Email from Michael Hastings before crash mentions FBI probe ("Big Story"-"Going off the Radar")

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Curious69
...Yes it seems to show 3 three trees. Where are you going with this?
are you in doubt of the location that you found. or do you question that it took place where it took place?
I fail to see the significance.
Besides the different camera angels ruins some of the perspective i guess. but im pretty sure that it is where it is.
if that makes sense.

I'm just wondering how many sportster-type Mercedes crash into palm trees and burn in Los Angeles...
Are we getting photos that aren't related?
Unless there has been a lot of changes in that specific spot since Google Maps acquired their photos for Street View - something is awry.
Maybe palm trees are added to these streets fairly easily and/or commonly in Los Angeles... I wouldn't know. Maybe someone from the area could chime in with relevant information.
Maybe they've added a Traffic Signal at the next "block" since those Street View photos were taken... I don't know - but maybe someone reading this does - and can set that question to rest.
I think the street "name" at the traffic signal is Rosewood...but if the event-scene photos are correct...it should be the 6600 block of W. Clinton St. ...(meaning - one city block back (north) toward Melrose).
This first pic' is during the fire... Look to the left of the vehicle...across the street...at the white picket fence, with the 'interesting' entrance for the walkway.


Now, look at the same location I posted before (in Google Maps Street View), but from an angle similar to that taken by the crash-scene photographer...


You go up and down that street...and this is the only location you will find that fence and entry (in Google Maps, Street View)...
And - this is 4 houses before Clinton Street... "Rosewood" is another city block...on...

Again - I have no theory to plug this in-to...but, I see no way around it being very strange.




Its a different accident. That is the only answer.




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 





For those who think the car was a drone strike, there would be obvious signs of such. There is no visible evidence in the pictures of an explosion, the type that would come from a missile strike or bomb in the vehicle. Structurally the car would exhibit signs of the explosion that would be unmistakable. The only structural damage is consistent with a car striking immovable objects....in all honesty the car does not seem to have hit anything at 100mph, but then that may be due to the sound engineering by Mercedes...


Yeah, I don't think that there was drone strike. It's not necessary. It's not hard for someone with the right know how to hack into the car's computer and/or a plant an explosive and detonate it remotely. But it sure looks an explosion from this shot below. The whole front end looks blown out, and of course there's the matter of the flying engine.



Picture taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by bbracken677
 





For those who think the car was a drone strike, there would be obvious signs of such. There is no visible evidence in the pictures of an explosion, the type that would come from a missile strike or bomb in the vehicle. Structurally the car would exhibit signs of the explosion that would be unmistakable. The only structural damage is consistent with a car striking immovable objects....in all honesty the car does not seem to have hit anything at 100mph, but then that may be due to the sound engineering by Mercedes...


Yeah, I don't think that there was drone strike. It's not necessary. It's not hard for someone with the right know how to hack into the car's computer and/or a plant an explosive and detonate it remotely. But it sure looks an explosion from this shot below. The whole front end looks blown out, and of course there's the matter of the flying engine.



Picture taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I thought the same thing. The body is probably slumped over towards the passenger seat, or smashed up on the floor. I wonder if anyone took pictures of the inside of the vehicle?



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Rulkiewicz
 


Oh I'm sure of it. I'm sure that not only the LAPD was taking shots of all angles, inside and out, but Mercedes and the insurance company probably sent investigators too. No doubt there will be a lawsuit brought against Mercedes by Hasting's widow. How will Mercedes defend themselves, that's the question.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
...Yeah, I don't think that there was drone strike. It's not necessary. It's not hard for someone with the right know how to hack into the car's computer and/or a plant an explosive and detonate it remotely. But it sure looks an explosion from this shot below. The whole front end looks blown out, and of course there's the matter of the flying engine.
...

That was my impression when watching the video, as well...
Looked like the entire front end was pretty-much gone. I was actually surprised that there was not a body lying on the ground somewhere in the vicinity (looked like anyone in the front seat might have gone the same direction that the engine and wheels went).

I'm guessing that Mercedes' air bags are of the highest quality (meaning - deployment and shock absorption). Don't know how much damage they could prevent if the collision was indeed, at 100 (+/-) mph...but, do you think the fire erupted immediately on impact...? And, if so, was it all-engulfing...immediately...? Or - if he had survived the impact (because of the airbags), mightn't he have had time to attempt an exit from the vehicle?

