Michael Hastings – “Foul Play Or Not” – Do you have a plausible theory?

Looks like his hot news story was CIA director John Brennan. If that is not a connection than nothing else is...

Link

There is your why and who...

Journalist Michael Hastings was investigating CIA director John Brennan before his untimely death in a suspicious car accident it has been revealed, with the report set to be published posthumously by Rolling Stone Magazine within the next two weeks.

reply to post by matafuchs


Unfortunately, the only place I can find that story is on New 6 and conspiracy websites.

Kimberly Dvorak has reported faulty information several times during the course of this case, so, for me, her credibility has been shot down in flames. When this makes it to the major media then I might consider some of the facts.

However, this by no stretch gives the "why or who". This logic is indicative of those who are saying he was murdered just because he sent an email saying he was working on something big.

MindBodySpiritComplex posted some recent articles...dealing with some of the matters we have concerned ourselves with, in this thread...you might want to take a look at.

I won't repeat the post here...but will draw attention to a couple of pieces I found interesting in the article/s.

1. The Ron Brynaert article "BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief ignored May 2012 email about possible Hastings probe", dated August 9, 2013...
Brynaert - who had not been particularly "sweet" on Hastings over the last year (or more)...seems a little more interested in the tragedy than most. Interested enough to have offered-up a quasi-theory...that I have not considered (though - I've considered similar theories)...
Here is an excerpt...with the statement of interest highlighted (by me)...

...Biggs blocked me on Twitter after I sent him Direct Messages advising him that talking to Alex Jones would make it easier for the media to stop reporting on Hastings' death, and that I suspected it was most likely that Hastings was spooked by a bogus source, not assassinated...

I won't give "my take" on the theory, now...but, thought I'd throw it out for your mastication.

2. Seems that a number of articles (maybe all three) have addressed the fact that "the family of Michael Hastings" has been consistent and persistent in denying the "reports" that Michael's body was cremated against their wishes, and have, in fact, reported that the cremation was performed at their request.
Biggs claims that Kimberly Dvorak misrepresented what he said... Says he called her - and she claimed that she would rectify the matter...and... Anyway -- that should be that...but...we know it isn't - as many will continue to "spout" this erroneous fact as justification for whatever belief they have established on the matter.

3. Michael Krikorian (the writer whose girlfriend owns the Pizzeria Mozza at the corner of North Highland Avenue & Melrose Place) reports that the toxicology report/s should be ready within two weeks (of Friday, August 9, 2013).
In said article, LAPD Detective Connie White stated that the security camera video did nothing to change the LAPDs initial view that Michael Hastings' death was due to an accident.

Guess that's enough for the moment.
Thanks.

reply to post by WanDash

...Biggs blocked me on Twitter after I sent him Direct Messages advising him that talking to Alex Jones would make it easier for the media to stop reporting on Hastings' death, and that I suspected it was most likely that Hastings was spooked by a bogus source, not assassinated...

I won't give "my take" on the theory, now...but, thought I'd throw it out for your mastication.

Yeah, I stumbled over that one too - my take goes something like this:



link

If this "resonates" give a look to the extended conversation in the link. This tweet is from Sep 8 last year - further down Barret Brown tweets:

there's one more Booz program we didn't learn of until later, will be revealed as finale next year

Four days later he stops tweeting and now faces 100 years in prison. In January Ron Brynaert trolls Hastings into making his Barrett Brown related "be ready to have your mind blown" remark.

Snowden's last employer: Booz Allen

Hastings' last sentence in last pupblished NSA-related article "Perhaps more information will soon be forthcoming."

Jeeez, now I am hearing the clock from the 24 TV show in my head...

reply to post by WanDash

2. Seems that a number of articles

I wanted to point out that not only is there bad information regarding the cremation, but also a misconception about the LAPD changing their story and upgrading the investigation. There are those who believe that the status of the investigation will be upgraded when things become available like the coroners report, and toxicology screen. However, I can say with a High degree of confidence that it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. If the investigation was going to be upgraded it would have been done by now.

Although neither has been made public, yet, the information from those reports was made available to the investigators the second it the results were in. I suspect within a week or two of the accident.

I also wanted to bring Mercedes into the light once again. .. .

It has been several weeks now since Mercedes had indicated that they are waiting for investigators to call them for information regarding this accident. Nothing has been mentioned since. I dont think investigators are going to call them at all. I suspect that they may have been able to tap into the "Black Box".

