Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
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.


it wasn't a quote....i would suggest you look up the word "paraphrase"..

tossing out personal attacks, and implying i am somehow unintelligent, because YOU are hung up on truly superfluous details, is quite sad....just let it go, will you?



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.


you can assume whatever you like....i tend to stick with facts, and evidence, and solid proof.....right now, there is no proof that he STILL had an issue with substance abuse....to state that the opposite is true, simply because he failed to tweet, or facebook something to the effect of "hey guys i'm in rehab, yay!", is again, laughable....



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.


this is, again, another example of you twisting my words, and trying to beat me over the head with them, because you can't accept anything outside of the conclusion you have already drawn.

for the last time, i have said that there is a mountain of evidence to show how it would have been possible to murder him, and make it look like an accident....that is to say, that the methods, tools, and techniques exist, it is a thing that is possible, and the existence of these tools, methods, and techniques, in and of themselves, is not evidence enough, but there are other odd events in the timeline, to suggest we don't have the whole story.

i would submit, for your review, the rest of the hastings threads, created since his demise...in those threads, there are other events that suggest something was up.....you ridicule people for bringing up the email about the FBI...what about his contacting a wikileaks lawyer shortly before his death? what about what he was working on at the time? you can't seriously tell me that this doesn't look even a little suspicious to you....

he says he's working on something big, contacts a wikileaks lawyer, emails his friends, says the FBI is looking at him, and that he has to hide, and then he's dead....and that seems perfectly normal to you?

i'm not saying he absolutely was murdered, but given everything i've seen with this case, it looks as if he may have been.




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.


No, what you see is evidence of past problems with drugs and alcohol....you don't see evidence of a CURRENT problem, that's very important. and it's entirely possible that the mat could have lodged under (and yes, it is under) the throttle, but there's no way to know for sure.

and once again, you COMPLETELY discount the possibility of murder, because it doesn't fit into your theory, which near as i can tell, goes something like this...

"He was drunk, or high, or maybe both. either he was driving like an ass because he was impaired, or the floormat played a role, or some kind of mechanical failure"

instead of following the evidence, and investigating all avenues, and possibilities, you formed a hypothesis, based on bits of information, and you completely toss out anything that contradicts that theory...that's very poor investigative technique.





By the way, cars to in fact explode on impact on some occasions.


REALLY?! OH MY GOD!


Yes, i know cars do sometimes explode on impact...but it takes very specific conditions for that to occur....

what i said was that cars don't USUALLY explode on impact....and from what i've seen, almost never from head-on collisions with trees. sure, they'll catch fire, but the explosion on impact is indeed a very rare event. hell, i haven't seen an explosion on impact since the crown vic....


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.


the odds of it happening EXACTLY that way, are so small, that it is virtually impossible. that stuff only happens in the movies..


continued in next post
edit on 6-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
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.


ok, so because it's not how YOU would do it, it's not practical?

seriously, i'm growing tired of you basing your arguments on your personal opinions, instead of available facts....

you refuse to believe that it's even POSSIBLE for his car to have been remotely tampered with, even though there is proof that it is a thing that can be done, then you say that using explosives would not be practical, because it's not how you'd do it, then you try to say that explosives would leave too much evidence, even though, if you know even half of what you claim to know, then we both know you can wire a car to go up, with relatively little material, and virtually no trace.....

think about it...if you saw that car hit the tree, and then blow up the second it hit the damn thing, and didn't know any better, because you'd only ever seen hollywood car crashes, where they explode if a bird s**ts on them (like pretty much any michael bay movie), you'd think that what you'd just seen was completely normal.

for those of us who understand that hollywood is fake, we know something is wrong with the picture.




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.


i understand that, but in NORMAL car crashes, the engine, and tranny don't end up 100 feet from the car...usually, the engine (and thus, the battery), remains with the car, ensuring the system has power. no power means, more than likely, no transmission of data. it may begin transmitting the moment the airbags are deployed, or whatever, but do you happen to know how large the data file is? or how long it might take to transmit the complete file? what i'm saying is that there may have been no transmission sent from it. we have yet to determine if a subscription was required for that function to even be active..