Another interesting "fact", though - from one side of the street, you could clearly see a motorcycle within a couple/few feet of the car...and...it was still standing...at least until the fire eventually caused its tire/s to blow.
This suggests (to me), that the engine, front wheels & assembly had exited the vehicle prior to colliding with the tree.

What do you think?



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


I don't know about any motorcycle at the scene. And, I'm not educated in automobiles or in explosives, so I really can't comment other than to say that it looks like the front end was exploded away.


I can't for the life of me figure why so many pictures are obviously photo shopped!



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Foobler
If it was indeed a huge gasoline explosion which caused the fireball it would have come from the gas tank. And yet this picture clearly shows the gas tank laying behind the car is in solid condition:

www.theblaze.com...
edit on 21-6-2013 by Foobler because: (no reason given)


I was at home a few weeks ago, and I heard what sounded like an explosion. It turned out to be someone hitting a light pole in the median of the street on which I live. A car smacks into an immovable object you get a very sudden loud sound that immediately quits and will tend to sound like an explosion when you have no clue what it is. It was apparent, when I went outside to see wtf had happened that the car had likely hit the pole doing about 40ish (just a guess). I can imagine the smack from a car doing 100ish hitting a tree. The ironic thing about all that is that after the city repaired the pole, someone else hit it within 48 hours of the repair LOL

I am leaning more and more towards this being related to the govt investigation but I am not convinced it was a govt hit or just a result of his reaction and paranoia from the investigation.

For those who think the car was a drone strike, there would be obvious signs of such. There is no visible evidence in the pictures of an explosion, the type that would come from a missile strike or bomb in the vehicle. Structurally the car would exhibit signs of the explosion that would be unmistakable. The only structural damage is consistent with a car striking immovable objects....in all honesty the car does not seem to have hit anything at 100mph, but then that may be due to the sound engineering by Mercedes...



I am curious...Did your windows shake, too? A witness said she heard what sounded like an explosion and her windows shook. No sarcasm, just wondering.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
...I don't know about any motorcycle at the scene. And, I'm not educated in automobiles or in explosives, so I really can't comment other than to say that it looks like the front end was exploded away.


I can't for the life of me figure why so many pictures are obviously photo shopped!

As to the motorcycle...here's an outtake from the video (he was standing on the east side of the street...so, you're looking at the front of the car (on the other side of the bike)...


At one point, during the stretch where the videographer is filming from this angle, it appears that the front tire of the bike finally blew-out (exploded). You can hear it, and the bike visibly changes position.

I checked the credentials on the photo that shows three palm trees, with officers standing behind the vehicle, in the street (daylight)... It was supposedly taken by "Al Seib" at 7:21:36 a.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2013, with a Canon EOS-1D Mark III, and is copyrighted to the Los Angeles Times.
I believe I got the photo from some Russian website (everything was written in Russian - presumably). Don't know if "the Russians" tweeked the photo...or, if it came to them, that way... Guess I'll try and see if I can find the original on the Los Angeles Times website.

I have posed one possibility that is almost as nasty as some of the proposed conspiracy angles -- being -- Websites &/or other Publishers want to have photographs of the tragedy to post on their sites/publications...but don't want to pay the royalty/royalties to the photographer (or, whomever holds the copyright)... So - they alter a pic' enough to "make it their own (*original*)", and hope they get by/away with it.
As you say, though - there are quite a few altered &/or manipulated photos to sift through.
edit on 6/24/2013 by WanDash because: forgot to mention


ETA: Okay - it actually get's a little weirder after going to the LA Times... This is the picture they show... It being attributed to the same photographer, but reportedly taken at 7:24:34 a.m. ...


So - the photo-shopping had begun before it left the LA Times...if, indeed, the "Image Information" is correct.
edit on 6/24/2013 by WanDash because: Might As Well.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by bbracken677
 





For those who think the car was a drone strike, there would be obvious signs of such. There is no visible evidence in the pictures of an explosion, the type that would come from a missile strike or bomb in the vehicle. Structurally the car would exhibit signs of the explosion that would be unmistakable. The only structural damage is consistent with a car striking immovable objects....in all honesty the car does not seem to have hit anything at 100mph, but then that may be due to the sound engineering by Mercedes...


