sadfsdfasfasf
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.
sadfsdfasfasf
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.)
sadfsdfasfasf
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.
sadfsdfasfasf
which could cause death in minutes without leaving a trace.
Aside from the puncture wound.
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.
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.
Which can be missed by an examiner
sadfsdfasfasf
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.
sadfsdfasfasf
Plonk.
