- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.
In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.
Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett’s passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.
It said the 62-year-old had died from a “self-inflicted” wound on 9 March and police were investigating.
You must log in or register to comment.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Reality is trying it’s damnedest to make me one.
Eh. There will always be real conspiracies and then…lizard people conspiracies.
This shit right here? yeah…they killed him. 100%. No doubt in my fucking mind.
I mean, he was old…people die—
It said the 62-year-old had died from a “self-inflicted” wound on 9 March and police were investigating.
oh shit they totally fucking killed him
THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM!
Relevant Chart (open image in new tab to see it larger):
Epstein didn’t kill himself though. The circumstances where above the level of questioning, there were cameras turned off and he was supposedly on suicide watch.
As I much as I also believe that, there is no hard evidence (that we know of) that he didn’t kill himself. I think that’s why it’s in that section. The suspiciousness of it is through the roof, but we can’t prove it.
Sure we can’t prove it but that diagram puts it at the same level of UFOs.
Right, the chart is far from perfect, but they just grouped them both under the “we have questions” section. We have lots of unresolved questions about Epstein’s death, we have lots of unresolved questions about UFO sightings.
No, I understand we have questions but explaining epstein requires a couple of details, while UFOs require new laws of physics.
Why don’t news organizations address the elephant in the room? They can say there is no evidence of foul play but the circumstances warrant further investigation as his death is quite convenient for Bowing. I don’t see how that could be libelous.
They can be sued if they claim Boeing executives murdered a guy unless there are court records showing Boeing executives were convicted for murdering a guy. However, I guarantee you people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver will absolutely run with this bit if they get the chance.
“WhY iSN’t ThE MEdiA CoVEriNG tHe NeWs” people scream in the comments of a news feed that alerted them to this exact issue.
did you even read the comment you’re responding to?
Not only did I read it but I answered the question.
You absolutely did not. The question was not: “Why don’t news organizations claim Boeing execs murdered a guy…?” The commenter was clearly aware of the problem of libel, which you completely ignored. They asked why news orgs aren’t discussing the fact that the death comes at a suspiciously convenient time - because they aren’t. This is not the same as claiming that he was murdered by Boeing.
He claimed it shouldn’t be libelous and I explained that it would be libelous. You’re implying that journalists are somehow dancing around the issue, which is silly because we’re all pretty well informed that the whistleblower was probably murdered.
it’s not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.
If you say a person or entity with a public image did something really bad that they haven’t been strictly proven to have done, with exceptions for things such as parody, then that is defamation. So, yes, it can be libelous to talk about the fucking elephant.
He was staying at a hotel out-of-state while giving evidence against Boeing.
He was found dead in his car in the hotel parking lot from a ‘self-inflicted wound’.There’s really no other way to look at it logically than he was murdered by Boeing. Nothing else adds up.
I mean, I think the logical thing to do is wait until the evidence comes out and we know for sure. It’s entirely possible he was under a lot of stress from all this and did kill himself. Now, I don’t deny that it’s a HUGE. FUCKING. CONICIDENCE. but those do happen from time to time. Its also a hell of a story, good-guy whistleblower murdered by greedy multinational aerospace company and defense contractor…during an election year…if you wrote the script nobody would buy it.
Let’s be suspicious, but not jump to conclusions.
He wasn’t even done giving the deposition that he literally volunteered to give…
literall–
Downvote.
“Literally” CAN be used as an hyperbole. It’s just a more emphatic way to say “very”
Found the boeing employee
Literally has been used as an intensifier for over 200 years. The Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition of literally meaning “figuratively”. Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry David Thoreau, James Fenimore Cooper, James Joyce, Charles Dickens, and Mark Twain all used it that way in their writing.
So until you write something as well respected and enduring as Sanditon, The Great Gatsby, Tom Sawyer, or Ulysses and collect your mother fucking Nobel prize in literature, please choke on a literal dick you confidently incorrect fuckwit.
In this case literally literally did mean literally, though, not figuratively. Which makes the fuckwit even more incorrect.
I don’t care what justification you throw out. Misuse of literally drives me figuratively insane!
How is it misused? Did he figuratively agree to give a deposition?
It’s just a general statement. Not specific to this article or comments 🤷
Did he not literally volunteer?
I mean, I get it, I’m sick of “literally” meaning “figuratively”, and I’d die on that hill with you, but this is the dumbest possible time to make that stand. In this case “literally” just means “literally”.
That was indeed a perfectly cromulent use of “literally”.
You could’ve just done so and moved on, my guy. It’s not a profound statement.
I upvoted this.
Why?
Let me list the reasons: it’s creative, provocative and a little sultry.
I’m about half hard right now so you deserve it.
Downvote
You can have an upvote too!
I’m floppier then a rubber tube full of jelly but that’s because I’m in my refractory period.
Flaccid. Downvote
ITT: The equivalent of Trump supporters confusing the fact that they are suspicious that the election was stolen, with actually knowing so.
Well, Boeing is demonstrably willing, even determined, to choose financial short term gain over any amount of human lives or reputation loss. It would be shocking if it was truly an accident that saved Boeing from a second day of testimony right when everything is starting to really fall apart for them, right?
Notice how you haven’t offered up any evidence. Just motivation to kill him (even that’s tenuous at best).
You know what Trump supporters often argue? That the “deep state” had motive to stop Trump from becoming POTUS, which is what makes their claims reasonable.
In this case, you’re acting just like them.
I don’t disagree with you. But evidence of Boeing being willing to trade lives for profit is super, super easy to find right now. If you aren’t being disingenuous I am willing to do some of the labor you are asking for
You are just justifying being suspicious. I’m suspicious too. You don’t need to convince me of rhay.
But it’s 100% possible for them to be willing to kill him but he still killed himself. Right now I’ve seen no evidence that they did it. It’s all blind speculation.
I didn’t say they did although I would personally place it at like a 60% likelihood. Obviously there’s no evidence, this literally just happened.
Just wanted to be clear that I live in reality and no one has the security camera footage yet.
i can’t find it online, but im reasonably certain i heard an interview with this guy on Canadian public radio several years ago that really shook me. he talked basically about how he wouldn’t fly on a Boeing plane, knowing what he knows and having seen what he’d seen, stuff like quality rejected parts getting taken back into inventory to meet quotas. the takeaway for me was that the quality control system that had previously worked so well was an invention of equal or possibly higher importance to any kind of aerodynamic innovation present on those planes. i work in an analogous role (in a different industry) and i really do take it more seriously after having heard the interview. nobody likes the work of quality assurance and you’ll never see someone doing a non-conformance report on TV but it’s a necessary condition for planes to stay in the sky. RIP to a real one and if he got murdered then i hope the industry burns
John Oliver’s Boeing broadcast last week included a video of a guy walking around a Boeing production floor asking all the people if any of them would be willing to fly in a Boeing. Of everyone he asked a single guy said yes and then followed it up with “but I kind of have a death wish.”
There were more yes’s, but they were cut out of the video. However, Oliver mentions after the video what amount of them said yes and what amount said no. Most of them did say “no” though.
If Boeing was running a tight ship with safety in mind, they should all have been yes. If one said no, that could be a disgruntled employee for some reason or another, but jesus…
Anyways, Airbus for me it is.