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.


true, if it was meant to explode, that would be circumstance, if it was really an accident, that would be circumstance...but if it was foul play, and the explosion was an unforeseen occurrence, THAT would be convenient.

fire would destroy prints, DNA evidence, certain physical evidence, like signs of tampering, toolmarks, the entire onboard computer system...a lot of things that could help.....true, there are other things you can learn from a crashed car, but maybe not enough to tell for certain what actually happened.




Furthermore I have posted many facts here. Enough to damn near extrapolate a conclusion.


No, what you have done here is posted your theory, and then ONLY posted information that supports your theory, lied about, simply ignored, or ridiculed and discounted anything that DOESN'T support your theory, and will not even entertain the notion that anything other than the conclusion you have come to, is what happened.

it's very narrow-minded, and very ignorant.



The facts show me it was either operator error or mechanical failure. On the other hand, by whatever reasoning, you see murder and conspiracy.


well, the facts show those of us who are paying attention that there may be more to this than the conclusion you have come to. i would be VERY worried if you were a detective, responsible for investigating this sort of thing....

i don't just see murder and conspiracy...i see facts, evidence, possibilities...there's more than way that this could have gone down, and that's a fact, whether you choose to accept it, or not.


continued next post
edit on 6-7-2013 by Daedalus because: #SpellFail



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
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?



No, i believe it may have been murder, because the man died under suspicious circumstances, while working on something he said was big, after having contacted a wikileaks lawyer, after having told colleagues that the FBI was looking into him, and that he needed to go to ground for a while....that tells me something was up....it bares a closer look..

the things you listed might have happened, they might have played a role....and then again, they might not....it might have been an accident.....but it could also just as easily have been murder....




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.


there are no conclusions...except the one you came to before you started this thread....

your conclusion is a theory, and what i put forth is a theory.....neither one are proven true yet..the difference between us, is that you're trying to assert that your theory is absolute fact, and is completely unarguable, and that what i've put forth is wild guesses, and assumptions....i've done no such thing....i've pointed out facts that support the possibility of foul play, where as you've spent all your time and energy trying to convince everyone that foul play is not even possible, because you say so, and that what you theorize to have happened is what actually happened, case closed, and to hell with anything to the contrary...it's a ridiculous position to take.




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.


we'll see what happens when the reports are issued. if they don't match up with the evidence, then it will bare further examination..



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by blarged
 


Yes most definitely it has caught the attention of allot of people to include conspiracy theorists but most of them are sighting letters that were written, or the tales of a "BIG STORY", or even a car exploding which makes it look like the car was laden with explosives. Also I suspect even after the Facts come into light there are going to be those that believe without a doubt that they were lied to by the agencies issuing any such reports. Mostly because they think an alphabet agency is going to come in and tell them that they are going to change their story "Or Else".

I expect most certainly that the toxicology results will not be tampered with because this is a high profile case. Those in charge know that there are allot of people pointing to conspiracy so they are going to take safeguards to prevent such a thing from happening.

With the telemetry of the vehicle the investigators will know if there was any outside control. Just remember that when computers connect to each other there are records kept of such events. So in the event that someone did try to take control of the vehicle it will show an IP that made the connection as well as at what time.

When it comes to unusual circumstances most conspiracy minded people will automatically steer towards foul play. Primarily, because like I mentioned before,. .. . Conspiracies are built on a Lack of Facts.

Keep in mind that there have only ever been a handful of conspiracies that had turned out to be so. Some examples of those would include. .. The Mafia, MK-Ultra, The Manhattan Project, Watergate, The Iran Contra Affair, and the JFK Assassination among others.

At this point we are going to have to set and wait for any results to be published before any more conclusions can be concocted.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 




it wasn't a quote....i would suggest you look up the word "paraphrase"..

Maybe you should look up the definition yourself because a paraphrase is Not accompanied by quotes.




for the last time, i have said that there is a mountain of evidence to show how it would have been possible to murder him

Yes, so you have said but have not produced this "Evidence". Telling me that I need to go look up the other threads is really unacceptable and lazy.