Yeah, I don't think that there was drone strike. It's not necessary. It's not hard for someone with the right know how to hack into the car's computer and/or a plant an explosive and detonate it remotely. But it sure looks an explosion from this shot below. The whole front end looks blown out, and of course there's the matter of the flying engine.



Picture taken from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



To add even more interest to this: Hispanic witness with broken English said he only saw head and neck. Now...where is this head and neck? Was he close enough to see the body fallen to the side of the passenger seat? Wouldn't that be alittle difficult, especially since the video shows the entire car engulfed in flames? Just more questions..



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
...To add even more interest to this: Hispanic witness with broken English said he only saw head and neck. Now...where is this head and neck? Was he close enough to see the body fallen to the side of the passenger seat? Wouldn't that be alittle difficult, especially since the video shows the entire car engulfed in flames? Just more questions..

I believe he is referring to times when he was in these two (at least) positions...





These are both from the Loud Labs video.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What is this thread about, how the man died?
Although I commend you all for getting down to the specifics, it's really irrelevant at this point with all the inconsistencies convincingly favoring foul play constantly being brought up. The main point is that Hastings was MURDERED POINT BLANK PERIOD just before being able to expose his findings on the NSA. Hello, red flag anyone?



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious69
reply to post by WanDash
 


Yes it seems to show 3 three trees. Where are you going with this?
are you in doubt of the location that you found. or do you question that it took place where it took place?
I fail to see the significance.
Besides the different camera angels ruins some of the perspective i guess. but im pretty sure that it is where it is.
if that makes sense.



Sounds like there is doubt about the location of the wreck. I am questioning it, too, so can someone help me with this?

www.youtube.com...

There were questions about the location being photoshopped because of the shopping center in the background but this video does show the shopping center in the background. However, the video of wreck itself right after it happened shows houses in the background and the shopping center all the way down the street. Now, I admit I am not an expert on angles and that is why I am asking for help. This looks OFF to me. It makes me question whether it's the same car and, if so, was it moved? Please, no need for sarcasm and insults. I got enough of that at another thread.

Thanks!

** Oh, and one of the witnesses named Gary Grossman is a Hollywood producer. Is that odd to you?
edit on 24-6-2013 by texasgirl because: Added more



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
...Sounds like there is doubt about the location of the wreck. I am questioning it, too, so can someone help me with this?
...There were questions about the location being photoshopped because of the shopping center in the background but this video does show the shopping center in the background. However, the video of wreck itself right after it happened shows houses in the background and the shopping center all the way down the street. Now, I admit I am not an expert on angles and that is why I am asking for help. This looks OFF to me. It makes me question whether it's the same car and, if so, was it moved? Please, no need for sarcasm and insults. I got enough of that at another thread.

Thanks!

** Oh, and one of the witnesses named Gary Grossman is a Hollywood producer. Is that odd to you?

The location of the palm tree where the vehicle was on fire is (approximately) 632 North Highland Avenue, Los Angeles, CA...
I have posted a couple of photos & the map (from Google Maps) in a couple of comments in this thread (last page or two)... JBA2848 has posted a number of relevant photos, as well.
The confusion begins with the photo that appears to have originated with the LA Times.
You can see at least three palm trees fairly tightly grouped together, where the officers (and also - an officer) are viewing/inspecting the scene. You can also see A LOT of palm trees down the median...for almost as far as the street apparently goes. In at least one of those two photos (the one with three officers), you can see the next traffic signal (going south on 'Highland Ave.') within a half-block or so of the vehicle...and it is "Rosewood Ave.". That should not be! Clinton Street is the next cross-street...and there is no traffic signal at Clinton'.
Likewise - as I'm sure you are aware - the vehicle was not situated "between" trees...but rather, collided "head-on" into ONE tree.
They did not move the vehicle for better a photo-opportunity... Someone altered the photo/s.
JBA2848 has sourced a number of photos in previous posts in this thread and another...that further illustrate that these were/are not the only photos that have been altered.
I, personally, don't see a good conspiracy angle on the photo-manipulation/s...unless it is just to have a bunch of stories going at once (so - anyone questioning the Official story will eventually give up such conversation/s and wait to be told what happened). But - that's just my opinion.
I'll provide more if this doesn't answer your question...regarding the photos and "where" the accident happened.


