracy? What did I say that remotely indicated I didn’t think it was possible from a logistics perspective? How does showing me the existence of a heart attack gun from the 60s prove boeing murdered people? How is any of this relevant?

          This is why conspiracy theories don’t die. “It’s possible that…” becomes “I could see that…” then it becomes “that happened.” All without a single shred of evidence necessary. We have wild imaginations.

          • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 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.

            • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I have said multiple times this warrants an investigation. The issue is people here have already decided what the facts are.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 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.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 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.

            • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 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.

              • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 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.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      But you wont argue that 10 dead whistblowers can still be a tremendous coincidence, right?

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The first wasn’t coincidental. He said “hey they might murder me” then he died right before testifying.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Even one death under these circumstances is not a coincidence, and that ought to be coded into law. You’d better fucking well hope the person who blows a whistle on you is healthy - that’s the world we should move towards. Not that that couldn’t also be abused, but the pendulum is way too fucking far this way.