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.

 

Michael Hastings Car Crash Facts And Why I Don't Think He Was Murdered

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


So you actually come in here and make claims and then don't back them up.

I am still waiting for your evidence.

And you can stick that bluetooth horse hockey up your tree until you come back here with your "Mountain of Evidence", your tranny ejection thoery, and your documentation about that bluetooth garbage.

I am still waiting.




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Boncho,

Could you explain a little further. I am failing to make a connection.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by boncho
 


Boncho,

Could you explain a little further. I am failing to make a connection.

Thanks.


Hasting's car was reported to have crashed and caught fire in the same spot that the video was filmed and uploaded by the media person.

The screen shots of both, match. (The houses, light poles, and businesses in the distance.)

In other words, unless that video was taken in the exact same place, at some other time a similar car crashed and burned, it is most likely the same incident.

Do you concur?
edit on 3-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Yes, I do concur.

But that wasn't the video I pitched on the Out Pile. It was the Red Light Video. Because it circumstantial and Not verifiable. The car driving past could not be positively ID'd.

The other video showing them pulling up on the scene has allot more credibility in that the pictures that were taken in daylight of the crash scene corroborates that video as fact.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by boncho
 


Yes, I do concur.

But that wasn't the video I pitched on the Out Pile. It was the Red Light Video. Because it circumstantial and Not verifiable. The car driving past could not be positively ID'd.

The other video showing them pulling up on the scene has allot more credibility in that the pictures that were taken in daylight of the crash scene corroborates that video as fact.


Okay, my mistake. I thought you wanted to throw the entire video out. In that case, it clears it up.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by drock905
Can you even over ride the mechnical systems of this car?

If it doesn't have parking assist there is no connection To the steering and braking system outside of driver inputs, it's a mechanical linkage with no computers and servos outside of sensors that measure various systems.

All modern Mercedes have fly by wire throttles controlled by a computer interpretting the drivers inputs on the gas pedal, they have no mechanical connection to the engine, I guess that could be overridden if the systems are able to be intercepted, which I don't think they can. They are closed systems.





like it or not, ABS, and CC do allow direct override of brakes and throttle, regardless of mechanical linkages....they're computer controlled, thus, the firmware controlling them can be tampered with.

assuming the car is sufficiently sophisticated, there are many avenues of attack for remote tampering.


But excluding the throttle (which may have been enough) there are no linkages to any other system to overide.

Steering on a car is a mechanical connection ( assuming this model didn't have electric steering) it still needs input from the driver. There aren't electrical conputer controlled servos connected to these systems. All of the remote operated cars have servos connected to the input systems. Some cars do have automatic braking but I don't think this car did .

Remember a few years back the stories of runaway toyotas? The drivers claimed the cars accelerated out of control because of faulty drive by wire systems. It was proved it was I'll fitting floor mats that jammed the pedal and the drivers panicked. This does show that a throttle stuck can and has caused crashes, some where people died. Experiments after the fact proved these crashes could have been prevented because the mechanical braking systems are powerful enough to stop a car with a stuck throttle.

Any way what Im getting at are if it's possible to control throttle by wire remotely it could be enough to cause a fatal accident. It's still an awfully convoluted way to assassinate someone IMO.
edit on 3-7-2013 by drock905 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Daedalus
...what are you even talking about?

...you make no sense at all...

That's the spirit!!!
Every post or comment isn't an argument.
You don't have to assume offense just because I didn't viciously attack the thread's author.



...he was arguing that bluetooth would still require a physical connection, which is untrue, bluetooth is a wireless communication standard, meaning no physical connection is required to use it....
...

And - as you appear to be knowledgeable in "such matters", I was asking if what I proposed (regarding the interface and/or interaction between MBRACE & the vehicle) was generally correct.


it didn't not make sense because you didn't "viciously attack" another poster..it was mostly the composition, and subject matter.....i was talking bluetooth, and then you start talking about a telematics system, and it was a bit difficult to decipher exactly what side of the debate you're on, or exactly what the point you were trying to make was.

according to DARPA, and the universities that did the studies, a telematics device, like OnStar, or MBRACE would give an attacker an in.....so would bluetooth (without need for an OBDII interface device)
edit on 4-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Daedalus
 


So you actually come in here and make claims and then don't back them up.

