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.

  • gradyp@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I am not a conspiracy theorist. Reality is trying it’s damnedest to make me one.

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not sure what to make of this chart except that a few items are misplaced imo and I agree conspiracy shit is an alt right pipeline in most cases. Maybe it wasn’t always but whatever.

          Anyhow.

          I haven’t followed up on the news. But there sure wasn’t much available yesterday. So as far as actual reliable evidence we the public have little.

          The guy being dead with an apparent self inflicted wound (as BBC and others said) or gunshot (as Corp Crime Reporter said) during whistleblower court proceedings against a giant company is consistent with suicide from:

          • Stress of the case or from blackmail
          • Stress from something totally unrelated.
          • Some other cause (depression, terminal illness…)

          It is also consistent with:

          • murder made to look like suicide to silence his further testimony and dissuade others

          Any of these is certainly plausible at least. As is Epstein being murdered. Actually, that one is more plausible, given the few suspicious coincidences and the sheer number of people who wanted his secrets to stay that way. Whereas extra-terrestrial UFOs aren’t all that plausible based on our current body of scientific knowledge.

        • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

              • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  No, I understand we have questions but explaining epstein requires a couple of details, while UFOs require new laws of physics.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s possible it was stress from the litigation. In fact, if you don’t specify whose stress, I’d almost guarantee it.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If it actually happened, it’s just a “conspiracy,” not a “conspiracy theory.”

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        A conspiracy is when a group plans to do something unlawful. So if it’s proven true it’s still a conspiracy. It just stops being a theory.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          A “theory” is a collection of information we currently understand to be true.

          The term “conspiracy theory” is a misnomer that should be correctly expressed as “conspiracy hypothesis”. But that’s just a theory.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        This isn’t proof. That’s the crazy part. I hear ya. I’m with ya. I don’t see anything that is concrete physical evidence to tie it all together. As of now.

        • Kinglink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree, I just was making a joke. It’s a conspiracy until you realize it’s a fact. MK-ULTRA, Government spying on you (which time? ) , Big tobacco hiding that cigerettes cause cancer, Stacks of ET games are buried in New Mexico, even dark stories like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments were all conspiracy theories at one time. Sadly they all turned out to be true.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Very few conspiracies are as dark and terrifying as (checks notes) Atari games buried in the desert.

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            There’s also the conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories that the government actually likes and even spreads conspiracy theories so that the real ones get lost in the noise and written off by the general public as “just another loony conspiracy theory”

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I like that one because I absolutely don’t like it, but it’s hard not to like and think that it’s worth being a likable conspiracy theory.
              And that’s the problem with conspiracy theories, you like to like them and then you can’t be sure.

              It’s just like that sometimes.

  • IzzyScissor@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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”.

  • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    So, the guy was expected to appear in court for thw second round of questioning and when he didn’t show up was found dead in his truck in the underground car park of the hotel. Doesn’t sound like someone that wanted to end it. Maybe I’m wrong but I wouldn’t book a room to go to court and then on a whim decide to end it.

    They should investigate the coroner asap.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      He just wandered out to his car and died, bro. In the middle of a deposition. Its actually incredibly normal, bro. Why are you asking all these questions, bro? He just died, okay? Its fine.

  • 🍔🍔🍔@toast.ooo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.”

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

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

          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.

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    ITT: The equivalent of Trump supporters confusing the fact that they are suspicious that the election was stolen, with actually knowing so.

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

          • fosho@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • fosho@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                it’s not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.

                • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

  • blahsay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ll never fly in a Boeing again after hearing this. Unless the ceo gets arrested 🤔

    Kayak lets you search via plane model fyi

    • smb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      thanks for the info about kayak, very appreciated!!

      me same, i would never again willingly book a flight with a boeing airplane.

      in my mind that B. company got the status of a criminal organization >20 years ago when they afaik refused to fix a problem with sensors and the computer overriding pilot control which crashed the plane just after takeoff while pilot could not do anything against it. back then however the discussions were about computers overriding pilot control, not about a company intentionally risking lives.

      Now they seem to me to still refuse to fix the problems and instead rename planes so that one cannot avoid their deathtraps unless not at all flying with their aircrafts. so i choose to only book flights with aviation companies that do not have B. planes at all. I decided to in future rather use a car or boat instead, if only B. planes are available.

      i would not be surprised if the current “technical event” would be the actual same cause that “forced the nose down” over 20years ago, to me it sounds exactly like the same until now, it might just luckily have happened by chance high enough in the air so that the “nose forced down by computer” problem could somehow be solved with enough time where they had only seconds in that crash two decades ago.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        20 years ago when they afaik refused to fix a problem with sensors and the computer overriding pilot control which crashed the plane just after takeoff while pilot could not do anything against it

        Erm. Are you talking about something OTHER than the changed 737-MAX design and the MCAS system? Because those two related crashes happened in late 2018 and early 2019 - 5-6 years ago. Got a link to the >20 years ago incident you are talking about?

        • smb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          what i meant was decades ago, not the “recent” crashes of 2018…

          i tried to find it but didn’t yet. there are way more plane crashes than i thought i would have to go through…

          looking at “new technology” introduced (as it was quite new) i stumbled over this article and remembered that the “three computers voting” (while the pilot may only take place in that voting - as a minority …) was part of the discussions back then (which is not written in that article however, but i found one piece, yay!):

          https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19950605&slug=2124705

          i feel like i could remember something wrong like it maybe was not a takeoff but possibly a go-around where the crash happened… not sure i won’t yet give up searching, but i have to stop for now…

          edit: i am not saying it was a 777, i just found a piece of my 20year old puzzle…

          • smb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            went through lots of plane accidents to find the one i think to remember, but had to stop as i do not want to increase fear of flying. however i stumbled about this one, Airbus A320 Air France flight 296 on 26th of June, 1988 which was sort of related as some “security” mechs seemed to have prevented crash prevention there and fired discussions. but this one was earlier and it was not boeing (and it looks like no one tried to cover things). however since it was during an airshow, not a commercial flight, i now figured out that the one i remember could have been a testflight, cargo flight or something else like a flight show as well… not sure if i “can” find it, the little i remember.