It is merely a coincidence that he contacted a lawyer. After all if someone knows that they are going to be involved with the police, an alphabet agency, or even civil suit the smartest thing to do is to contact a lawyer. However, I did not see you mention anywhere that the FBI made a statement shortly after what was made public and said that they were Not even investigating Michael Hastings. Although I can imagine your next statement will indicate that they are a bunch of damn liars. Well, are they? in light of the Snowden events no one really trusts the alphabet agencies and gives all the more reason to thing that they are not being truthful.

For the "BIG STORY" that everyone keeps citing. I Got news for ya' . .. EVERY REPORTER ON THE PLANET IS WORKING ON A BIG STORY. Look at the headlines on ATS and tell me how many times you have seen that Glen Beck is going to announce that he is working on a BIG STORY, or that any number of credible people is working on a BIG STORY. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Its pathetic.


No, what you see is evidence of past problems with drugs and alcohol....you don't see evidence of a CURRENT problem, that's very important

Then apparently you are not as smart as you think you are. Maybe you should research Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Then you will learn the facts.
Once an Alcoholic you are an Alcoholic for Life.
Once a Drug Addict you are an Addict for Life.
Have you ever heard the phrase "My name is John Doe and I have been sober for X number of years"? It is because they will ALL spend the rest of their lives fighting alcoholism or drug addiction. Those are the facts.
If you are looking for some good reading then I would suggest Alcoholics Anonymous aka The Big Book. It was written by Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith and remains one of the best sellers of all time.


you formed a hypothesis, based on bits of information, and you completely toss out anything that contradicts that theory...that's very poor investigative technique.

If you go back and read ALL of the facts that I have referenced in the OP you will Note that those are Not Bits of facts but rather the facts that are currently available. It could easily be said that your Conspiracy Theory is more than likely based on "Bits" of information considering that you are citing an email to colleagues, an email to a lawyer and a fiery crash as highly unusual and a good reason to suspect a "Possible" murder.


the odds of it happening EXACTLY that way, are so small, that it is virtually impossible. that stuff only happens in the movies..

Pull your head out of the movies and know the facts. If something has a Billion in one chance then there is in Fact a calculable possibility that it could happen. That is Mathematical Fact. So making the blanket statement "that it is virtually impossible" is completely short sighted.

Let us say for the sake of the argument that there was NO Embrace system and no data transmitted. What if the on board recording devices were fireproof. Maybe they have something similar to a "Black Box". Car manufacturers are somewhat smart in that way. After all they know that there is an inherit danger that a vehicle may catch on fire in the event of a crash.


No, what you have done here is posted your theory, and then ONLY posted information that supports your theory, lied about, simply ignored, or ridiculed and discounted anything that DOESN'T support your theory, and will not even entertain the notion that anything other than the conclusion you have come to, is what happened.

If you think that then you really didn't even both reading the facts I laid out but rather read my conclusion only. After review the one thing I left out was the email to the lawyer. That is a marginal fact. So what if he sent an email to the lawyer. Maybe he was consulting her for a potential retainer.

I am not saying that my conclusion is fact. I am saying that it is based on Facts. Furthermore I have Not ruled out murder. I am just saying that according to mathematical probabilities that the reasoning used to justify this as a "Possible Murder" is shoddy and lacking at best.

continued



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


A couple of other things I might add are:
There was an immediate outcry of conspiracy that was noted by the LAPD. That certainly made this high profile case and put it under a deep scrutiny.

I am certain that the vehicle was tested for traces of explosives. Though I would not expect that the LAPD would give that information out, they would in fact have converted this to a Homicide Investigation, which I might add, would lend your theory allot more merit. So I am completely ruling out the use of explosives based on that premise. You can argue that all you care to but I am sticking to my guns on that. Unless you are able to prove the use of explosives, in that case I will entertain any evidence you have.

Another thing to note is the possibility that he had a medical condition. I have not seen anything that might suggest that at all. Though we will have to wait on the results of the autopsy to know that for sure.

And Lastly, … .. .

The conjecture, suppositions, and conclusions I draw in My Opinion are extrapolated from facts. There may be a margin of error, but, what I propose is my much more realistic and mathematically probable than the possibility that he was murdered.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Daedalus
 

Maybe you should look up the definition yourself because a paraphrase is Not accompanied by quotes.


now you're just nitpicking. grow up.



