How the cia murdered/assasinated Bob Marley

stuar

Every time I tell somebody this they scoff and say "He died of Cancer", which he did eventually.

Here's the story:

Bob Marley and the Wailers were scheduled to play a free concert on December 5, 1976 named "Smile Jamaica" to ease tensions/violence/shootings between supporters of the 2 main Jamaican political parties the PNP (Peoples National Party) and the JLP (Jamaican Labour Party).
The concert had been organised by the Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley PNP, Manley was a socialist and was friendly with Cuba's Fidel Castro.
The leader of the opposition was Edward Seaga JLP and the cia's man they wanted in power.

Two days before the concert on 3 December 1976, Bob Marley, his wife Rita and manager Don Taylor were in Bob Marley's home on 56 Hope Road, Kingston, with a few other band members, rehersing for the upcoming concert.
Gunmen burst into the house with automatic rifles and start shooting, Bob's wife and Manager recieved serious wounds, Bob Marley was only hit with one bullet which went through his chest below his heart and into his arm, before the gunmen fled after riddling the house with bullets. The attempt on his life was thought to have been politically motivated, as many felt the concert was really a support rally for Michael Manley.

After the attempt on Marley's life he went to hospital and was patched up, his injuries weren't life threatening and he returned home to Hope Road and decided to go ahead with the concert, when asked why, Marley responded, "The people who are trying to make this world worse aren't taking a day off. How can I?"

In the couple of days while he was recovering at home, before the concert, the film maker/producer that was hired for filming the concert stopped by the house, he explained who he was to the machete weilding men protecting Marleys home and was allowed in, he was asking was the concert still going ahead etc and was told it was, he gave Bob a gift of a pair of boot's and left.

Bob Marley put the boots on he said said "Ouch", something had stuck into his right big toe, the boot was taken off and examined and a piece of copper wire was sticking out of the inside of the boot and had pierced between his nail and toe.

This is the filmaker/producer holding the book who gave the boots to Bob Marley, his website is still proud to mention that he produced the music video all these years later.

BOB MARLEY: SMILE JAMAICA
A music special on Bob Marley and the Wailers, performing at the legendary Smile Jamaica concert at All Heroes Park in Kingston for Island Records.

http://www.carlcolbyfilms.com/creditsP-music.html

Here he is today, he's currently making a documentary about his father, must be really proud of his father.

THE MAN NOBODY KNEW: IN SEARCH OF MY FATHER, CIA SPYMASTER WILLIAM COLBY

A son's riveting look at a father whose life seemed straight out of a spy thriller, THE MAN NOBODY KNEW: IN SEARCH OF MY FATHER, CIA SPYMASTER WILLIAM COLBY uncovers the secret world of a legendary CIA spymaster. Told by William Colby’s son Carl, the story is at once a probing history of the CIA, a personal memoir of a family living in clandestine shadows, and an inquiry into the hard costs of a nation's most cloaked actions.
http://www.carlcolbyfilms.com/current.html


Yea that's right, the young film maker was Carl Colby, son of former head of the CIA, William Colby.
http://www.carlcolbyfilms.com/index.html

The right big toe that was pierced with the copper wire in the boots was the exact same toe that Bob Marleys cancer grew from, isn't that a coincidence, the bastards managed to get Bob Marley inside his own home after their failed assasination attempt, he died in 1981 from the cancer that spread from his toe throughout his whole body.

Bob Marley performed at the concert, one of the songs he sang was
"RatRace"
which has a line in it
"Rasta Don't Work For No C.I.A",
little did he know they were working for him/Island records.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiYl-8lYPE

That wasn't the last we heard of Carl Colby, he happened be be OJ Simpsons next door neighbour and once called the police on OJ because he saw a black man on his street.

Then he also called the police for OJ again for killing his wife and was a key witness in the case against OJ.