I am still waiting for your evidence.

And you can stick that bluetooth horse hockey up your tree until you come back here with your "Mountain of Evidence", your tranny ejection thoery, and your documentation about that bluetooth garbage.

I am still waiting.


You can calm down, and drop the attitude at ANY time, friend.....

i was busy....it's what happens when you have obligations outside a web forum....i'll get to you, and your nasty little bag of venom post in just a few moments...



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Thanks for responding. There are several rebuttals I would like to make.

Let's start with where you quoted me saying "oh, he had an alcohol problem", or "oh, he had a drug problem". What you really need to do is back and copy and past Exactly what I said. Some people here take it personally when you quote them In your Own Words.


you wanna take offense where clearly none was intended, that's your hangup, not mine, and i'm not gonna apologize for it.



Regardless of either being past tense the facts remain that he was admitted to both alcohol usage and drug usage. You say that I " would rather marginalize the man" when that is not even the case. I clearly stated facts that are potential causes for what happened. I am not saying that it is what caused the accident but it does need to be considered.


and there you go again...what you're basically saying is that it doesn't matter if he HAD a problem, you think at the time of his death, that he still was having a drug and/or alcohol problem. suggesting that he was high, or drunk when he died, simply because he may have had a substance abuse problem years ago, IS marginalizing...the hope is that people might be more willing to believe the "operator error" theory, if they think he was impaired.



Weather he was or wasn't on either that night will be determined when the toxicology report is published. So how will you feel when the published findings show that he had high levels of either in his system? Are you going to say that his samples were tampered with?


If it doesn't match the evidence, then yes, i would most likely theorize that the published results were not completely factual. but you consider that kind of thinking "tin hat" stuff....well, remember, until a few weeks ago, the idea that the NSA was spying on us, and that major tech firms were helping them do it, was considered "tin hat" stuff....




You are right, however, while you are going back to quote me on the other 2 items, you might as well grab the part where I mentioned that any evidence regarding the Hacking, Tampering, or Explosives will be published when the investigation is complete.


not necessarily. do you honestly believe that if this wasn't an accident, we will EVER see any published evidence showing explosives? as to the hacking and remote tampering..the evidence of that would be on the on-board equipment......which, unfortunately, and conveniently, was destroyed in the fire, so there most likely won't be any evidence of remote tampering to be found...fire is great at destroying evidence.




Then apparently you know nothing of explosives so I will fill you in. Although there were items burning that would have emitted odors as well, the smell of explosives would have been prevalent immediately after the explosion. Before the other items would have had the chance to catch fire. With the exception of the gasoline, which also has a very distinct odor.


and i LOVE how you attack me, and assume i know nothing about explosives, simply because you don't agree with me, lol...

the amount of funk in the air would have depended upon the TYPE of material used, the AMOUNT of said material, at what point it was detonated, direction of airflow, and strength of the vacuum, and pressure wave generated at the time of detonation.

the vast majority of citizens in this country are not trained to know what explosives smell like, and most people have never been a first hand witness to a live car fire, and hence, do not know WHAT a normal car fire would smell like, and therefore, would chalk up any smells to being part of the fire, and therefore would probably not be talking about something so trivial as what it smells like, when, well someone just hit a f**king tree, and died in a fireball.

your point about there being NO explosive evidence simply because the limited number of people from the scene that loudlabs actually managed to capture on film weren't talking about the right smells, is absolutely laughable.




As far as the transmission goes you have been very keen at pointing out that it would have had to go through the tree. My calculation and theory on that is Highly plausible. At this point No One Including yourself has even bothered to offer an explanation of how the tranny and engine landed where it did. How about if you offer your theory on how it landed there. I would be very interested in hearing it.