Yes, so you have said but have not produced this "Evidence". Telling me that I need to go look up the other threads is really unacceptable and lazy.


i've said that you should look at the other threads...that's not lazy...

and yes, i have discussed plenty about remote tampering, which you seem to want to toss in the bin, because you can't be bothered to pay attention, to what's actually said in the presentation, and wish to just talk out of your ass on the subject.

I NEVER SAID that it is, for sure, what happened....i said it's just one of many ways he COULD have been murdered, and have it look accidental.....



It is merely a coincidence that he contacted a lawyer. After all if someone knows that they are going to be involved with the police, an alphabet agency, or even civil suit the smartest thing to do is to contact a lawyer. However, I did not see you mention anywhere that the FBI made a statement shortly after what was made public and said that they were Not even investigating Michael Hastings. Although I can imagine your next statement will indicate that they are a bunch of damn liars. Well, are they? in light of the Snowden events no one really trusts the alphabet agencies and gives all the more reason to thing that they are not being truthful.


of course you'd say it was a coincidence, because if it were anything else, it might make your argument look thinner than it already does. why in the hell would you contact a wikileaks lawyer unless something was up?

if you needed a lawyer, why not go to a lawyer NOT affiliated with wikileaks? that's like needing to talk to someone, and instead of going to a friend, or a shrink, you go to a brothel.....it draws more attention. it's suspicious behavior.

and of course nobody trusts the alphabet agencies....most of us never did. and as recent events have shown us, we STILL can't trust them to be truthful...



For the "BIG STORY" that everyone keeps citing. I Got news for ya' . .. EVERY REPORTER ON THE PLANET IS WORKING ON A BIG STORY. Look at the headlines on ATS and tell me how many times you have seen that Glen Beck is going to announce that he is working on a BIG STORY, or that any number of credible people is working on a BIG STORY. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Its pathetic.


you're really going to compare hastings to a flip-flopping, shilling, attention wh0re like glenn beck? unbelievable....you obviously have no idea who this guy is, or why his name means anything....



Then apparently you are not as smart as you think you are. Maybe you should research Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. Then you will learn the facts. Once an Alcoholic you are an Alcoholic for Life. Once a Drug Addict you are an Addict for Life. Have you ever heard the phrase "My name is John Doe and I have been sober for X number of years"? It is because they will ALL spend the rest of their lives fighting alcoholism or drug addiction. Those are the facts. If you are looking for some good reading then I would suggest Alcoholics Anonymous aka The Big Book. It was written by Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith and remains one of the best sellers of all time.


-sigh-

has he said anywhere that he was an addict, or an actual alcoholic? you mentioned he admitted to doing crack, on a blog...did he say he was an addict, or had a crack habbit?

i understand all about substance addictions, and alcoholism...i'm not going to go into the details of how, because it's personal, and nobody's business, but i do clearly understand it all..



If you go back and read ALL of the facts that I have referenced in the OP you will Note that those are Not Bits of facts but rather the facts that are currently available. It could easily be said that your Conspiracy Theory is more than likely based on "Bits" of information considering that you are citing an email to colleagues, an email to a lawyer and a fiery crash as highly unusual and a good reason to suspect a "Possible" murder.


No, what you did was post bits of information from various sources...some of them were accurate, some were not, and some were outright fabrications..

you posted a small excerpt from the owner's manual, that was more or less useless....

your "car hacking" section was filled with absolute fiction..

the "engine ejection" section was based on opinion, and incomplete calculations, based on unknown (or assumed) quantities..

you posted a SOMEWHAT accurate definition of "conspiracy theory", but then tweaked it at the end, to suit your agenda..

continued next post



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
"Conspiracy Theory" is ACTUALLY defined thusly:



conspiracy theory

noun

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Related forms
conspiracy theorist, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.


Collins
World English Dictionary
conspiracy theory

— n
the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009


nowhere in there does it say that conspiracy theories are based on a lack of facts...you added that bit. and you keep siting ONLY that part..that they're based on a lack of facts....you use that to ridicule ideas that don't mesh with yours.

i can see quite clearly what angle you're playing here.....




Pull your head out of the movies and know the facts. If something has a Billion in one chance then there is in Fact a calculable possibility that it could happen. That is Mathematical Fact. So making the blanket statement "that it is virtually impossible" is completely short sighted.


