Channel 6 Investigative Reporter On Michael Hastings. Police and Fire told NOT to comment

reply to post by WanDash


Hmmm... Okay, you're going in a direction completely aside what I'd really considered or heard others talk much about. How distant can a Mercedes ECM signal be detected to even register, let alone be worked with to hack?

So, we'd be talking about losing control by outside caused means, but no direct influence. Just changing what the car ITSELF was doing by orders of the ECM. That's a sobering thought.

I just had a thought..... ( it happens )


Lets apply a litmus test to the agencies involved.


Would the LAPD take responsibility for releasing information of skulduggery that would be the next potential blockbuster (National/International) headline of corruption by the FBI/NSA and give the United States another hard blow?

-OR-

Would the LAPD find the easiest explanation such as a prior medical condition, trace alcohol or drugs, vehicle malfunction, ect as the most probable cause and close the case right then and there.... dodging a bullet so to speak.

If they did release information of skulduggery with huge implications I would have to drive the 1100 miles down there and hug an LAPD officer.

reply to post by miner49r


I think there would be too many people make a ruckus over it.

They would have to ride it out at this point.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by WanDash

 

...Hmmm... Okay, you're going in a direction completely aside what I'd really considered or heard others talk much about. How distant can a Mercedes ECM signal be detected to even register, let alone be worked with to hack?

So, we'd be talking about losing control by outside caused means, but no direct influence. Just changing what the car ITSELF was doing by orders of the ECM. That's a sobering thought.

I really can't answer that (how far said signal travels)...but, it would seem to me that, if the MBRACE system can connect with the vehicle virtually anywhere on the planet... ... ...then...it is accessible...anywhere on the planet.
Now - there might be a couple of ways of accomplishing this -- (1) someone seizing control via said connection for the brief span needed to accomplish the task, or (2) downloading a bug/virus/application that seizes control, then performs its duties.
Of the two - it would seem to me that the only one with significant margin/s of success...would be for someone to have eyes on the vehicle...to the end. Could be that they would only need this "surveillance" until the "virus" had been set in motion.

A possibility -
He is followed but unmolested until he's off the freeway...and in a much "trickier" setting.
The "virus" is triggered by something as innocuous as applying the brakes at the first intersection encountered. As soon as they see the "virus" take effect, they turn off...travel a few blocks over...and wait for signs of tragedy.

If control of the steering was not a part of the "program", and this had taken place while still on the freeway - there is a possibility that he could have driven until the vehicle ran out of gas...or into one of those water-barrel dividers...or until he attracted the attention of CHIPS (or some such). If you wait until he's off the freeway to initiate - chances grow very slim that he'll escape unscathed.

The weakness to such "theory", however, is
- they need the fire to destroy
- they really need for him "to die" in the accident
(These are also weaknesses in the suicide theory.)

So - you see - I can't side with either "suicide" or "remote tampering", at the moment. They both require the fire, and that the Mercedes' safety system is not up to the challenge. (Meaning - other speculative facts would have to be present to give them substance.)

I did read that a race-car driver (very recently) driving a new Mercedes, lost control at 170 (or so) mph into a water-barrel embankment...and got out and walked away.

I found a news article about a day old that talks about car hacking/jacking

DETAILS OF REPORTER HASTINGS' DEATH REMAIN ELUSIVE

In the last section titled "Disturbing details surrounding the actual accident" it gives some links to a research project and whitepaper

Maybe owning a beater truck isn't so bad after all.

I have a fairly important piece of information to add.

I called EMBRACE a little while ago.

I asked them if I could get some information on their system. Immediately they started asking my account # and I told them I didn't have one but I was interested in getting the system but I had some questions.

So they passed me to their registration department. The first thing they did was asked my account # and I told them the same thing. Then they asked what questions I had.

I told them that I had a copy of the manual and that I was wondering what information is transmitted on impact in the event of an accident. They told me they didn't know what I was talking about. I mentioned again that I had a copy of the manual and it clearly states that electronic data is recorded and it transmits in the event of an accident. So I asked again what data does it record? They said that it doesn't record any data. So I read it to them right out of the manual word for word.

The woman asked where I got the manual at because apparently someone had made some unauthorized changes.. . . Huh? . .. .

I told her that I downloaded it right off of the Mercedes web sight. Then she said Oh, .. that explains it, you probably downloaded it from a website that looked like it was Mercedes.