An explosion could have landed the engine where it was found.....perhaps an explosion BEFORE it hit the tree....though, an explosion of sufficient force to launch the engine that far, most likely would have blown the entire front end off the car....so i'm gonna say, i'm not entirely sure HOW it ended up over there, but that doesn't mean that your theory is automatically right, or more plausible, just because it exists.

continued in next post
edit on 4-7-2013 by Daedalus because: #SpellingForTheWin



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

While you are offering your theory on the transmission/engine ejection please do take the time to produce and exhibit this "mountain of evidence" that you say proves that he was murdered. I would be Extremely interested in entertaining that as well.


i never said there was a mountain of evidence proving he was murdered..i said there was a mountain of evidence showing how he could be killed, and have it look like an accident....

at least when i paraphrased you, i paraphrased what you actually said.....nice try though..




Of course I expect the investigation will be above board. In fact I will bet money that it will be. To suggest that either the evidence or data will be tampered with is completely asinine. There are several different agencies/groups handling the investigation. It would not be easy by any stretch to fabricate either.


and the fact that you seem to believe that the government wouldn't be willing to lie to cover things up is asinine. the fact that you believe it wouldn't be easy to cover this up is asinine.

there are plenty of things that they have covered up over the years, plenty of bodies and skeletons in the closet, plenty of coverups....you are, perhaps, a tad naive..




If you had watched the video you would have seen that the bluetooth does require a physical connection through the OBD-II pass-through device. If you have evidence to prove otherwise please post that as well. I am not talking about things you have heard. I am talking about cold hard facts that have been documented. You are correct about bluetooth being a wireless standard, but, it has to be accessed through the OBD-II pass-through device.

In addition for your sake, I wanted to post this again in case you missed it. . ..


Wow...."had you actually watched the video"...you're a real piece of work, you know that...

I DID watch the video, but it would appear you did not...Dr. Fisher explains that in the FIRST paper UCSD/USW did, they had to use the OBD port to touch the canbus.....in their SECOND paper, she continues, they showed how they could get at it WITHOUT having physical access to the car, which means no dongle plugged into the diagnostic port....had you paid attention past the fist minute and twenty seconds of the video, you may have caught that bit..

i would suggest YOU go back, and watch it again, as it would seem you missed quite a bit...




I also think this is Extremely important to add. . .. . .

When the facts come to light how many people do you suspect are going to jump on the 'ol "Alphabet Agency got to the investigators and made them concoct a story" bandwagon?

My guess is many. Especially when they show facts that prove it was either a true mechanical failure or operator error. Everyone who believes in the conspiracy theory is going say that the Data Was Bought or Manufactured.


and saying this again, is just silly...just because something is "proven" satisfactorily to your apparently low standards, does not mean that it will satisfy the standards of everyone......there are still people who believe that iraq had something to do with 9/11, and that saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and that that's why we invaded them....even though both were proven to be completely false.....don't expect the federal government to tell you the truth...

you seem to have a preconceived notion of what happened here, and you're more than happy to bin or ridicule anything that doesn't fit it....that's not denying ignorance, friend, that's inviting it to be your new housemate...



Now, go get your evidence and theory and find your way back as I am anxious to examine them both.


you may wanna rethink your arrogance, and that air of smug superiority, before it comes back to bite you..



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905

But excluding the throttle (which may have been enough) there are no linkages to any other system to overide.

Steering on a car is a mechanical connection ( assuming this model didn't have electric steering) it still needs input from the driver. There aren't electrical conputer controlled servos connected to these systems. All of the remote operated cars have servos connected to the input systems. Some cars do have automatic braking but I don't think this car did .


ABS has been a standard feature on all cars since the late 90's.....ABS is a computerized system..

his car would have had ABS, in addition to cruse to control, fancy stereo with bluetooth, and a telematics unit....there were multiple routes for an attacker to get in without physical access...



Remember a few years back the stories of runaway toyotas? The drivers claimed the cars accelerated out of control because of faulty drive by wire systems. It was proved it was I'll fitting floor mats that jammed the pedal and the drivers panicked. This does show that a throttle stuck can and has caused crashes, some where people died. Experiments after the fact proved these crashes could have been prevented because the mechanical braking systems are powerful enough to stop a car with a stuck throttle.


yeah, that was retarded, because the cars didn't even have throtle-by-wire....

but yeah, i remember that it was floor mats, and you make a fair point. however, what if the accelerator was either jammed, or hacked....and let's just say the brakes were made to fail....how long do you reckon you could drive your car, at increasingly higher speeds, before you finally lost control?



