I’m having a hard time seeing how pneumonia and stroke could be inflicted on a person as part of a cover up. Seems like this was just unfortunate illness.
However, it looks way too complicated for a plot. There are many tried and proven methods of getting rid of people. Spooks aren't actually that good in hiding their works - we know about a lot of cases where people were assassinated (of course, we may also not know about many, but I think we have a good sample). Among those, we have a lot of ways it can be done - shootings, stabbings, explosions, poisons, drownings, falling from heights, whatever - but I can't remember any case where a biological agent were used. And thinking about it - biological agents are hard to produce, hard to handle, unstable, unpredictable in use, can't be properly targeted, why would anyone use that instead of dozens of easier and more common methods?
So while it does look suspicious on its face, I'd have hard time believing it's an example of an assassination.
We are surrounded by lethal bacteria. That humans survive depends on the immune system having a 100% success rate preventing bacteria from forming even a small colony in the lungs (and several other places, like the teeth, where infections can rapidly and surprisingly turn deadly)
This is why people cough so extremely hard when inhaling solid or liquid stuff in their windpipes.
Also this happens all the time. That someone dies from pneumonia is not uncommon (though for oil it's usually someone who manages to spray themselves with aerosolized oil at work). So even if an autopsy found a few specs of dirt in the lungs, and even if they actually trace that to be the cause, that's not extremely suspicious. (Plus why would they check? Obviously with a pneumonia patient you know the cause of death)
So that you will think it is not suspicious
This is pretty similar to the old argument about why mass surveillance is unlikely to be happening - we're just not that good at keeping secrets. Seems like a pretty safe bet that there's good spooks who are good at hiding their works.
> we know about a lot of cases where people were assassinated (of course, we may also not know about many, but I think we have a good sample). Among those, we have a lot of ways it can be done
Let's not forget about survivorship bias. You only know about the assassinations you know about. You don't know about the assassinations that were successfully kept secret.
Not a great example since we know for a fact that mass surveillance is happening. The U.S. Congress just voted to extend and expand it.
Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Just a handful though.
But that's not true - actually, we learned about the mass surveillance reasonably soon after it started. They aren't actually good at hiding. True, there was a period that somebody could say "we haven't learned about it yet so it probably doesn't exist" - which would be fallacious - but within a reasonable period of time, that option had disappeared.
Now, with assassinations, the biological weapons option has been existing for almost 100 years. If that were so common that even corporate machinators don't hesitate to use it to silence a witness of fairly low importance - we'd have heard at least a couple of cases, at least some rumors or defector reports. Just as we did with all other means of getting rid of witnesses. Since we didn't, I attribute very low probability to the possibility that this is how we learn about this being common.
> You don't know about the assassinations that were successfully kept secret.
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment. However, as I also mentioned, we have, over the years, pretty generous sample out of the mass of all assassinations. It would be rather weird if assassinations specifically using biological agents were somehow so special that while we have leaks about pretty much every other kind, we don't have any indications specifically about those. One could assume that is because this method is used only by the very best operatives going for very high-value target - but then we'd need to explain why suddenly Boeing corporates have access to it to deal with a pretty low-grade issue (and frankly I don't even see how it helps them by now - they are so deep in doo-doo anyway that one less witness is not going to save them). Such assumptions do not form a coherent picture if you look at the likelihood of the events involved.
Like... head shot in an alley? suffocating them in their sleep? drowning them in a body of water?
I think you can probably answer your question yourself if you think about it
That's because it's the failures we learn about. Which could be 90% or 5% of "their works".
But never mind the spooks. We are also told "there's no perfect crime". Yet, less than half the murders get solved in the US, for example:
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...
They brought back the time-tested art of defenestration.
These things are ordered by executives as individuals (or small groups with similar exposure), not abstract legal entities. It's not like it was decided at a board meeting, LOL.
And one would expect are carried out by people good at their jobs. After all they're paid top dollar for this service. those people have not only tried it, they have impressive resumes at it to be hired in the first place. Like how corporations in the past used to use the mob to do those things to annoying union leaders.
99% of murder investigations mostly boil down to:
1. Literally witnessed by one or more people, possibly officers or on camera. 2. They brag about it. 3. A brief investigation of friends and family where it turns out so and so always hated them and happens to have a gun, and hey look at that the ballistics match.
There are a very small number of officers in comparison to the total population (as it should be), and the vast majority of them are not the kind being assigned to homicide.
Some major % of the "unsolved" murders in the US that mostly just get thrown on the pile because they find out 2 weeks later and either can't identify the victim, or can't find enough useful information to start investigating. Forensics is very useful, but hardly as portrayed in shows like CSI, and the simple realities of "well we didn't find much, found out weeks later, and it'll be weeks before we get any lab results back" often just mean there's 10 other "no shit" murders to deal with instead.
And this isn't even on the core topic here of "could this have been a hit by Boeing", which is just insanely unbelievable, ESPECIALLY given the method. People are off handledly mentioning things like Ricin or Polonoium attacks, but the important things about those is that they are INSANELY LETHAL and extremely easy to control.
"Lets infect him with pneumonia that turns into MRSA" has got to be one of the most risky, difficult, expensive, and unreliable methods of killing someone ever.
Hell if you want deniability there's probably at least 10 or so ways to easily cause a human to have a heart attack and look like they died of natural causes as compared to some magic MRSA gun.
Ask Suge Knight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPTtFv4AkM
You can assume criminals have gotten better at this type of thing since 1995
[1] https://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-hear...
Again, I do not believe this happened, but that's probably how you'd do it.
MRSA is awful, difficult or impossible to clear, and can certainly be fatal.
This could be a very diabolical way to assassinate someone.
How would you be able to trace it? It could have been laced in his food or drink. Or simply transfered by touch (got on his hands, then wiped on his face or nose). Or aerosolized as he walked by.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylo...
This is easily within the reach of DIY bio folks. You just need a freezer, bath, growth serum, and other easy inputs.
The pneumonia and MRSA were certainly just an unfortunate illness. The more conspiratorial can debate over if the original breathing difficulties that brought him into the hospital were the result of an assassination attempt or not. For all we know he just had Covid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb, for example.
Plausible Deniability is when a person's involvement or culpability in an event might be denied, or at least mitigated, by creating a situation where they can claim ignorance or an inability to act.
It seems the risks of murdering whistleblowers, especially after they have already testified, is too great. They just want revenge here?
Has it happened, yes. Is it commonplace, absolutely not!
nobody considers Boeing a private company. It is publicly traded on the stock market.
It's an admittedly weird overloading of the term "private company" but it's a useful thing to know about - usually context clues can help, but definitely gives me a pause when I encounter the term.
think using the full terms publicly/privately traded can help a lot in this area.
I think people massively underestimate what a huge keystone Boeing is in the American empire. The top of the system has rapidly started getting extremely anxious about the stability of the whole system, especially as they are fomenting war with China and Russia and their plans not only becoming unstable, but actions they’ve taken revealing themselves as extreme risks in the light of stalled progression and unaccounted faults like what has been observed at Boeing the last years.
I personally see just the suspicion of what happened to these folks far more is a symptom of a failing system than is the failing system had neutralized them in hopes of snuffing out threats to keystone components if the empire. The people arts loosing confidence in the competence of the system, a far greater threat than even Boeing failing.
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.