Now being really confused I gave her the web address. She tells me again that the system does not record any information. I tell her again that I read it to her right from the manual and she repeats that I have a bogus copy of the manual.

Then I said o.k. thanks and hung up.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, I copied and pasted it right out of the manual that came right from the website. I know that I am not seeing things because I opened the manual and read it right to her.

So what gives?

What the hell gives?

I have the number if anyone wants to call but I am not going to post it here for fear of a TOC violation. So if anyone else wants to try send me a U2U.

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by gorgi
They dont comment because its an on going investigation. Its always like this. Just because you dont get the answer you like doesnt make a strange conspiracy.

Pick any major incident (killing sprees etc) over this last year. Then, count how many times "they" have come out with names pics and other "evidence" of the people they tell us committed said crimes before the accused even get a trial before a judge and jury. Why don't they ever refuse to comment then? (these days)

Things are truly backwards right now. "They" don't even say things like "this is an ongoing investigation and we cannot comment at this time" unless it's to cover up massive corruption which is being exposed more than ever now.

You don't see anything wrong with this picture?

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

Then again, perhaps "they" just have no clue.... I am not one that assigns omnipotency to our governments. I tend to believe they are, for the most part, overpaid buffoons who are incapable of even performing 8 hours worth of work in 8 hours, and would screw up almost anything they touch. This is one reason I tend to laugh at most conspiracy theories that are proposed within seconds of an event. I tend to be skeptical first, and when specific, genuinely insightful, questions have no answers then I become suspicious.

I have had too many dealings with the federal govt to believe that, other than red tape, massive waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy, that they are actually capable of doing something that requires efficiency and secrecy. The one exemption to that statement, unfortunately, is our military which is very competent at blowing stuff up. Not always efficiently, but very effectively.

Regarding the use of a drone I discount that aspect totally due to the condition of the car which shows no evidence (visually) of being "exploded" by any munitions. If hit by a missile that was incendiary in nature there would, at least, be evidence of penetration, which I have not seen.

If the gov is involved in this, it is not with missiles and drones, but something a lot less obvious.

Originally posted by liveandlearn
This is from examiner.com and I don't know about their reliability. The paragraph prior to this linked to City News Service which requires subscription.

An eyewitness at the scene, Jose, employed at nearby business ALSCO Inc said, the car was travelling very fast and he heard a couple explosions shortly before the car crashed.

If true, it is being kept very quiet but certainly makes sense with the heat of the fire.

I heard his interview, unless there is more than one, and I didnt hear him say a word about explosions before the crash. This appears, at least, as pure and utter garbage reporting.

reply to post by bbracken677


If I remember correctly, he said something like the car was bottoming out and there was some kind of fire or sparks before the impact with the tree.

Originally posted by WanDash

Sometimes - all we need is for someone to show us the KISS answer...
Usually, however, KISS answers are only claimed, and discussion migrates to derogatory comments of ridicule and contempt. (from all sides)
If you don't have time to put such an answer together - no problem.
Looking forward to 'next time around.
Thanks![

For me, one who has questions and doubts, the KISS answer is that when traveling at high speeds if one even touches a curb, nothing good will come of it. The steering wheel jerks in the direction of the curb and uh oh.. Add to that 4:30 AM (was he up all night, or was he an early riser?) and again you may have a situation that lends itself to accidents.

The questions I have which I think are important before going further with conspiracy theories are as follows:

What was he doing on the road at 4:30, and where was he headed?
Had he been up all night?
Had he been drinking or using recreational drugs?
His, out of context, messages, as reported, indicate paranoia.... Was he the kind of person who had paranoid tendencies or was he normally level-headed? Only his closest friends and business acquaintances would know (and his hair dresser) for sure.
What the heck was he working on and how damaging was it, and to whom? I have heard some ideas tossed around, but nothing concrete, that I am aware of.

The true answers to these questions will either lead to conspiracy, or to just a normal type accident.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
I have a fairly important piece of information to add.
...I called EMBRACE a little while ago.
...she repeats that I have a bogus copy of the manual.
...So what gives?
...What the hell gives?
...

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Of course - she could simply be outsourced Help...and this doesn't fit within the purview of her "job description".
Anyway - welcome to Premier Customer Service 2013!

Originally posted by miner49r

Two, the Mercedes-Benz C250 is a rear wheel drive vehicle. In order to eject the engine and drive train it would have had to rolled. But, in the early video, the roof line seems intact compared to an undamaged model of the same year. Also of note the hood can be seen along with the vehicle where it came to rest.