Any way what Im getting at are if it's possible to control throttle by wire remotely it could be enough to cause a fatal accident. It's still an awfully convoluted way to assassinate someone IMO.


it may seem convoluted, but you gotta admit, it's the best way to make it look like operator error, or mechanical failure...anything but murder....
edit on 4-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
...he was arguing that bluetooth would still require a physical connection, which is untrue, bluetooth is a wireless communication standard, meaning no physical connection is required to use it....
......it didn't not make sense because you didn't "viciously attack" another poster..it was mostly the composition, and subject matter.....i was talking bluetooth, and then you start talking about a telematics system, and it was a bit difficult to decipher exactly what side of the debate you're on, or exactly what the point you were trying to make was.
...according to DARPA, and the universities that did the studies, a telematics device, like OnStar, or MBRACE would give an attacker an in.....so would bluetooth (without need for an OBDII interface device)

Well - thanks for clearing that up...and...answering my question so succinctly.
Always good to have some constructive criticism!



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


I couldn't help but notice that you were afraid to quote exactly what I said regarding his alcohol and drug usage. So basically you responded to that out of anger. It is completely true that he had issues with both. NOT years ago like it has been many years as you would suggest. In fact he posted the CR**K comments on his blog in 2010. That was not that long ago. I might also add that after some research it is Very clear that he did Not seek treatment for either the alcohol problem or addiction. As far as that goes he could have still had an active problem with both.

If you have information regarding rehab or AA feel free to post it as I think everyone would like to know.

It is apparent that you need to go back and watch that video again because the woman stated that they took the car to a shop and had them implant the device.

Besides where’s this evidence that you were supposed to bring back with you. I don’t see any links.



the evidence of that would be on the on-board equipment......which, unfortunately, and conveniently, was destroyed in the fire, so there most likely won't be any evidence of remote tampering to be found...fire is great at destroying evidence.


You are right that fire is great for destroying evidence. However, you are Completely Wrong. If you had read through the manual and as I pointed out before, ALL of the data is transmitted in the event of a crash. So even if the on-board recorders were destroyed, they still have ALL of the information that was recorded through the devices.

Regarding the usage of explosives. I have been to many scenes where explosives have been used. Do you know what the first thing witnesses make note of when giving a statement? The smell. If you look at the weather report that I posted you would have seen that at that location and time there was absolutely no wind. Regardless of the amount or type the odor is still prevalent. It is also not an attack to point out that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I can tell you with a high degree of probability that the possibility that an explosion occurred before the car hit the tree is Absolutely ZERO. Even the witnesses who were right there watching the whole thing said that the car exploded on impact. For the plausibility factor, my theory of the engine landing where it did is much more plausible than what you have come up with. That doesn't mean that it is right. However, it does mean that it is more statistically possible.

And Finally.. . I wanted to add this. . .


in the face of a mountain of evidence showing exactly how it would have been possible to kill this man


I did Not mis-quote you. That is exactly what you said.

Now, go get that evidence and bring it back. I want to see it. Because as far as this argument is concerned, If you can't produce it, It Didn't Happen and you are arguing with evidence that does Not exist.

After all, I have posted Facts and Evidence that supports my argument and I would Expect you to do the same.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


I'd be really interested in your response to my 1st post i made back a page ago. I know you're here to discuss the 'facts' as you say, but I was addressing how you predetermined that conspiracy theorists will deny toxicology reports and that assuming there was evidence tampering is asinine. Again I ask you to consider the possibility that this is murder. Would it not be more foolish to leave traceable evidence or evidence that can't be covered up later? I ask again and I hope I get a reply this time.