Chanting Down Babylon: The CIA & The Death of Bob Marley

In 1975, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, on a diplomatic junket to the island, had assured Prim Minister Manley in a private meeting that there was “no attempt now underway involving covert actions against the Jamaican government.” But in the real world, something of a Caribbean pogrom was underway, overseen, of course, by the CIA. As Kissinger croaked his denials to Manley, the destabilization push was already afoot. The emphasis at this stage was on psychological operations, but in the election year of 1976 a series of covert interventions – employing arson, bombing and assassination as required – completely disrupted Manley’s democratic-socialist rule.

http://www.hightimes.com/read/chanting-down-babylon-cia-death-bob-marley

Jamaica’s Shower Posse: How The CIA Created “The Most Notorious Criminal Organization

”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jamaica-s-shower-posse-how-the-cia-created-the-most-notorious-criminal-organization/19696

Michael Manley with Fidel Castro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zdAn2F5oZc

Showing his wound's to the crowd

alastair

That's all well and good, but Marley had stage 3/4 cancer in 1977. So he'd had the cancer for well more than a year at that stage.

mr lee

slow assassination by means of copper wire puncture to toe,im glad the whole thing has been cleared up for us,one less thing to worry about

claypigeon777

Bob Marley turned down his doctor's advice to have his toe amputated citing his religious beliefs.

So was Marley an accomplice in his own assassination?

stuar

I somehow missed this a few months ago, haven't been here much since, I'll reply now.

alastair wrote: »

That's all well and good, but Marley had stage 3/4 cancer in 1977. So he'd had the cancer for well more than a year at that stage.

Ohh Lord???, can you add?, erm try the first line of my post for starters it goes like this:

"Bob Marley and the Wailers were scheduled to play a free concert on December 5, 1976"

Now read this:

In July 1977, Marley was found to have a type of malignant melanoma under the nail of a toe. Contrary to urban legend, this lesion was not primarily caused by an injury during a football match that year, but was instead a symptom of the already-existing cancer. Marley turned down his doctors' advice to have his toe amputated, citing his religious beliefs.[48] Despite his illness, he continued touring and was in the process of scheduling a world tour in 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley#Illness_and_death

Now thats 7-8 months after the incident, so he had stage 3/4 cancer by then you think?

And lived for another 46 months, almost 4 years, and played his last concert 8 months before his death, and your saying he had stage 3/4 cancer in July 1977, any links to that info?

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Bob Marley turned down his doctor's advice to have his toe amputated citing his religious beliefs.

So was Marley an accomplice in his own assassination?

No he was a victim of his own assassination, he held his religous beliefs strongly and faithfully and paid with his life.

Beano

Ah, the old copper wire in the toe assassination. A well know favourite of the CIA. They obviously weren't in any hurry to get rid of him. And of course the death of Marley led to Seaga immediately being made Prime Minister of Jamaica. Oh wait it didnt. He was elected Prime Minister in a LANDSLIDE victory a year before Marley died. Yep, this all really adds up.

stuar

Beano wrote: »

Ah, the old copper wire in the toe assassination. A well know favourite of the CIA. They obviously weren't in any hurry to get rid of him.

Firstly JLP/CIA gunmen tried to assassinate him, they failed!....
And can you name a few "well know favorite's of the CIA"...?
Copper wire can be contaminated with various forms of radiation and varying concentrations, so don't be too quick to get a stupid comment in before knowing what your talking about.

Here's a link, totally irrelevent to this story, just like your quote below, but it'll just educate you brain a little. It's from "The Lancet" from 1967, Titled.....

STUDIES WITH RADIOACTIVE COPPER (64Cu AND 67Cu) IN RELATION TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF WILSON'S DISEASE
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(67)92893-0/abstract

Totally irrelevant as I said, just proves "Tho old copper wire in the toe assassination" isn't as far fetched as you'd like to think.

And just as irrelevant as your quote below, just as a little background info on the people I'm talking about.......

. William Colby claimed that the program never sanctioned the "premeditated killing of a civilian in a non-combat situation,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program#Targeted_killings

Beano wrote: »

And of course the death of Marley led to Seaga immediately being made Prime Minister of Jamaica. Oh wait it didnt. He was elected Prime Minister in a LANDSLIDE victory a year before Marley died. Yep, this all really adds up.

I never said or implied that Marleys death had anything to do with who got elected or didn't, if your going to post try make it relevant.
PNP and JLP are the FF and FG of Jamaican politics, it's just the CIA prefer JLP, Marley was neutral, it's just the CIA didn't like him singing out loud about their involvement in Jamaican politics as Jamaica is just the other side of Cuba.

jh79

Can you give an example of a substance that could cause cancer from a single exposure?