No, YOU pull YOUR head out of the movies....

a nick in the fuel line from popping the curb is NOT going to give you the vapor density needed to ignite the tank...NEITHER is the head-on impact..that only happens in movies.

hell, even if the fuel line caught on the curb, and ripped completely out, that's STILL not going to give you what you need to ignite the fuel tank right away...

it IS, in fact, virtually impossible....you're right one in a billion is still statistically quantifiable...thankfully, i never said it was one in a billion. you made that up, so that you could make me appear to be wrong, by creating a point to refute, and thus, make yourself appear more correct.




Let us say for the sake of the argument that there was NO Embrace system and no data transmitted. What if the on board recording devices were fireproof. Maybe they have something similar to a "Black Box". Car manufacturers are somewhat smart in that way. After all they know that there is an inherit danger that a vehicle may catch on fire in the event of a crash.




Holy s**t...seriously? A black box?

now you're just making s**t up, so you can keep this farce going...

There is no black box, the fire destroyed the onboard computers, THAT evidence is gone..



If you think that then you really didn't even both reading the facts I laid out but rather read my conclusion only. After review the one thing I left out was the email to the lawyer. That is a marginal fact. So what if he sent an email to the lawyer. Maybe he was consulting her for a potential retainer.


i already explained why the lawyer is significant, and why going to THAT SPECIFIC LAWYER constitutes suspicious behavior, so i'll not go into it again..i will, however, point out again that the "facts" you laid out in the OP were based on scraps of more or less meaningless information, opinions, incomplete equations based on unknown quantities, and completely inaccurate, or fabricated information....

i read everything you said...and there is nothing compelling about any of it....if what you wrote were compelling, and had the appearance of being rooted firmly in reality, i wouldn't have bothered posting here to challenge any of it.




I am not saying that my conclusion is fact. I am saying that it is based on Facts. Furthermore I have Not ruled out murder. I am just saying that according to mathematical probabilities that the reasoning used to justify this as a "Possible Murder" is shoddy and lacking at best.


actually, the position you're taking, by default, says you believe your theory to be fact....

and jesus christ, i can't believe i hafta KEEP repeating this.....you'd think once ot twice would be enough....

i never said for sure he was murdered....i'm simply siting possibilities...ways it could have been done, that would have produced the same results we saw here, and accomplished the goal of killing the man, and making it look accidental...

was it explained to you clearly enough this time?
edit on 8-7-2013 by Daedalus because: #SpellFail



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


A couple of other things I might add are:
There was an immediate outcry of conspiracy that was noted by the LAPD. That certainly made this high profile case and put it under a deep scrutiny.

I am certain that the vehicle was tested for traces of explosives. Though I would not expect that the LAPD would give that information out, they would in fact have converted this to a Homicide Investigation, which I might add, would lend your theory allot more merit. So I am completely ruling out the use of explosives based on that premise. You can argue that all you care to but I am sticking to my guns on that. Unless you are able to prove the use of explosives, in that case I will entertain any evidence you have.

Another thing to note is the possibility that he had a medical condition. I have not seen anything that might suggest that at all. Though we will have to wait on the results of the autopsy to know that for sure.

And Lastly, … .. .

The conjecture, suppositions, and conclusions I draw in My Opinion are extrapolated from facts. There may be a margin of error, but, what I propose is my much more realistic and mathematically probable than the possibility that he was murdered.


medical condition is another good, reasonable possibility....no evidence to suggest it, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility...

i'd also add that the JFK assassination, and the associated cases, the RFK assassination, and it's associated cases, the events of 11 September, 2001, and the OKC bombing were major. high profile events, where there were MASSIVE coverups either OF assassination, or INCLUDING assassination, to conceal the truth....they were ALL high profile, they generated a lot of attention, and everyone was watching....didn't stop them from hiding the truth, and lying DIRECTLY to us....

the assertion that they'll do a doubleplus good job, just because everyone is paying attention to it, is naive...

if they think they can get away with it, they'll lie.....and unfortunately, because most people are too lazy to look into things, and actually search for facts, they think they can (and are usually right) get away with it more often than not...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by blarged
 


Yes most definitely it has caught the attention of allot of people to include conspiracy theorists but most of them are sighting letters that were written, or the tales of a "BIG STORY", or even a car exploding which makes it look like the car was laden with explosives. Also I suspect even after the Facts come into light there are going to be those that believe without a doubt that they were lied to by the agencies issuing any such reports. Mostly because they think an alphabet agency is going to come in and tell them that they are going to change their story "Or Else".

