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

reply to post by Logarock

Is it even conceivable that his car could have bottomed out enough to have caused a hole in the tank?

Yes most definitely. Especially when he indicated that there were flames before impact.

He also said that the car bounced 3-4 times. So I would need to see all of the scrape marks in order to calculate a somewhat accurate speed.

reply to post by Logarock


The Young Turks... they are awesome

I don't believe he said it was on fire...but rather sparks.

If the car was bottoming out then there would have showers of sparks each time it bottomed.

The does not preclude the additional possibility that he may have been running all out on a flat tire/rim as well. That would also shower sparks like the 4th of July.

Either way it does sound fairly clear cut that do to the speed and bottoming out he lost control and impacted the Palm.

ETA:

Go back and listen to his account closely at 1:02.

reply to post by miner49r


There is a translated version on page 7.

He says that the car was bouncing. Flames and sparks near the gas tank.

He also says:

"The transmission was found a few feet in front of the car".

That's curious. That sounds like second hand information. Not to mention the few feet is quite a noticable length compared to 150-200 ft.

reply to post by miner49r

In case anyone is interested...here is a link to a post by JBA2848 in another thread, where he gives the (or some of the) aliases Jose Rubalcava has been known to go by... The guy has more names than I have relatives!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go to the external link in that post for a little more information...

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Yes, I listened to it.

"I ran to the street to see and ask myself "how will this end".

"When I said that, is when he crashed into the palm tree"

"The car was bouncing, flames and sparks near the gas tank"

"When he hit the palm tree, that's when the flames got higher"

It is completely understandable at the speed he was going that the car did bounce after hitting the palm tree... in fact it swung approx. 60 degrees around.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I am on street view N. Highland Ave.

From where the accident happened to where the engine transmission wound up is almost exactly three city lots.
If a these are standard 60x120 lots then it would be right at 150' to 180' feet from the crash site.

WanDash posted up some excellent ground view shots of where the engine landed by two bent trees and a light post... Wan is spot on with that.

Originally posted by miner49r
reply to post by Logarock

 

...I don't believe he said it was on fire...but rather sparks.
...If the car was bottoming out then there would have showers of sparks each time it bottomed.
...The does not preclude the additional possibility that he may have been running all out on a flat tire/rim as well. That would also shower sparks like the 4th of July.

I remember early in the discussions on this, that someone who said they were an insurance-claims investigator stated that a flat tire - meaning - exposed rim - caused this to come about.
If the car was running on an exposed (or nearly exposed) rim, there would be gouges in the asphalt. I have painstakingly gone through the "approach" video, and found none... Not one.
Likewise - the "published reports" state that there were NO skid marks or gouges...
It seemed to me that the "eye witness" testimony was inconsistent-enough that I don't know how much of it to believe. He was apparently talking to the eye-witness who'd been sitting at the intersection of Santa Monica and North Highland when the Mercedes went through the LoudLabs viewfinder (as evidenced by the testimony of the driver). Maybe he mixed and mingled some of what the "driver-witness" said...in the interview/s.

reply to post by miner49r


One thing that should be taken into consideration concerning eyewitness accounts is, If 10 people witness something not all of the accounts are going to be the same and in some cases some will differ by a huge margin. Basically, witnesses can be unreliable. I think it is just human nature.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by miner49r

 

One thing that should be taken into consideration concerning eyewitness accounts is, If 10 people witness something not all of the accounts are going to be the same and in some cases some will differ by a huge margin. Basically, witnesses can be unreliable. I think it is just human nature.

I can agree with that.

Counting city lots from when the witness first seen the vehicle coming through the light on Melrose ave... I count 6 lots.

6 lots at 60 feet wide would be a total of 360 feet roughly. How long would it take to cover 360 feet traveling who knows how fast?.... probably a few mere seconds. Considering it was 4:30 am, ... an all out surprise and only lasted a few seconds to impact.... stories could differ.