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

Can you give an example of a substance that could cause cancer from a single exposure?

I sure could, and don't you mean a single pierce/puncture/injection into human flesh?

Hepatitis B and C

Neutrons are also listed in the report as a "known human carcinogen." They cause genetic damage similar to that of X-radiation and gamma radiation, and thus can cause the same cancers. Neutron radiation is used less than other types of radiation in industry, medicine, and research. The general population is exposed to neutrons primarily from cosmic radiation that penetrates the earth's atmosphere.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13276&page=2

Thermal and Resonance Neutron Capture in Copper, Nickel, and Manganese
Received 24 July 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v137/i5B/pB1175_1


List of Cancer-Causing Agents Grows
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2005/niehs-31.htm

jh79

stuar wrote: »

I sure could, and don't you mean a single pierce/puncture/injection into human flesh?

Hepatitis B and C

Neutrons are also listed in the report as a "known human carcinogen." They cause genetic damage similar to that of X-radiation and gamma radiation, and thus can cause the same cancers. Neutron radiation is used less than other types of radiation in industry, medicine, and research. The general population is exposed to neutrons primarily from cosmic radiation that penetrates the earth's atmosphere.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13276&page=2

Thermal and Resonance Neutron Capture in Copper, Nickel, and Manganese
Received 24 July 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v137/i5B/pB1175_1


List of Cancer-Causing Agents Grows
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2005/niehs-31.htm

It was a single incident according to your post?
Any evidence of a substance that could cause cancer with such a limited exposure?

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

It was a single incident according to your post?
Any evidence of a substance that could cause cancer with such a limited exposure?

Yes it was a single piercing through the skin into the big toe......

And your getting annoying and pedantic now, but I'll answer anyway.....

Any substance that contains a neutron, how's about that?

Can you show me the wind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqmhFikm84

endacl

stuar wrote: »

Can you show me the wind?

Sure you can show yourself the wind. Rip up some useless paper. Any book by David Icke, for example. Go outside on a windy day. Throw the paper up in the air and, et voila! There's the wind.

Edit: in the interests of safety, don't do the above. Each atom of the book contains neutrons, as does each atom of the various gases that make up the wind. The demonstration may be carcinogenic.

jh79

stuar wrote: »

Yes it was a single piercing through the skin into the big toe......

And your getting annoying and pedantic now, but I'll answer anyway.....

Any substance that contains a neutron, how's about that?

Can you show me the wind?

It is the weak link in your theory.

Any evidence that it is possible to give someone cancer through a single contact with a particular substance? Surely your research would of uncovered the identity of this substance?

How exactly am I being pedantic by the way?

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

It is the weak link in your theory.

Any evidence that it is possible to give someone cancer through a single contact with a particular substance? Surely your research would of uncovered the identity of this substance?

How exactly am I being pedantic by the way?

I'll answer your last question first........., Your silly one line qustions!

Now back on topic.

Ever heard of a self replicating pathogen?

There's one called mycoplasma

Several species of mycoplasma are frequently detected in different types of cancer cells. [20][21][22] These species are:

• M. fermentans [23][20][24][21][22][25]
• M. genitalium [26]
• M. hyorhinis [27][20][26]
• M. penetrans [23][20][21][22][25]

The majority of these mycoplasma have shown a strong correlation to malignant transformation in mammalian cells in vitro.

jh79

stuar wrote: »

I'll answer your last question first........., Your silly one line qustions!

Now back on topic.

Ever heard of a self replicating pathogen?

There's one called mycoplasma

Several species of mycoplasma are frequently detected in different types of cancer cells. [20][21][22] These species are:

• M. fermentans [23][20][24][21][22][25]
• M. genitalium [26]
• M. hyorhinis [27][20][26]
• M. penetrans [23][20][21][22][25]

The majority of these mycoplasma have shown a strong correlation to malignant transformation in mammalian cells in vitro.

From a split second exposure? Doesn't seem plausible.

jh79

Though mycoplasmas are confirmed to be carcinogenic in vitro, it is not yet confirmed whether mycoplasma might be an actual cause of cancer in vivo. [26]


From the wiki link you posted.

