How the cia murdered/assasinated Bob Marley

stuar

stuar wrote: »

The gun fired a frozen liquid poison-tipped dart, the width of a human hair and a quarter of an inch long, that could penetrate clothing, was almost undetectable and left no trace in a victim’s body.

So why didn't they use this instead of a delivery method that left conspiracy theorists a smoking gun clue?

Also could you point out where in the report it talks about that gun? A quick search of the reports turns up nothing about something causing cancer and the only videos I can find of the hearings in a quick search only refer to the gun causing heart attacks.

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So why didn't they use this instead of a delivery method that left conspiracy theorists a smoking gun clue?

Also could you point out where in the report it talks about that gun? A quick search of the reports turns up nothing about something causing cancer and the only videos I can find of the hearings in a quick search only refer to the gun causing heart attacks.

Find it yourself, it's in there.

Firstly you ask where in the report it talks about a gun?

Then in the next breath you mention a gun causing heart attacks......

As I said, it's in there, find it, then you'll have to actually read stuff your not comfortable with and would usually fob off.

Have a nice read and educate yourself all at once.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LO6tiD5Dy0

Just noting that the man being questioned in above video is William Colby, father of the music video director/producer Carl Colby who gave Bob Marley the boots, at the time he gave the boots it was just a couple of days after the failed assassination attempt and it wasn't certain whether Marley was going to even play the concert that Carl Colby was to film, so maybe the boots were a plan B, actually if I were a CIA mastermind I'd rig out the camera with an inbuilt gun like the one above and "shoot" the video.....

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Firstly you ask where in the report it talks about a gun?

Then in the next breath you mention a gun causing heart attacks......

Yes, I used the search function on this site:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Church_Committee
And I could not find mention of anything being used to cause cancer.

I then searched for the part where they specifically talk about the gun (such as the transcripts for the testimony in the above video.) but could not find it on a quick search.

stuar wrote: »

As I said, it's in there, find it, then you'll have to actually read stuff your not comfortable with and would usually fob off.

Have a nice read and educate yourself all at once.

But in that video (and the transcripts of that part of the hearing, which I since found here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1163&relPageId=20 ) they do not mention the gun causing cancer at all.
In fact they specifically say that gun causes death very quickly.

So it seems the only source for the claim that that gun can cause cancer is the caption from the photo in the Guardian piece.

Still that leaves the question of why in your opinion didn't they just use that apparently undetectable weapon to give Marley cancer or a heart attack, but instead relied on a riskier, slower plan that gives the game away?

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

Do you think it is an interesting CT or believe it could possibly be true?

Doubt any substance either synthetic or naturally occurring could cause cancer the way it is described in this CT.

If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!

It just doesn't seem plausible that a synthetic chemical exists that is potent enough to cause cancer from a single exposure at a volume that coats the tip of a copper wire.

The same also for a biological agent that would also need to be robust enough to survive on a copper wire.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!

with a copper wire and just once?

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I used the search function on this site:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Church_Committee
And I could not find mention of anything being used to cause cancer.

I then searched for the part where they specifically talk about the gun (such as the transcripts for the testimony in the above video.) but could not find it on a quick search.


But in that video (and the transcripts of that part of the hearing, which I since found here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1163&relPageId=20 ) they do not mention the gun causing cancer at all.
In fact they specifically say that gun causes death very quickly.

So it seems the only source for the claim that that gun can cause cancer is the caption from the photo in the Guardian piece.

Still that leaves the question of why in your opinion didn't they just use that apparently undetectable weapon to give Marley cancer or a heart attack, but instead relied on a riskier, slower plan that gives the game away?

No KingMob not that one, read this one......

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

Everything you ask in this post is there, have a nice read.

jh79 wrote: »

with a copper wire and just once?

Yes, how many self replicating cells does it take to make 20 billion?

Maybe Marley was an experiment?, a new method being tested?, they were doing it with mice at the EXACT same time.

One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Cultured Human Tumor Cell Lines Producing Tumors in Nude Mic
Received November 8, 1976.
Accepted January 25, 1977.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/221.short

stuar

stuar wrote: »

No KingMob not that one, read this one......

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

Everything you ask in this post is there, have a nice read.



Yes, how many self replicating cells does it take to make 20 billion?

Maybe Marley was an experiment?, a new method being tested?, they were doing it with mice at the EXACT same time.

One Hundred and Twenty-Seven Cultured Human Tumor Cell Lines Producing Tumors in Nude Mic
Received November 8, 1976.
Accepted January 25, 1977.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/221.short

The fact that carcinogens exist isn't evidence that this theory is plausible.

It is the delivery method that is being questioned. I can't imagine the cells liking copper wire too much. Read the methodologies used by the researchers to induce cancer in the mice and see if you still think that the copper wire theory is viable.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

No KingMob not that one, read this one......

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm

Everything you ask in this post is there, have a nice read.

None of my questions are answered in there.

That link contains the exact same reports that I searched.
None refer to anything giving people cancer and the transcript does not state that the weapon in the photo can cause cancer. It states the gun causes death quickly. So that weapon is very different to the method you think could have killed Marley and is not evidence for it's existence.

So can you please point out where you confirmed that that gun can be used to cause cancer?

And it does not answer the question I asked.

If they did have such a weapon they would not use such a roundabout way of killing Marley, especially when it points back to the so "blatantly".

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

None of my questions are answered in there.

That link contains the exact same reports that I searched.
None refer to anything giving people cancer and the transcript does not state that the weapon in the photo can cause cancer. It states the gun causes death quickly. So that weapon is very different to the method you think could have killed Marley and is not evidence for it's existence.

So can you please point out where you confirmed that that gun can be used to cause cancer?

And it does not answer the question I asked.

If they did have such a weapon they would not use such a roundabout way of killing Marley, especially when it points back to the so "blatantly".

KingMob perhaps they made some special bullets with this stuff?........
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/221.short

And if you listen to what's being said, it's not a one purpose weapon, the heart attack bullet was one of a variety. At about 0:29 and 1:40 he speaks of one that could potentially enter the target without perception (the person wouldn't even feel it!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LO6tiD5Dy0

stuar

stuar wrote: »

KingMob perhaps they made some special bullets with this stuff?........
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/221.short

And if you listen to what's being said, it's not a one purpose weapon, the heart attack bullet was one of a variety. At about 0:29 and 1:40 he speaks of one that could potentially enter the target without perception (the person wouldn't even feel it!)

But they do not reference it being able to cause cancer.
The articles you posted said that it did, but there is nothing from the reports or the hearings that supports this.

You may well speculate about special ammo they don't talk about, but the gun does not indicate they they had such technology.

If they did, then surely they would have used that gun instead to kill Marley.

stuar

Hiya Carol W...C