Not true, the part about "have had" to have rolled. Forward momentum is a beeaatch at high speeds.

The engine did not wind up "behind" the car, as in: in the direction he was coming from.

Originally posted by WanDash

This, in conjunction with the fact that the engine would probably NOT have found a clear path out of the vehicle otherwise, suggests (to me) that, upon impact, the rear end left the ground in such a manner that the hood/top of the car slammed into the tree...then, fell back to the ground slightly askew to the original angle of impact.

The rear end jacking up in the case of a collision such as this is to be expected. I have witnessed a collision between a car, that passed me at a high rate of speed, and a vehicle that was sitting still at a red light. The car that passed me never applied brakes and smacked the hell out of the vehicle at the light. I saw, in total clarity, every detail of the underside of that vehicle as it went up, and then back down. Almost became vertical, nose down...what was left of the nose that is.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Srape Marks were left on the pavement when the vehicloe bottomed out crossing the interesection at Melrose I think.

reply to post by WanDash


Yes it may be outsourced but for her to tell me that I have an bogus version of the manual threw up red flags all over hells creation.

reply to post by bbracken677


Indeed it has already been pretty much concluded that the engine/drive train was ejected in a forward lateral motion upon impact with the tree.

Also, the erroneous report of the engine being behind the accident scene was busted as bad reporting.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by bbracken677

 

If I remember correctly, he said something like the car was bottoming out and there was some kind of fire or sparks before the impact with the tree.

I do concur...

That was my impression of Jose's account as well in the Live Labs video. The vehicle seemed to be bottoming out before the crash.

I would say this would be consistent with an extremely high rate of speed in a 35mph zone and crossing over the curb as well.

Originally posted by bbracken677
...For me, one who has questions and doubts, the KISS answer is that when traveling at high speeds if one even touches a curb, nothing good will come of it. The steering wheel jerks in the direction of the curb and uh oh.. Add to that 4:30 AM (was he up all night, or was he an early riser?) and again you may have a situation that lends itself to accidents.

KISS - yep - that is certainly keeping it simple.
Your treatment of the "4:30 AM" question, however, may not fit within the parameters of KISS...then again - it may.

...What was he doing on the road at 4:30, and where was he headed?
Had he been up all night?
Had he been drinking or using recreational drugs?
His, out of context, messages, as reported, indicate paranoia.... Was he the kind of person who had paranoid tendencies or was he normally level-headed? Only his closest friends and business acquaintances would know (and his hair dresser) for sure.
What the heck was he working on and how damaging was it, and to whom? I have heard some ideas tossed around, but nothing concrete, that I am aware of.
...

One thing we don't know, that is directly related to each and all of your questions -- deals with his conviction of the contents of the email message (since we don't know what was said to the Wikileaks attorney).
In my opinion - if drugs (and/or alcohol) were involved...an extensive indulgence could have resulted in paranoia, as you suggest.
His ability to handle previous threats (from military personnel, at least) seems to rule-out the notion that, under normal circumstances (for his line of work), he was flippant or easily rattled.
I have seen men do some fairly out-of-the-ordinary things, however, in the middle of a two-(or so)-day drinking binge... so ...
According to his wife - his latest (that she vows to complete) involved the current Director of the CIA.
According to some reports, his alcohol &/or drug problems were ten years behind. No way we can rely on those statements, however...just - something out there.

Don't know if anyone has said this yet but..........It the engine and transmission were separated from the car.......before impact with the tree back down the road......then there must have been some sort of explosion that separate the engine and transmission.......after that the car drifted down the road at high speed before impacting the tree.

Thoughts.

reply to post by Logarock


This is simply IMHO but if there was an explosion strong enough to separate the engine/drive train from the vehicle it would have most likely lifted the vehicle off the ground.

At such a high rate of speed it is doubtful the vehicle would have continued on and directly impacted the tree head on without rolling.

WanDash presented a photo of the roof being caved consistent with vehicle striking the tree head on and the rear end leaving the ground enough to cave the roof around the tree before coming to it's final resting position.

In right and left photos of the crash scene the body seems to fairly intact without major dents or evidence of rolling. The only evidence of body damage outside of the obvious impact seems to be on the passengers rear quarter near the gas tank fill cover.







Photo courtesy of WanDash



Mercedes crash test submitted by JBA2848