So let’s say there is a whistleblower who wants to reveal damning information about a corrupt government or corporation, and that this organization would go so far as to murder people to keep the info from coming out. In an effort to protect themselves, the whistleblower sets up a “dead man’s switch”, meaning in the event of their untimely death, all of the most damning info gets automatically released all at once.
What doesn’t make sense to me is isn’t that the very same info that the whistleblower should have released from the beginning? The hard hitting info that actually matters, not just the trivial diluted stuff. And if the whistleblower’s goal is to eventually release all of that info anyway, what possible protection could a dead man’s switch offer? Isn’t the act of withholding the most important info by the whistleblower the very same crime that the corrupt organization is doing?
I bring this up because I heard Steven Greer mention that this is his situation in one of the documentaries he’s in (either The Lost Century or Above Top Secret, can’t remember which). Yeah I know that most seasoned conspiracy aware people find Greer to be a con man and a fraud. I find myself agreeing with most of the things he says (namely that if suppressed free energy technologies exist and work as their inventors claim, that it’s important to get them out to the world), but I can’t help but feel there may be some ulterior motives behind Greer. Like how is he even still alive if he talks about how many members of his team have been assassinated?
From the point of view of a corrupt organization, is there a certain point where a whistleblower can gain enough fame and notoriety that killing them off would create more of a shit storm for you than would letting them live?
I really don’t expect this to generate discussion since no one seems to be here, but this was on my mind so I figured I’d post it.