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

Though mycoplasmas are confirmed to be carcinogenic in vitro, it is not yet confirmed whether mycoplasma might be an actual cause of cancer in vivo. [26]


From the wiki link you posted.

Ok wait there till I trawl through every paper, note, theory, fact, fiction, ballony about cancer ever written and I'll be straight back to you.........


Listen your asking me what substance was used, I cannot say and never claimed to be able to, how about you list all the things it was definately not and I'll subtract them from the rest, then we might get a little closer to the actual "substance" your looking for.

If I were to take a wild guess on where the substance came from or a better term maybe "cooked up in", I'd say fort detrick, maryland......

jh79

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.

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.

I believe it could possibly 100% be true...

Why do you believe it couldn't, apart from "The weakest Link" as you call it, is there anything else about it that concerns you?, such as the film-maker/producer, do you think, being who he is, that he had a hidden agenda other than make a music video?

jimboblep

Sounds a little to elaborate and james bond
Assuming it was possible and thats a big assumption
Why give him something that would only slowly kill him rather than the thousand other simpler more sure fire ways (shooting,car crash etc)
I just cant figure why make it so complicated

jimboblep

jimboblep wrote: »

Sounds a little to elaborate and james bond
Assuming it was possible and thats a big assumption
Why give him something that would only slowly kill him rather than the thousand other simpler more sure fire ways (shooting,car crash etc)
I just cant figure why make it so complicated

Well presumably it's to make it less suspicious and make it impossible to track down to them.

The problem with that however is that the toe cancer method apparently is also obvious and easily traceable.

stuar

jimboblep wrote: »

Sounds a little to elaborate and james bond
Assuming it was possible and thats a big assumption
Why give him something that would only slowly kill him rather than the thousand other simpler more sure fire ways (shooting,car crash etc)
I just cant figure why make it so complicated

The cia would make James Bond look like mary poppins.

Gunmen tried to shoot him first, they didn't succeed, the gunmen were reportedly found hanging out of lamp-posts in Kingston a few weeks later, either by people out for revenge for shooting Marley or possibly their own???, it's a dog eat dog world and loose lips sink ships.

Maybe another theory is that the cia didn't want to make a martyr out of him?, and dying for fighting the system is one thing but "natural" causes is quiet another, think of all the Che images and he wasn't even a world famous singer.

endacl

stuar wrote: »

Maybe another theory is that the cia didn't want to make a martyr out of him?, and dying for fighting the system is one thing but "natural" causes is quiet another.

So why not a superbug? Don't the CIA make those too in their evil labs? Something more predictably effective and waaaaaaaaay easier to administer? Some modified flu strain?

Can't wait till Mitchell and Webb get their hands on this one!

Here's another theory. Bob Marley died because he refused recommended and effective treatments, based on his wacky beliefs?

stuar

endacl wrote: »

So why not a superbug? Don't the CIA make those too in their evil labs? Something more predictably effective and waaaaaaaaay easier to administer? Some modified flu strain?

Can't wait till Mitchell and Webb get their hands on this one!

Here's another theory. Bob Marley died because he refused recommended and effective treatments, based on his wacky beliefs?

Yea thats a funny video alright.

Bob Marley died in 1981, having been diagnosed with cancer in 1977, AIDS was on the horizon, superbugs weren't as evolved as they are now, and then again maybe it was a cancer causing superbug, who knows?

And Fort Detrick is the place your thinking of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Detrick#Testing_performed_on_SDAs

http://www.detrick.army.mil/

stuar

jh79 wrote: »

From a split second exposure? Doesn't seem plausible.

Either does this:

Mosquitoes: The smallest creature on this list kills far more people than all the others combined. In the Western world, a mosquito bite is usually just an itchy annoyance. But some mosquitoes carry and transfer malaria-causing parasites. Malaria deaths are not always accurately reported, but the World Health Organization estimates that malaria killed between 537,000 and 907,000 people in 2010, mostly among children under age 5 in Africa.

endacl

stuar wrote: »

Either does this:

Mosquitoes: The smallest creature on this list kills far more people than all the others combined. In the Western world, a mosquito bite is usually just an itchy annoyance. But some mosquitoes carry and transfer malaria-causing parasites. Malaria deaths are not always accurately reported, but the World Health Organization estimates that malaria killed between 537,000 and 907,000 people in 2010, mostly among children under age 5 in Africa.