Do you truly believe that if the FBI/CIA/DHS or any other related agency/military/contractor actually murdered this man, that evidence he was murdered would just fall into our hands? Do you trust the LAPD to tell the truth if it comes down to that?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blarged
 


You are right. I am here to discuss the facts. As you can see I have lain out the facts and although I have Not ruled out murder, which I have mentioned several times throughout the post, there are No facts Regarding Any murder attempt or conspiracy.

Regardless of what the conspiracy side says, I am certain that the toxicology reports will Not be tampered with and that the facts regarding driver error or mechanical failure will come to light.

Now when that information becomes available, if it is in contradiction of the facts, then I might say that there a potential cover-up. At this point there is no reason to beleive that this was murder if you consider the Facts.

That he wrote an email to his colleagues the day before the crash is Not good evidence that he was murdered. That idea is based on supposition and conjecture and provides for a weak argument.

Also, keep in mind that there are more groups involved in the evidence than the LAPD. Say for example the EMBRACE Telematics system that transmitted the data at the time of the crash. That data was Not transmitted to the LAPD, CIA, FBI, DHS, KGB, or the AAA. in addition I know that data was analyzed the second it hit the wire. Long before any of those agencies would have requested it. Which means that an attempt to cover up that data or eliminate it is completely futile.

What if it turns out that the drivers floor mat lodged over the accelerator and brake causing the high-speed acceleration and the inability to brake? Are you going to cry conspiracy? If you don't I know others that are going to.
In fact regardless of what the findings are, there are going to be people who firmly believe that he was murdered all because he sent an email the day prior.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...You are right. I am here to discuss the facts. As you can see I have lain out the facts and although I have Not ruled out murder, which I have mentioned several times throughout the post, there are No facts Regarding Any murder attempt or conspiracy.
...

I think you've presented a good argument. The argument being - "a lot of facts that we are unaware of must ALL be in place, for this to have been a 'hit'".
Inconsistencies (or - inconsistencies as we've been shown) CAN each be explained-away reasonably & plausibly -- just like explaining the Pyramids & Sphynx with "the methods & tools were present & available at the time".
But - do those explanations also account for each (& at the same time - all) of the anomalies?
They may.
You have presented numerous possible scenarios that "might" account for all...relegating the "email" and "contact with the Wikileaks attorney" to interesting but unrelated coincidence/s.
I think your "drugs" and "alcohol" statements (in the OP) were a stretch, unless you have more information than what was shared in the OP regarding the same. Doesn't rule them out...but no reference you gave would have leant much credibility to the claim. (imo) (Admitting to trying a hallucinogen or barbiturates in high school...does not imply that one continued trying/using them...nor that one is/was an addict.)
Likewise - if one's "problem with alcohol" has never resulted in such recklessness (as what must be inferred to conclude - "he was driving like a jerk, and got what he deserved"), how could the events leading to the fatal crash not be suspect? (you have proposed such possibilities/answers as "Dear John Letter" and/or "I GOTTA PEEEEEE!")
Your faith in "the truth will come to light" exceeds mine. I would like to think we could count on some universal/cosmic/divine law...but...am no longer so convinced.

Back, however, to your general premise - "no conspiracy, here - just, bad things happen every day and in every way".
If you have chosen the "correct" answer (no conspiracy), I would say that it is more on account of luck-of-the-draw, or coin-flip, than "a better application of common sense &/or critical thinking". Both sides of this conjecture have ample data in their favor.
Throwing out the 1+ minute LoudLabs video as "unverifiable" might seem judicious - but, practically-speaking, what are the odds that the burning vehicle they came upon was not the same vehicle that sped through the intersection...on the same street...going the same direction...only a few minutes earlier?
Likewise, "both" of the LoudLabs videos were from the same "recording/session", as would be obvious by the closing sequence of the short version...and opening sequence of the longer version.
To "question" the validity of LoudLabs claims...would be tantamount to suggesting...A CONSPIRACY (to deprive US of the truth --
).