ETA: Oh - and - Yes...many pieces of this tale seem odd to me!
edit on 6/24/2013 by WanDash because: forgetfulness



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



Hi,

Thanks for that. But...What I am wanting to know is the video I posted of the shopping center in the background. This is a news clip and shows the car with shopping center in background. Cops are walking around the car. Can someone photoshop a video? (I have no idea) The shopping center should be down the street but shows up in the background of the newscast.

Can you view the video again? Should this shopping center be there?

**And I agree about Rosewood!! Totally weird.

edit on 24-6-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This death was a message to the rest of the journalist community in the United States: Watch your back.

These animals will not care if all of the signs point to this man being murdered by the government. They know that no one will do anything about it, except line up like a bunch of lemmings on election day to vote in corrupt servants of the corporate and financial plutocracy



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The Spanish guy they interviewed seemed to imply the car was on fire before hitting the tree.

I'd still like to know how that engine ended up where it did from w front ned collision. I'd also like to know how someone loses control on a straight section of road and hit's a tree at a 90 degree angle.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
...Thanks for that. But...What I am wanting to know is the video I posted of the shopping center in the background. This is a news clip and shows the car with shopping center in background. Cops are walking around the car. Can someone photoshop a video? (I have no idea) The shopping center should be down the street but shows up in the background of the newscast.

Can you view the video again? Should this shopping center be there?

**And I agree about Rosewood!! Totally weird.
...

Yes - it is certainly possible... In fact, that segment of video is rife with "modifications". The "Cleaners", and "ATM"...are past the first group of businesses you can see in this "street view" photo from Google Maps...

If you need to see it in larger format - click here -
files.abovetopsecret.com...

In the video-footage, there is at least one extra palm tree (that appears to have been placed too close to the median's curb on the north-going side of the street).

If you go to 625 North Highland Ave., Los Angeles, CA in Google Maps...you can look all around this area and compare it to the Loud Labs video to identify the houses, etc... (maybe you've already done that...)
But also - you can inch back to the intersection of Melrose and North Highland, and you'll be able to see the Cleaners & ATM in the east side of the street a little past the traffic signal.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
The Spanish guy they interviewed seemed to imply the car was on fire before hitting the tree.

I'd still like to know how that engine ended up where it did from w front ned collision. I'd also like to know how someone loses control on a straight section of road and hit's a tree at a 90 degree angle.

Me too!
But - you can see in some of the Loud Labs video footage (near the end of the 5+ minute clip) that the top was severely caved.
As you say - if the car slammed into the tree - front-end first...with engine, front wheels and associated assembly still intact - at a very high rate of speed...(and didn't "swing-on-around" the tree in a spin or tumble...?)...how did (literally - "how?") the engine & front tires/wheels get past the motor-bike right in front of it - without at least knocking it over?

The caved-in top, and the water gusher, and the "standing bike", suggest that he might have rolled. If he hit the tree, head-on, at a high rate of speed, such that the front end stopped, and the back end left the ground...(slamming the top of the car against the tree, before falling/settling back to the ground) causing the caved-in top...I don't see the engine having a path to escape the compartment. But - something had to keep the car from continuing to move in a south-bound direction.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes, I see that.
Thanks for the link to the other thread,
Also, why is the car still there in daylight.

Makes NO sense, it would have been towed.



Makes all the sense in the world. When a fatal accident occurs there is a significant amount of investigation that needs to take place. The accident occurred at 4:30 AM...how much longer is it till daylight?

Here in Dallas I had the misfortune of being on 75 when a motorcycle accident occurred....fatal. The police blocked off 3 lanes, since the bike rider wound up in the center lane, and routed all traffic to an exit ramp and around the accident. This during rush hour traffic. 75 was blocked off for no less than 3 hours after the actual occurrence of the accident. This was no reporter, no body special, there was no suggestion of conspiracy...just a normal run-of-the-mill fatal motorcycle accident.

*sigh*





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join