Now, before I take a whipping over that last statement let me explain,. .. .

About 3 weeks go there was an article in a local newspaper talking about an accident and the local sheriff hooking up their computer to the car and extracting information from the "Black Box". The article indicated that they are also able to get that information sometimes when there was a fire in the vehicle.

I tried to get the link to that article to post here but newspaper doesn't archive their articles past 2 weeks.

Anyways, my point is that maybe the LAPD was able to retrieve what information they needed in the way of telemetry. That might be why they haven't contacted Mercedes.

Just adding more variables to the possibilities.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Reading through the comments on the latest article by Michael Krikorian...I found an interesting tidbit -- He stated - "An old colleague from the Times was with Mike the night before so when I get back I'll talk to him. He doesn't want to communicate over the internet or phone because NSA will be listening in. So it could be interesting.
Wonder if he's saying - June 18 or June 17...?

Regarding the LAPD... I place almost no value on what they are saying either way. I'll just wait 'til more information is available to determine how to weigh it.
I have seen too many instances where those "responsible" for giving "official statements", are more ego-driven than honor-driven...
Could give specifics...but won't at the moment, as it would be lengthy (and you would have to take my word for it - as I'm not going to give "the officials" names, ranks or cereal box numbers) and "off topic".

As to Mercedes' involvement... Again - until I know what the investigators considered, I won't know what kind of stock to place in their explanation/s. So - wait and see.

Originally posted by MindBodySpiritComplex
...

there's one more Booz program we didn't learn of until later, will be revealed as finale next year

...Four days later he stops tweeting and now faces 100 years in prison. In January Ron Brynaert trolls Hastings into making his Barrett Brown related "be ready to have your mind blown" remark.
...Snowden's last employer: Booz Allen
...Hastings' last sentence in last pupblished NSA-related article "Perhaps more information will soon be forthcoming."
...Jeeez, now I am hearing the clock from the 24 TV show in my head...

Booz Allen again...
I know "they are the bad guys"...but, after reading about all these other government contractors, I think they're just a stick in the bundle.
Barrett Brown was the/a spokesperson (public face) for Anonymous... The government raids his place... Months later, he's arrested & charged...and is now in prison (has he been convicted of anything? - did he plea-bargain? - or, is he simply being detained until trial?).
Are they treating him as a "terrorist" - "traitor" - "what"?
At one point Michael Hastings was touted as a "significant" member of Project PM (PPM) that Barrett had "organized" - which was, essentially, a loosely knit agreement among journalists, bloggers, etc...to do "what?". Was it to disperse information that might be more difficult to snuff...if in possession of only one, two or more "members"?
If I had any reason to trust "my" government, before - they have gone to blatantly elaborate ends to destroy any such notion in recent times - and - in so saying, I must realize that...they don't care that you or I know - but rather, are shoving their bloody hands right in our faces, taunting and challenging - "so - what are you going to do about it?".
...
. ... . ...
... . ... . . ... .

Originally posted by WanDash
...The Ron Brynaert article "BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief ignored May 2012 email about possible Hastings probe", dated August 9, 2013...
...an excerpt...with the statement of interest highlighted (by me)...

...Biggs blocked me on Twitter after I sent him Direct Messages advising him that talking to Alex Jones would make it easier for the media to stop reporting on Hastings' death, and that I suspected it was most likely that Hastings was spooked by a bogus source, not assassinated...

In some ways, I can understand coming to such a conclusion/suspicion.

When considering the various "Foul Play" theories...if one goes to the trouble of actually "playing them through"...one comes face-to-face with the daunting reality that - "this" would have to have been a major operation (not a whimsical assassination attempt).

It would have to have been planned and executed like "The A-Team" or "Mission Impossible" might have done...and would surely have needed their script-writers...to ensure that all obstacles were met with the good fortunes of heroic fantasy-land/s.

Would need to have accounted for (or instigated?) Michael Hastings going off radar...and then...luring him out into the open (or - knowing where he was going, before he went - and apprehending him, there ----- but - that's another line)...

In short --- many, many things would need to have fallen like dominoes in a row...for the "assassination" to be successful.

