It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Hastings drove like a Grandma" (Says friends and relatives)

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Anyone pressed the red shiny candy-like button to see what this guy's personal life was like? Has he got a ton of moving violations, records of drug use and the like? Lots of cell phones? Was he on one at the time of the crash? Lots of insurance claims? Is the carfax for that car going to turn up that it's mostly bondo from the fender benders? You'd think the press would have gotten this info by now.

Seems to me that this was the topic of the OP.
A generally over-cautious driver, stating "drove like a Grandma".
The "cell phone" argument has to leave-out many of the established facts.
If the press would have gotten any of what you've insinuated...THAT would probably be the topic of this thread.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
O.K. .. . Just Maybe I am wrong.


Yes, you are. Use simple logic. The first shot in the video shows the word "PHARMACY". This is a Walgreens. Move forward to the 17 second mark and you will see the "PHA" in that same sign. This of course means the car is now traveling in the same direction it was originally facing, east. Of course, one could also see in that same frame the road sign hanging from the traffic light that says "HIGHLAND" and deduce that the car with the dash cam is now traveling east on Santa Monica. This car now has to get back to Highland to get to the scene of the accident. How does one do that? Make a right (24 second mark), then another right (33 second mark), and then a left (43 second mark). Two cars traveling completely different paths have now arrived at the same point.

It truly puzzles me how simple navigation can be so problematic for someone with expertise in the much more complicated areas of engine ejection physics and bolt tensile strengths.


Anyway, one more person here under the impression that foul play is a likely cause of this crash. I've owned a couple mercedes (E300, CLK 320) and driven a lot more, and they are definitely one of the sturdiest and safest cars on the road. Granted that this one was traveling at 100 mph, it still seems unlikely for it to burst into flames.

Oh, and something else that should be noted.... the car made no skid marks. No signs of hard breaking or hard turning. Seems it was just a nice gentle veer into tree at 100 mph.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by scojak
 





Oh, and something else that should be noted.... the car made no skid marks. No signs of hard breaking or hard turning. Seems it was just a nice gentle veer into tree at 100 mph.




Indicative of brake failure, wouldn't you think? I really believe that the car was tampered with. How, I don't know.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 

We don’t know how the final second/s went down. Did he simply turn the wheel to end this nightmare (trip)…and hit the tree dead-on? Did he make a last ditch effort to stop/slow the car (like – by trying to apply the hand-brake), and go into a spin then tumble (when hitting the curb)…?
Inching through the video footage, and playing the scene against the “eye witness testimony” reveals a few things. He did not hit “a pot hole”. He simply encountered the elevated portion of road at Melrose and the successive “dip” at the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. Two marks can be seen in the road, shortly after the crosswalk. They are situated too closely together – to be tire marks…and were probably created by some part of the under-carriage (assuming they are from the Mercedes). Three or four shiny bits of debris are in the road prior to the video car approaching the ADT Security vehicle. I only see one place where the Mercedes might have encountered the curb prior to the tree (and – it is NOT obvious…if that’s what it is)…but almost no grass/turf disturbance. Likewise, I see no skid marks on the pavement/asphalt, nor do I see a “wheel rim gouge” (as another ATS “expert” has called evidence of a blown front driver-side tire). One photo of the passenger side of the car shows buckling of the body at the right rear wheel well (and above). That is strange/odd…if it had not collided with something prior to the head-on into the tree.

As you – I find the fact that the engine ejected…and where it settled…strange, if it was a simple – “turn the wheel – leave the road – hit the tree – move no further” scenario. 100 mph – or anything near that – carries a lot of momentum. The car was situated at a near-90° angle to the street.
As I have noted before – there is a motorcycle stationed on the southeast side of the palm tree…still standing after the collision/impact, much of the Mercedes’ front-end and engine ejected, and fire… So – what route (path) did the engine follow/take, when escaping the vehicle.
I think the front of the vehicle collided with the base of the tree…the car’s momentum caused the rear end to continue moving forward…the rear left the ground…causing the roof to slam into the tree…then fell back down, and settled where it remained through all the photos we’ve seen.
That doesn’t explain “when”, “where” or “how” the engine left the vehicle…nor how the motorcycle didn’t go down as a result…but… … …



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by scojak
 





Oh, and something else that should be noted.... the car made no skid marks. No signs of hard breaking or hard turning. Seems it was just a nice gentle veer into tree at 100 mph.




Indicative of brake failure, wouldn't you think? I really believe that the car was tampered with. How, I don't know.


Yes, you would think that if he bottomed out the car or if he had to swerve out of the way for a pedestrian or if there was anything else that was in the way to make him hit the tree there would be skid marks leading up to where he finally hit the median. But there is nothing, just the car straight into the median and then tree with no signs of trying to avoid it at all. I think the car was also tampered with, but we will never know because the official statement will always be it was an accident caused by the high speed of the car.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
People that knew him said he "drove like a grandma" prior to that night? Maybe. If he thought the gov. was after him, maybe that added a little paranoia to the mix? Some think he was trying to get "off the radar"? Maybe thats exactly what he was attempting? Lose any 'tails' by zipping around town in the middle of that night?