ETA:

75 mph x 5280 feet = 396000 feet per hour / 360 seconds in a minute = 1,100 feet per second

Someone please check my math... I am really bad it.

Originally posted by miner49r
...75 mph x 5280 feet = 396000 feet per hour / 360 seconds in a minute = 1,100 feet per second

Someone please check my math... I am really bad it.

edit on 9-7-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)

That'll be 110 feet per second...
1 mile = 5280'
75 miles in an hour = 396000' in an hour
396000' in an hour reduces to 6600' in a minute
6600' in a minute reduces to 110' per second

reply to post by WanDash


Thanks Wan

So if it is around 360 feet from light at Melrose Ave to the impact site... Jose only had about 3 seconds to take in everything that was happening.

(Assumption of traveling 75 mph)

reply to post by GrantedBail


Interesting story. From just what we see in that video, it seems possible that this was some sort of deliberate act. Not certain, but possible.

As for the police report, though, I believe that it's standard not to release reports when the investigation is ongoing. Certainly, the media won't like that, but in many cases, keeping the media in the dark isn't a bad thing! Not that people should not be informed, but when reporters make early assumptions, as they are wont to do, it can cause trouble later on, if an investigation leads to a case. It's better, I think, to wait till they are done, then release all the information.

That Gusher still has me stumped...

I went to Bing maps and turned up this...not sure what it kind of service it may be though.

Blue man is the fateful palm.



This would be looking from across the street toward the guy with the water hose.
There is no solid imagery date other than Copyright 2012.

If this an electrical service or perhaps phone service it would be easy to understand how the vehicle burst into fire.

ATS Big Picture

Originally posted by miner49r
...Thanks Wan

...So if it is around 360 feet from light at Melrose Ave to the impact site... Jose only had about 3 seconds to take in everything that was happening.
...
(Assumption of traveling 75 mph)

Good point.
I did the same thing with the LoudLabs video of the Mercedes travelling through the intersection at Santa Monica' and North Highlands... From the time the head-lights appear (through some shrubbery in the left portion of the screen) until the Mercedes exits the right side of the screen takes around 1.15 to 1.2 seconds. Estimated the approximate footage covered by the "screen span"...and, including a margin for error that accommodated for the difference between 1.15 and 1.2 seconds and a minor adjustment for "distance travelled", I calculated the vehicle to have been travelling between 60 and 70 mph (probably closer to 70').

So - if the vehicle was moving at 100 mph...Jose had a little under 2 1/2 seconds to take it all in.
Couple that with "shock" factor and "did I really just see that?"...and you have the makings for a lot of conjecture & "explanations".
I have witnessed a crash where two vehicles passed right in front of me, going 85 to 90 mph...
It was a 10 lane highway that was just coming out of darkness into a stretch with a lot of street lamps.
They passed within 10 feet of the front of my vehicle...
Immediately after they passed me, the road began to curve.
One of the cars' (a birthday present to the driver - that day) didn't prepare well enough for the curve...and his right front tire touched it... That was all it took. He went flying (tumbling, rolling, etc...) first off of the highway, then back onto the highway, eventually coming to rest facing the opposite direction that he'd been travelling.
It happened so fast, I didn't recognize it until afterward (had to piece what I had seen together with the stories of other witnesses to make sense of it). And even with piecing it together like that - I can only truly recall it as a recital - not visually.
3 or so hours later, he was finally removed from the vehicle (jaws of life). The guy who'd been in the vehicle right beside me was the first to arrive at the wrecked vehicle. He used his bare hands for more than an hour and a half, trying to keep the boy from bleeding to death, right there, pinned in the car. A few hours later, the boy died in the hospital.
Guess I didn't have to tell the whole story...but - anyway.

Originally posted by miner49r
That Gusher still has me stumped...

I went to Bing maps and turned up this...not sure what it kind of service it may be though.

Blue man is the fateful palm.