Anyhoot! Maybe more factual evidences will surface, and allow all interested theorists to come to a consensus (highly doubt it).
Until then - though...let the debates continue.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
I couldn't help but notice that you were afraid to quote exactly what I said regarding his alcohol and drug usage. So basically you responded to that out of anger.


so am i scared, or am i angry? i'm not exactly sure how you're making the leap, but again, you seem to have your mind made up, and will discount anything that doesn't fit the conclusion you have already arrived at.

i wasn't afraid of anything...but again, you seem to be REALLY bothered by a trivial thing, and you seem to be taking offense, where clearly, none was intended.....i say again, that's your hangup, not mine, i'm not going to apologize for it, and if you choose to continue to make this about me, instead of the facts, i'm just going to ignore you, because continuing a conversation like that is a waste of my time.

i paraphrased you, the paraphrasing was an accurate representation of what you said, unlike when you paraphrased me.

i did it, it was accurate, get over it.


It is completely true that he had issues with both. NOT years ago like it has been many years as you would suggest. In fact he posted the CR**K comments on his blog in 2010. That was not that long ago. I might also add that after some research it is Very clear that he did Not seek treatment for either the alcohol problem or addiction. As far as that goes he could have still had an active problem with both.


2-3 years ago IS years ago.....never said it was ancient history. A lot can happen in a space of time that big.

what i see is you have come to the conclusion that what happened to him was either a mechanical failure of the car, OR operator error as a result of him be drunk, or high, or both.....what i see is that you do not believe it was an assassination, and are not really willing to even entertain the thought that it's possible until someone "official" says there is evidence to suggest foul play..

do i have that about right?



If you have information regarding rehab or AA feel free to post it as I think everyone would like to know.


why would i?



It is apparent that you need to go back and watch that video again because the woman stated that they took the car to a shop and had them implant the device.


for the first paper, they plugged into the OBD2 port.....for the second paper, they did not. they did mention infecting the diagnostic computer in a shop, so it would infect every car it plugged into, but again, THEY would not have physical access to the car in that scenario...

i love how you accuse ME of not paying attenton, when it is really YOU either not paying attention, or failing to comprehend what you've heard/read...absolutely shocking..




Besides where’s this evidence that you were supposed to bring back with you. I don’t see any links.


there's no need for links when i'm referencing evidence that has already been presented...in this case, the loudlabs video, and the DARPA presentation..

or would you prefer that i present links to each one in EVERY post i make...would that make you feel better? i imagine the mods might not like that much though...

when i reference something that hasn't already been presented, i'll be sure to put up a nice BIG link, just for you..




You are right that fire is great for destroying evidence. However, you are Completely Wrong. If you had read through the manual and as I pointed out before, ALL of the data is transmitted in the event of a crash. So even if the on-board recorders were destroyed, they still have ALL of the information that was recorded through the devices.


ok, the system is designed to transmit in the event of a crash....do we even know that this happened? cars don't typically explode on impact...they're kinda engineered so that doesn't happen. so what we would need to determine is what exactly triggers the transmission?, how long does a transmission take?, what exactly is included in the transmission?, is an active subscription a prerequisite for that particular service?, was the module damaged by the impact/explosion?, was there still electrical current available for the transmission to happen?

there are a LOT of variables to take into account.....for all we know, it never transmitted, because it was either destroyed or disabled in the crash....and we don't even know exactly what data is transmitted, or how long that transmission takes.

the BEST evidence is ALWAYS from the physical car at the crime scene...and unfortunately, and quite conveniently, it kind of exploded.

continued in next post



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Regarding the usage of explosives. I have been to many scenes where explosives have been used. Do you know what the first thing witnesses make note of when giving a statement? The smell. If you look at the weather report that I posted you would have seen that at that location and time there was absolutely no wind. Regardless of the amount or type the odor is still prevalent. It is also not an attack to point out that you have no clue what you are talking about.


They properly interviewed ONE man, who was not fluent in english, and did not ask the right questions. A detective probably would have been more through.

So again i'll say, to completely discount something, because ONE witness, in a paparazzi video, who is ESL, didn't mention a funny smell, is laughable. unless you were actually there, or have access to witnesses to question them, or have access to statements taken by the police, then you cannot for certain discount it as a possibility.

besides, it was you yourself who pointed out that people claim to have seen an explosion, and you also pointed out the tenancy for inconsistency in witness accounts of events, varying from small to vast...which is why i thought we were going to stick to facts and evidence, instead of (potentially) inaccurate, or incomplete eyewitness accounts of events....

by the way, it IS an attack to accuse someone of having no idea what they're talking about, based on an assumption you made, because you disagree with that person.