Mercedes are German engineered cars. Their standards for safety and protection by law are far superior to their american counterparts. Suspension, steering and handling in general as well as torque, braking and stopping are all within stricter tolerances than American car companies (except for higher end models).

In case of accidents the vehicles are designed to break up to allow for energy to be transmitted away from the frame and passenger compartment. A car that smacks something hard and remains in one piece transmits more energy to the occupants. Breakaway technology (or whatever they call it) aids in reducing shock and trauma to people in the car. Much more time and cost in this regard transmits to higher cost in the sticker. Of course hi speed impacts with immovable objects (especially trees) tend to over load set standards.

The car did not "explode", it disintegrated (like it was supposed to). The gas did not 'explode the car', it caught fire. Mercedes are not "sports cars" ( an American misnomer), the engineers would be insulted. the correct term is Mercedes Coupe.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
So I guess that leaves me wondering why he was so negligent in Not turning the engine off, or jumping out, or putting it in park, or even hitting the fuel shut off. It is apparently clear that he had plenty of time to do any one of those functions.

By the way, the navigation is Not a problem, that the video shows a left turn onto that street without a right turn option would indicate that it is not a straight path.;
edit on 26-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
As far as the engine coming out of the car.

Everyone seems to think that it is rather unusual that the engine was ejected like a cassette tape.

So, either the bolts or the mounting broke on impact, OR just maybe, someone Unbolted the motor from the motor mounts that hold the engine in.

Have you ever had a motor mount break while you are driving down the road?

I have, and when it breaks it pulls the accelerator to the floor. Mashing the brake pedal did absolutely nothing to stop the vehicle. So I turned the engine off.

In the event that his brakes or motor or accelerator were tampered with does Not negate the fact that he had plenty of time to turn off, jump out, or slam it in park.



edit on 26-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
...Looks like he is going reasonable speed ... I'd guess between 30 and 40 mph. If he was going 100, it would be nearly a blur. If he was going 60, he wouldn't be in that small frame nearly as long.
...

First time I watched it, I estimated 60+ mph going through the video-frame.
I have seen numerous "educated" estimations throughout the various threads...so, I decided to attempt to get a closer "estimation" of my own.
The vehicle entered the left frame (you can see its headlight through the bush) just after the video-timer shows 8 seconds. The vehicle exits the right of frame shortly after 9 seconds. That suggests that the Mercedes was in-frame for approximately 1.2 seconds (+/-).
That probably encompasses around 100 feet (judging by the Pharmacy size)...so - I think it's fairly safe to say that he was travelling between 60 and 70 mph through the video we've seen.
edit on 6/26/2013 by WanDash because: no it



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 





So I guess that leaves me wondering why he was so negligent in Not turning the engine off, or jumping out, or putting it in park, or even hitting the fuel shut off. It is apparently clear that he had plenty of time to do any one of those functions.


You watch too many movies


Shutting the vehicle off at high speed is going to make you lose control of power brakes, power steering, and potentially locking your steering wheel, all things that you DON'T want to do at high speed.

You say he could have jumped out of the car? Again, you watch to many movies


Most new vehichles have whats called an interlock that prevents the car from being able to shift into "park" and "reverse" while moving.



How do you shut the fuel off whiloe driving? Please elaborate



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


Well if you use common sense and don't turn the key all the way back then you are Not going to lose power to those functions as well as Not lock the steering. It doesn't take a genius or movies to know that.

As far as jumping out of the vehicle, which has nothing to do with movies as well, is a viable option. I am not saying it is the best option but definitely an option.

In addition, most vehicles have a fuel cut-off switch in the left wall under the dash. There is typically a little cap that covers it. Most of them say "Fuel Shut Off".

Also, you video is about stopping a car in reverse, NOT, putting it in park. If you argue that it will just not go into park, then apparently you do not know that mashing the brake down will disengage the safety mechanism.

Maybe you have seen too many movies.
edit on 26-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...By the way, the navigation is Not a problem, that the video shows a left turn onto that street without a right turn option would indicate that it is not a straight path.

...Excerpt from the video in question...immediately after taking the left-hand turn onto North Highland (going south)...


If you start stepping through the video at 39 seconds, you'll see that they edited-out the grand portion of the block prior to taking the left-hand turn...but, in the course of taking the turn, you will see NO one-way signs, and you WILL see the double yellow center striping...that goes all the way to the divider/median...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by scojak
 





Oh, and something else that should be noted.... the car made no skid marks. No signs of hard breaking or hard turning. Seems it was just a nice gentle veer into tree at 100 mph.




Indicative of brake failure, wouldn't you think? I really believe that the car was tampered with. How, I don't know.



Could be, but brake failure could just be an accident and not the result of tampering. Also, with brake failure, how do you get him to go 100 mph and be forced to turn into a tree without skid marks to indicate he was trying to avoid something? From the "facts" it seems like he was really just trying to commit suicide by driving into a tree at 100 mph since there are no indicators of control loss. I put 'facts' in quotes because we really only know what people tell us and what we think we see, but the "facts" lead me to the following.