This would be looking from across the street toward the guy with the water hose.
There is no solid imagery date other than Copyright 2012.

If this an electrical service or perhaps phone service it would be easy to understand how the vehicle burst into fire.

ATS Big Picture

edit on 10-7-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)

Good find.
That is one of the problems dealing with photos not taken on the same day (or at the same time) as the event/s in question.
As you - I don't know what that is... Looks like there's some sort of advertising (a picture of a lady walking, and swinging a shopping bag, maybe?) on it.
I'm going to have to give it a rest for tonight.
Thanks for continuing to work through this. Your contributions are greatly appreciated!

Its obvious his vehicle was bombed. No mystery.

reply to post by WanDash



It getting late for me as well...but I am on to something here I think.

I found evidence that the Bing street view shot is from around August 2012.

1. Cruise on down to the Mobil Station on the corner of Melrose Ave. and check out the gas prices. They are a bit higher in the Bing 2012 shot than in the G-earth photo from 2011. (76 station as well)

2. Look at the bill board in the Bing 2012 above the Mobil Station. There is an add for ParaNorman - Aug 17th in 3D. ParaNorman made it's Los Angeles Premiere on Aug 5, 2012 at Universal Studios ...Twelve days before the 3D screening.
"ParaNorman" Los Angeles Premiere

and

ParaNorman: Screenings in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City



ATS Large

Across the street there is another bill board for the movie "The Campaign: May the best loser win". Released Aug 10, 2012

May the best loser win.



ATS Large


Looking at the image. it looks like the utility cover was recently installed or dug up in the photo. Notice the how the grass seems to be coming back in. and the lack of grass around the cover it's self.



ATS Large


As to the design on the utility cover I enlarged it and it turns out to be nothing more than badly paint chipped surface.

If I am correct, the crash happened on June 18, 2013 roughly 10 months after this Bing photo was taken in Aug. of 2012

Question is who is this guy and why would anybody want him dead?

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by miner49r

 

Yes but she didn't say she saw it....she was in her house. The guy indicated problems and fire before impact.....and speed...he saw the whole thing.

He also indicated that the car spun around the tree on impact....that its resting place is about 1/2 a turn from the impact point.

So when the guy was filming the burning car from the rear, the car had actually hit the tree on the other side, in the opposite lane and spun around by centrifugal force. That's what the witness indicates, as well as the debris field and the location of the motor.

edit on 9-7-2013 by Logarock because: n

This is what I was thinking (possibility of anyway.)

So far the only evidence of what direction he was travelling in has not convinced me. I was wondering myself if the engine dropped out from the car. I posted a video of partial collisions in another thread. I will post below. Luckily, they even show a Benz 250, and you will notice on all the crashes the front ends crumple as they are designed to on impact.

Even on partial impacts it seems an engine flying from the car is extremely unlikely. Does it launch forward, through the bumper? Or does it launch upward, as up is nearly the only direction to go without an obstruction?

Now, what if it was launched downward, out of the car? If the front of the car was blown out sideways, allowing for the engine and tranny to drop out? If you look on the install of a tranny, it is installed by going up into the car.

I don't want to speculate on what caused it. I merely want to point out, considering all the options, I'd like to make points about alternative ones. Some are beyond stupid, "A charge blew the engine 100 ft away"

Come on... I was thinking as a what if, a charge was planted in between the engine block and driver position. Or at the top section of the engine the front of the car being the bottom.

Check out this IED video from the ME. This is a light armour humvee, you will see a debris field after it's hit, wheels rolling around, and it would not surprise me if you would find engines and trannys littering the ground in a scenario like this:



So, the charge detonates, outward pressure pushes the sides of the front end outwards and the engine falls through the bottom of the car. Is it likely? Not entirely, is it possible? To me, after watching extensive amounts of crash footage, seems more possible than the engine simply flying out of the car on a partial collision.






I think one of the most important things to take into account, is that people are saying the car hit that tree, but it's not showing the