I can tell you with a high degree of probability that the possibility that an explosion occurred before the car hit the tree is Absolutely ZERO. Even the witnesses who were right there watching the whole thing said that the car exploded on impact. For the plausibility factor, my theory of the engine landing where it did is much more plausible than what you have come up with. That doesn't mean that it is right. However, it does mean that it is more statistically possible.


again, you pointed out that witness testimony is not always reliable....we can't trust it.

and of course you would be biased toward your theory.....because it's your theory.....

an explosion might be the answer, then again, it might not....i believe it to be a valid theory, as it still fits within the framework of available evidence...the same as your theory....that is to say they are BOTH within the realm of possibility.




And Finally.. . I wanted to add this. . .

[insert quote here]

I did Not mis-quote you. That is exactly what you said.


Actually you DID misquote me, as you claimed i said there was a mountain of evidence that proved he was murdered, when all i said was that there was a mountain of evidence showing how it would have been possible to murder him, and make it look like an accident...there is a HUGE difference between "he was murdered this way", and "he could have been murdered this way, or this way, or this way"....




Now, go get that evidence and bring it back. I want to see it. Because as far as this argument is concerned, If you can't produce it, It Didn't Happen and you are arguing with evidence that does Not exist. After all, I have posted Facts and Evidence that supports my argument and I would Expect you to do the same.


again, i am referencing already presented evidence.....

and you haven't really produced evidence to counter what i've said....it's been "i've heard", or "i've seen", or "i don't like that, so i'm going to ignore it"

that's not facts and evidence.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Daedalus because: #SpellFail



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Your quote was not accurate. Though I do understand that you may lack the capacity to understand that. So I guess you will have to get over it.

His drug and alcohol usage was last admitted to on his blog. That was in 2010. I have never found anything that said he had Curbed his appetite for either. So, I will continue to consider this as a potential cause. We shall find out when the results are released.

Are you asserting that those 2 videos are your sole evidence that he was "Possibly Murdered"? They prove absolutely nothing regarding that. I want to see that "Mountain of Evidence". If you are saying that it lies within this post I would like for you to point it out. Because I have not seen one thing here that would remotely indicate that he was possibly murdered.

I see evidence of his drug and alcohol usage, I see evidence that the floor matt could have lodged over the accelerator, and other evidence that suggests many things but Not the possibility of murder.

By the way, cars to in fact explode on impact on some occasions. You can check Ford and Chevy recalls for that info. Typically explosions are caused by pressure, so it is possible that the fuel line broke as he jumped the curb, made a spark on impact, and the gasoline that was in the tank that was Under Pressure caused the explosion.

Let's completely take the videos out of the picture. I firmly believe that explosives were Not used for more reasons than the video shows. One being that someone who plants explosives on a car with the intention of blowing it up with the occupant is Not going to stand around and wait until the occupant hits a tree before they detonate it. Its just not practical. Secondly, if someone had mal-intent and did in fact take control of his vehicle through a wireless means, which I completely do not believe, there would be no need to plant explosives. Its just not practical. Not even as a backup. There is entirely too much work involved not to mention the evidence that would be left behind.

As far as the transmission speed of the embrace system goes the manual says that it is sent the instant the airbags are deployed, Or when the crash sensors are triggered.

The car may have exploded, but there are a million and one things a crashed car can tell you. It is not a matter of convenience that the car exploded, it is a matter of circumstance.

Furthermore I have posted many facts here. Enough to damn near extrapolate a conclusion. The facts show me it was either operator error or mechanical failure. On the other hand, by whatever reasoning, you see murder and conspiracy.

Do you believe that it was "Possibly" murder because of an email that he sent the day before? or is it because the gas tank exploded giving it the illusion that explosives were used? or is it because the floor matt stuck the accelerator and made the brake inoperable making it look like some malicious force had taken wireless control of the vehicle?