I'm inclined to veer towards a "car cyber attack" as mentioned in the story in the OP. I don't know anything about the workings of OBC-mechanical integration, but if a car has parallel parking assist, it's pretty obvious that the OBC (on-board computer) in the car can control both acceleration and turning. I also know that a car with OnStar can at least be turned on over the internet. Again, I don't know what year the car was and what options it had, but it seems plausible to me that with the combination of those functions (remote accessibility of the car's OBC and OBC control of steering/acceleration) the car could be hacked into and controlled. To quote the article, "it is a relatively trivial exercise to access the computer systems of a modern car and take control away from the driver."



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

So I guess that leaves me wondering why he was so negligent in Not turning the engine off, or jumping out, or putting it in park, or even hitting the fuel shut off. It is apparently clear that he had plenty of time to do any one of those functions.


Panic always makes it harder to think properly. What may seem like a trivial decision now is not also so easily made in the heat of the moment.


By the way, the navigation is Not a problem, that the video shows a left turn onto that street without a right turn option would indicate that it is not a straight path.


Highland is six-lane road in that area which is pretty clear in the video. You'd be hard-pressed to find even a four-lane road that T-intersections at a small suburban street. That is just conjecture though. Please take a moment to open Google maps, and type in N Highland Avenue, Los Angeles. Look at the area just south of Santa Monica Blvd. You will see that it is not an issue to make a right turn where he made the left.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Apologies!!!!
I have referred to a "motorcycle" standing in front of the Mercedes, numerous times...
It is not a motorcycle...just a bit of parallax error mixed with poor eyesight (I guess).
The "tire" I was mistaking for the rear tire of a motorcycle, is the right-front tire of the Mercedes.
It is positioned in a manner that shows the wheel/s were turned as "hard-left" as possible upon impact.

So - that rules out "slight veer".
Does not rule out "over correction".
Don't know how much faith to place in the "eye-witness" testimony...that the car went into a "jack-knife" (or fishtailing) motion - but, I suppose the "wheel position" doesn't rule it out. (Still, however, see no tire skid marks leading up to the tree.)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


Which way the tires are turned after he hit the tree does not mean he turned the tires before hitting it.

Watch the last seconds of this crash test as the driver side tire hits the right tire turns.
Between 39 and 40 seconds of the video. Right tire turns and goes off screen.

edit on 26-6-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
...Which way the tires are turned after he hit the tree does not mean he turned the tires before hitting it.

Watch the last seconds of this crash test as the driver side tire hits the right tire turns.
Between 39 and 40 seconds of the video. Right tire turns and goes off screen.
...

Good point.
Moves the steering wheel in that direction, too.
Noticed, as well, that the rear end left the ground... Not as much as would be necessary to go perpendicular to the ground and smash the roof on the tree...but, it was at a significantly slower speed, too.
Are these front, rear, or all wheel drive vehicles?
You could see some buckling on the driver's door with the impact. I could not tell if there was buckling at the right (passenger side) rear wheel, though... Can you tell?

ETA: Have you been able to make any progress on the suspicious holes in the driver's side (bullet holes?)?
I was hoping the video might reveal if there are any "bolts" holding some piece of paneling or frame in those spots - but - not enough damage was done to unmask an underlayer.
edit on 6/26/2013 by WanDash because: Another question.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Neither are the other clips. I tried to find the worst crashes possible all with cars that have a far lower crash rating than a Mercedes.

(Yet, they seem to fair better?)

Like I said, if the car he was driving looked like that, Mercedes should be looking at a massive recall.

Don't forget safer cars crumple more in a crash. Stiff around where you sit and controlled crumple everywhere else.

Bursting into flames is quite rare but it does happen...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash
ETA: Have you been able to make any progress on the suspicious holes in the driver's side (bullet holes?)?
I was hoping the video might reveal if there are any "bolts" holding some piece of paneling or frame in those spots - but - not enough damage was done to unmask an underlayer.


The bottom one is not a bullet hole, it's where you insert the jack stand. You can get a good shot of it at 3:53 of this video.



Obviously that's for the front wheel, but there's one for the rear wheel as well, located where the "bullet hole" is.

As for the other two, and a few others I see, they certainly could be bullet holes. I'd just as well assume though that it's probably just some discoloring that happens to looks like bullet holes.
edit on 6/26/2013 by scojak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
...The bottom one is not a bullet hole, it's where you insert the jack stand. You can get a good shot of it at 3:53 of this video.
...Obviously that's for the front wheel, but there's one for the rear wheel as well, located where the "bullet hole" is.
...As for the other two, and a few others I see, they certainly could be bullet holes. I'd just as well assume though that it's probably just some discoloring that happens to looks like bullet holes.

Thanks scojak
I don't know that I even saw that one... But - now I know where the jackstand goes for that car!

That's always fun - stopping to help someone...and taking longer to determine "how" to help, than they would have done if I'd left them alone...



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join