The relationship between those parasites, and their mosquito and human hosts, is a shaky parallel to draw. The result of millions of years of evolution v cooked up in a lab?

Your barely plausible theory is against the ropes, I'm afraid.

stuar

endacl wrote: »

The relationship between those parasites, and their mosquito and human hosts, is a shaky parallel to draw. The result of millions of years of evolution v cooked up in a lab?

Your barely plausible theory is against the ropes, I'm afraid.

The comparison is simply something so tiny can pentrate the skin for a split second till their splatted can introduce "something" into the human body that grow's and kills. Don't make an issue out of it.

endacl

stuar wrote: »

The comparison is simply something so tiny can pentrate the skin for a split second till their splatted can introduce "something" into the human body that grow's and kills. Don't make an issue out of it.

I'm not making an issue. Just pointing out a flaw in your argument. A parasite introduced into the body is a very different thing, and in many ways. You might as well have suggested a stiletto. It also makes a tiny hole and can do lot of damage to the body. By yet another completely unrelated mechanism.

If you're offering supporting arguments to bolster your 'theory' it's a little disingenuous to complain when those arguments are challenged.

Isn't it?

So just to recap the theory is that the CIA invented a new assassination weapon that gives people cancer after a while and only in an isolated part of the body that is easily removed or treated and all in the hopes of having a way to quietly and discreetly kill someone (apparently only Bob Marley) without making it obvious.
But then it is obvious enough for people on the internet to not only figure it out, but deduce the method of assassination?

They could have just shot him or run a car off the road. Would have saved them quite a large research budget and given people less clues to their sinister plot.

endacl

King Mob wrote: »

So just to recap the theory is that the CIA invented a new assassination weapon that gives people cancer after a while and only in an isolated part of the body that is easily removed or treated and all in the hopes of having a way to quietly and discreetly kill someone (apparently only Bob Marley) without making it obvious.
But then it is obvious enough for people on the internet to not only figure it out, but deduce the method of assassination?

They could have just shot him or run a car off the road. Would have saved them quite a large research budget and given people less clues to their sinister plot.

Seriously. Mitchell and Webb are missing out big time on this one!

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So just to recap the theory is that the CIA invented a new assassination weapon that gives people cancer after a while and only in an isolated part of the body that is easily removed or treated and all in the hopes of having a way to quietly and discreetly kill someone (apparently only Bob Marley) without making it obvious.

But then it is obvious enough for people on the internet to not only figure it out, but deduce the method of assassination?



They could have just shot him or run a car off the road. Would have saved them quite a large research budget and given people less clues to their sinister plot.

endacl wrote: »

Seriously. Mitchell and Webb are missing out big time on this one!

Yea they really are, they could pretend to be US senators Frank Church and John Tower........

US Senators Frank Church and John Tower examine a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) poison dart gun that causes cancer and heart attacks, during the US Senate Select Committee’s investigation into the assassination plots on foreign leaders in 1975.
Cancer the secret weapon?

During the United States Senate Select Committee’s investigation into CIA’s assassination plots on foreign leaders in 1975 it was revealed that the agency had developed a poison dart gun that caused heart attacks and cancer.
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.
http://guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2012-02-27/cancer-secret-weapon

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

Volume 1: Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents


Volume 1 of the Church Committee Reports, like each of the 7 “volumes,” consists of transcripts of hearings supplemented by documentary exhibits. The subject of the hearings in this volume is the unauthorized and illegal storage of toxic agents by the CIA for 5 years after their destruction was ordered by President Nixon. These toxins, stored at the Army’s Fort Detrick in Maryland, included anthrax and tuberculosis bacteria, the encephalitus virus, salmonella, shellfish toxin, the smallpox virus, and various other poisons and biological warfare agents. Witnesses called to testify included CIA Director William Colby, former CIA Director Richard Helms, Defense Department employees, and the former Chief of the CIA’s Technical Services Division.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol1.htm



Church Committee
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Church_Committee

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!

jh79

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.

jh79

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

jh79

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