While those all might be tempting to a conspiracy theorist, the fact remains that the conclusions are based on supposition and conjecture, and scientific wild ass guesses.

When the facts come to light and the reports are published I fully intend to start another thread and IF I am completely wrong I will be man enough to renounce my theories and fact based conclusions.

In the even that my theories and conclusions are Right, are you going to say that all of the evidence was tampered with? or will you be compliant to the facts presented by the investigators?

Either way we shall know something when the toxicology report is made public. If it shows a clean result then we will wait to see what the crash report says.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by blarged
 


You are right. I am here to discuss the facts. As you can see I have lain out the facts and although I have Not ruled out murder, which I have mentioned several times throughout the post, there are No facts Regarding Any murder attempt or conspiracy.


Thank you very much for you're reply. You have laid out the facts in a very good informative post. You are right that there is no evidence at the crash site to suggest a murder yet. The case has certainly peaked a lot of peoples interest's and I'm sure we will see good debates from either side. Possibly even after the investigation is concluded.


Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Regardless of what the conspiracy side says, I am certain that the toxicology reports will Not be tampered with and that the facts regarding driver error or mechanical failure will come to light.


Why are you sure? Do you work on the team? Have you done a morality check on every individual involved in this investigation? Nobody can have their allegiance bought?


Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Now when that information becomes available, if it is in contradiction of the facts, then I might say that there a potential cover-up. At this point there is no reason to beleive that this was murder if you consider the Facts.


It's a bit more comforting to hear that contradictory evidence might change your mind. At least you're not 100% biased about this. I'm inclined to agree with you here.


Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
That he wrote an email to his colleagues the day before the crash is Not good evidence that he was murdered. That idea is based on supposition and conjecture and provides for a weak argument.


On the contrary. If anyone sent a text/email to a non government organization saying they were being watched by someone and then popped up dead within 24 hours under 'unusual circumstances' would that someone not be investigated to the fullest extent? Just because they have a badge and a gun doesn't necessarily make them good people. Although it doesn't necessarily make them bad either.


Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
Also, keep in mind that there are more groups involved in the evidence than the LAPD. Say for example the EMBRACE Telematics system that transmitted the data at the time of the crash. That data was Not transmitted to the LAPD, CIA, FBI, DHS, KGB, or the AAA. in addition I know that data was analyzed the second it hit the wire. Long before any of those agencies would have requested it. Which means that an attempt to cover up that data or eliminate it is completely futile.


Assuming this was a murder... everything would have been prepared accordingly. These kinds of organized 'assassinations' would be and should be impossible to trace. Even if the EMBRACE telematics system gets that data, what will it tell them? *Accelarator full throttle, left turn, right turn, crash* How are we to confirm foul play from that kind of data? To be honest I am not exactly sure what kind of data does get sent but I will look into it further to find out. If you could answer that I would appreciate but I will do my own research too.


Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
What if it turns out that the drivers floor mat lodged over the accelerator and brake causing the high-speed acceleration and the inability to brake? Are you going to cry conspiracy? If you don't I know others that are going to.
In fact regardless of what the findings are, there are going to be people who firmly believe that he was murdered all because he sent an email the day prior.


Then he was the victim of unusual unfortunately coincidental circumstances. When it comes to cover-ups/conspiracy theories, the best approach is always 'What is the most likely explanation'

What if he was being chased or trying to escape someone? Drink drivers do have their driving abilties impaired, that much is true. That doesnt mean they become speed demons. Most older drink drivers if smart, (which I'm led to assume he was) usually try take it easy while driving to not get attention from the law. The guy was wanting to disappear. Did paranoia kill this man or something more sinister?

Admittedly I may still have my suspicions when the official response is released and if more honest journalists explode, I will be very suspicious indeed.

Although if no contradictory evidence arises, I will have to dismiss the murder cover up case entirely. Murder or not, I don't hold the answers or the evidence to say either way what actually happened. I can only assess the situation based on the evidence/testimonies I'm given. Thanks again for your reply



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join