I expect most certainly that the toxicology results will not be tampered with because this is a high profile case. Those in charge know that there are allot of people pointing to conspiracy so they are going to take safeguards to prevent such a thing from happening.

With the telemetry of the vehicle the investigators will know if there was any outside control. Just remember that when computers connect to each other there are records kept of such events. So in the event that someone did try to take control of the vehicle it will show an IP that made the connection as well as at what time.

When it comes to unusual circumstances most conspiracy minded people will automatically steer towards foul play. Primarily, because like I mentioned before,. .. . Conspiracies are built on a Lack of Facts.

Keep in mind that there have only ever been a handful of conspiracies that had turned out to be so. Some examples of those would include. .. The Mafia, MK-Ultra, The Manhattan Project, Watergate, The Iran Contra Affair, and the JFK Assassination among others.

At this point we are going to have to set and wait for any results to be published before any more conclusions can be concocted.


there is a lot in this post that is flat out wrong....

i see ridicule, inaccuracy, and fantasy, bordering on complete detachment from reality...i will leave the poster you posted this in reply to, to handle pointing out specifics....if he doesn't, i'll be happy to do it...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


I don\'t think it is nit picking to correct someone that doesn't know something.

It is all coincidence. That has noting to do that I said it and contacting that lawyer only means that maybe he knew her better or maybe she had cheaper rates. Still again no proof.

I am not only comparing him to Glen Beck, I am also comparing him to EVERYONE ELSE on the Planet that says they are working on a BIG STORY.

Also, in the book he wrote he did go into the alcoholism and Crack addiction as well a making it public through interviews. Those are the facts and weather you want to believe it or not that is just how it is. For someone who acts like they know this guy I would suspect that you would already know that.

Everything in the body of the post is ALL Fact. Nothing is fabricated. Especially the car hacking part. That was all information taking right from credible sources.

I gave the exact definition of Conspiracy Theory and added the fact that they rely on a Lack of Facts, which is a Fact.

I am not making anything up about the black box. I was just saying that they may have something similar in there. Just how it is.

Anyways you know my views regardless of how biased you say it is. I think I was pretty thorough in detailing the facts. If you don't think so go make a thread and detail out what you think the facts are. Either way, I think waiting for the facts to come out will answer allot of the questions. The time is drawing in and with each day we are closer to the facts being published so then we will know.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 



It is what it is and you are just going to have to accept it. I don't agree that there is inaccurate information in that post as well as fantasy. You not wanting to accept the facts and fantasizing about a conspiracy says allot about how far away from reality you are.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Daedalus
 


I don't think it is nit picking to correct someone that doesn't know something.

It is all coincidence. That has noting to do that I said it and contacting that lawyer only means that maybe he knew her better or maybe she had cheaper rates. Still again no proof.

I am not only comparing him to Glen Beck, I am also comparing him to EVERYONE ELSE on the Planet that says they are working on a BIG STORY.

Also, in the book he wrote he did go into the alcoholism and Crack addiction as well a making it public through interviews. Those are the facts and weather you want to believe it or not that is just how it is. For someone who acts like they know this guy I would suspect that you would already know that.

Everything in the body of the post is ALL Fact. Nothing is fabricated. Especially the car hacking part. That was all information taking right from credible sources.

I gave the exact definition of Conspiracy Theory and added the fact that they rely on a Lack of Facts, which is a Fact.

I am not making anything up about the black box. I was just saying that they may have something similar in there. Just how it is.

Anyways you know my views regardless of how biased you say it is. I think I was pretty thorough in detailing the facts. If you don't think so go make a thread and detail out what you think the facts are. Either way, I think waiting for the facts to come out will answer allot of the questions. The time is drawing in and with each day we are closer to the facts being published so then we will know.



Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Daedalus
 



It is what it is and you are just going to have to accept it. I don't agree that there is inaccurate information in that post as well as fantasy. You not wanting to accept the facts and fantasizing about a conspiracy says allot about how far away from reality you are.


right, it's all facts, it's all real, and it's all because you say so, regardless of evidence, facts, and proof to the contrary....you said so, so it's all completely legit.

as another of our esteemed colleagues here is fond of saying:

"sure sure, shade, sure sure"
edit on 8-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
And lets see, shade...there's a new thread on the front page, which had a vid in it from a local news broadcast...

as per this story, the engine and tranny were actually found resting in the OPPOSITE of the direction of travel, meaning, they were actually BEHIND the car. up to this point, it was assumed that it was thrown forward, which appears to have not been the case...how do we reconcile this with the available facts? how do we explain this?

edit on 8-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
...as per this story, the engine and tranny were actually found resting in the OPPOSITE of the direction of travel, meaning, they were actually BEHIND the car.
...

I'm with you on most everything you've put forth in this thread. I think this was a mistake (though you are not the source). I watched the interview, as well, and...(removed by edit)...

I've looked again at the LoudLabs video...and, there is really no doubt (imo) that the engine & tranny continued travelling south, stopping against the curb on the east side of the street...close to Clinton St.
Keep up the good work!
edit on 7/8/2013 by WanDash because: memory fails



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


I hadn't seen this video until now. But. .. . ..

She mentioned that they were told Not to comment about the investigation and that is probably because they want to make sure all of the facts are in before they do so. It is not that they are hiding something but rather want to be certain on the facts. The "Extremely Hot Fire": that she mentioned could have been attributed to the fact that the tires were burning. It takes a 400 degree ignition source to get rubber tires to burn, but when they do they burn hot. Watch the video and look at the tires. If you notice the brightest orange areas are around the tires. Like she said about the engine and tranny according to the physics professors the engine typically would go forward with the momentum. Which it did Until it was acted on by the tree and then due to a ricochet was Launched to behind the car. Make note that when something ricochets it accelerates. It is interesting the First possibility she mentions is that he could have been drinking and driving because he was near the clubs on Sunset Boulevard. The second thing she mentioned was that the car could have malfunctioned and then follows that up with something could have been on the car that Triggered the explosion. AND, most certainly Mercedes is going to say that their cars just don't blow up because that would then be a liability issue. Also that report came out from Washington University NOT San Diego. Plus the fact that the report she mentions was the first report saying that they had to be physically connected to it to have control and she never mentioned that part. In her closing statement she said that the LAPD has ruled foul play out of the equation.

If you did or didn't notice she was very careful about what she said. At frame 2:36 she caught herself and corrected about possibilities Not possibility. Kind of like she was going to say something and then changed her mind.

I do think it is fair to mention that she did indicate 2 prime factors in my concoction: Drinking and Mechanical Failure but as she mentioned it is still to early to know until they release the official reports.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Daedalus
 


I hadn't seen this video until now. But. .. . ..

She mentioned that they were told Not to comment about the investigation and that is probably because they want to make sure all of the facts are in before they do so. It is not that they are hiding something but rather want to be certain on the facts. The "Extremely Hot Fire": that she mentioned could have been attributed to the fact that the tires were burning. It takes a 400 degree ignition source to get rubber tires to burn, but when they do they burn hot. Watch the video and look at the tires. If you notice the brightest orange areas are around the tires. Like she said about the engine and tranny according to the physics professors the engine typically would go forward with the momentum. Which it did Until it was acted on by the tree and then due to a ricochet was Launched to behind the car. Make note that when something ricochets it accelerates. It is interesting the First possibility she mentions is that he could have been drinking and driving because he was near the clubs on Sunset Boulevard. The second thing she mentioned was that the car could have malfunctioned and then follows that up with something could have been on the car that Triggered the explosion. AND, most certainly Mercedes is going to say that their cars just don't blow up because that would then be a liability issue. Also that report came out from Washington University NOT San Diego. Plus the fact that the report she mentions was the first report saying that they had to be physically connected to it to have control and she never mentioned that part. In her closing statement she said that the LAPD has ruled foul play out of the equation.

If you did or didn't notice she was very careful about what she said. At frame 2:36 she caught herself and corrected about possibilities Not possibility. Kind of like she was going to say something and then changed her mind.

I do think it is fair to mention that she did indicate 2 prime factors in my concoction: Drinking and Mechanical Failure but as she mentioned it is still to early to know until they release the official reports.



as per the DARPA presentation. UW AND UCSD (collaboratively) did reports on the subject of "hacking" a car by remote....and in their second paper, they outline how it can be done WITHOUT physical access to the car. i don't know why you keep saying this isn't true.

ok, so you posit that the engine and tranny flew out of the car, bounced off a tree, and flew 100-200 feet opposite of the initial direction of travel?

surely, you can understand just how unlikely that sounds....i'm not sure where you get an object accelerating after a ricochet, as upon impact, it imparts force upon the object it comes into contact with, thus LOSING kinetic energy, not gaining....so yeah...not sure where that came from..

and yes, alcohol, and mechanical failure were mentioned, as was remote tampering, or some sort of physical sabotage. ie: possibilities. In addition to that, it was mentioned that there were NO skid marks, or anything indicating an attempt to stop, prior to the impact, in addition to the fact that Mercedes has stated that it is waiting to hear from LAPD, so they can work with them to figure out what happened to the car.

if you look into Mercedes, they have a very good track record for safety...

as to the hotness of the fire....

tires ignite at 400C, gasoline ignites at 257C, and burns at between 471C-560C, so if the tires were all doused in gasoline, then yeah, that would probably get them going...but that begs the question of what ignited the gasoline? as i mentioned before, if you have insufficient vapor density, sparks aren't going to set it off, and without an open flame, there is no ignition post-impact either. so what set that off? gasoline doesn't just explode from an impact, like, say, Nitro Glycerine...

once again, i've provided you with another piece of information, only to have you disregard most of it, and make stuff up....
edit on 8-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-7-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Now I can see where your confusion is. She was talking about the 2010 report that was done. That had absolutely nothing to do with anything wireless she said Remote Controlled. The does not mean wireless. If you go back and watch it again, you will see that she said they did it with an IPAD plugged into it. I don't even think they had IPADs then. Maybe that was another piece of erroneous information she provided.

No, the engine and tranny ejected right where I said it did. Go to the other thread and read what WanDash posted. He shows pictures of the burning car and where the engine landed. It was not behind the car like she said it was. It was in front of the car. That was another poor piece of information she provided.

She never said sabotage. She said a device could have been connected. But, all that could mean is that he ran over a tree branch and it got stuck under the car.

In this case the conditions were right for the gasoline to ignite. Don't forget that there was No wind at that particular period of time. The vapor could have had time to collected in a matter of less than a second.

I have made nothing up. I pointed out all of the facts. If you mean my conclusion to the tranny landing behind the car. Well, I offered a very possible explanation. But since we found out the reporter reported an error several times it really doesn’t support your argument.

I have not disregarded it in any way. I am saying that I do agree that the fire was hot because of the tires, and the tranny flew out of the car, and that we already knew that the first paper said nothing about connecting wirelessly.

So I am agreeing with allot of what she said. It just doesn't support your argument and I think that may be where you are confused.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Looking into something.
edit on 9-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Daedalus
...as per this story, the engine and tranny were actually found resting in the OPPOSITE of the direction of travel, meaning, they were actually BEHIND the car.
...

I'm with you on most everything you've put forth in this thread. I think this was a mistake (though you are not the source). I watched the interview, as well, and...(removed by edit)...

I've looked again at the LoudLabs video...and, there is really no doubt (imo) that the engine & tranny continued travelling south, stopping against the curb on the east side of the street...close to Clinton St.
Keep up the good work!
edit on 7/8/2013 by WanDash because: memory fails


Are you saying the news report is false. Do you have pictures of the crash and engine placement or is it in this thread? It's something I didn't notice before so I'm pretty eager to find out exactly where that engine and tranny was....

Thanks

I found a debunking of the engine placement, but the photo of the engine is close up, and the evidence used to prove its location is faulty as its using red paint on the sidewalk, when there is a clear number marker that should be in view but isn't.
edit on 9-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join