In saying that...it might come as a surprise to consider that - there may be only one "No Foul Play" explanation that doesn't have as daunting a mountain of precision coincidences to "thank"...(else...Michael Hastings is likely, still alive).
The "No Foul Play" explanation I consider to rely on the "fewest sweet spots" or "shortest string of coincidences", is Suicide.
But - though it does not have as many coincidences...some of the "hurdles" it must clear, are as daunting as any other...theory.

So - when Ron Brynaert states that he suspects that Michael Hastings was "spooked" by a "bogus source"...we need to consider if this "theory" handles the obvious hurdles any better (or - with greater odds of success) than other theories.

How is it explained?
This suggests "No Foul Play" as far as physical manipulation of the Mercedes...
Meaning - all the acts of the Mercedes that we have witnessed (on video footage, etc)...were the acts/doings of Michael Hastings...of his own volition, albeit - under duress.

Let's consider
- "being spooked" by a bogus source,
- perhaps drawing Hastings into his vehicle...out of hiding...
- and even, perhaps...into some kind of "who's that behind me?" paranoia...

We know that there was a Police Station only a short distance (within a couple of miles ahead) of where the accident took place...
Are we to accept that he was racing for his life...with total disregard for his life...and/or the lives of anyone-else that might have gotten in his way...to get to the "safety" of law enforcement?

While I posted the comment by one of the reporters for "Coast to Coast" about having seen video footage that showed a "Jeep" close behind the Mercedes (then - when trying to return to the video by saved URL - "error")...one would think that, if this were TRUE...the eye witness sitting at the red light at Santa Monica (and/or the taxi driver sitting there, as well) would have come forward saying - "just after the first car blazed past, shaking our cars like a freight train...another vehicle came blazing right behind..." ----- but ----- no such testimony.

Could they have been "paid off" (so soon)?
Who knows...
That requires at least one more stretch...as, now, we either have to count them to have been potentially-in-on-the-whole-thing, or...there are a couple more people we might want to watch-out-for dying suddenly and unexpectedly in the coming days, weeks or months.

Back to the point - If there was no car close enough (behind) Michael Hastings to have kept him accelerating...how can we justify "terror" as the "hysterical motivation" for the continued...acceleration?
Because - under "No Foul Play" --- if "no mechanical error/malfunction"...then, the speed (and acceleration) were Michael Hastings' doing/s...
And - if "no terror on my tail"...what would cause the continued hysteria?

Just my thoughts.
Would like to consider yours.

reply to post by WanDash


As a former journalist I want to clarify to you that "going off radar" means not being reachable via telecommunications or electronics. It's a saying commonly used by reporters. There is no indication that Hastings was inferring that he was going into hiding therefore your repeated use of "lured out" and "luring him out in the open" is inaccurate.

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by WanDash

 

...As a former journalist I want to clarify to you that "going off radar" means not being reachable via telecommunications or electronics. It's a saying commonly used by reporters. There is no indication that Hastings was inferring that he was going into hiding therefore your repeated use of "lured out" and "luring him out in the open" is inaccurate.

Thanks Nick'
Appreciate your contribution... Implying, however, that one knows precisely what another means by use of words (either written or spoken), is a stretch by anyone's (journalist or not) standard ---- don't you agree?
In my particular profession, where "words" and "language" are the primary (chief) form of transaction - and where, one would think phraseology, terminology and methodology would hold to some universal (or, at least, interstate) standard, I have found with great (though disheartening) consistency, that such an expectation is woefully misguided.
Inaccuracies in reporting, reading, writing, arithmetic, translation, transcription, interpretation, perspective and a host of other inaccuracy-prone-enterprises can abound among journalists, former journalists, and those not nearly as esteemed...I'm sure.
You say "there is no indication that Hastings was going into hiding"...
I say - "there was, likewise, no indication...that he was not"...
So - when you say - "therefore your repeated use...is inaccurate"...
I say - "your argument does not prove your conclusion"...
You may be correct...
I might even concede the point...
But - do you think it makes much difference?

Odd that you would do this, today...as - I received a reply-to-a-comment from a thread (back in February), today...(from someone who just became a member within the last week or two)...to attempt to correct my grammatical use of (sic)... Just - picked one of my few posts out of a 200+ comment thread...highlighted my "(sic)"'s, placed "[sic]" beside each...then commented "sic" is to be placed in brackets.
Of course - I didn't KNOW if they were right or wrong...so, I looked it up...and...the first place I looked (Wikipedia) shows it used both within brackets and within parentheses (italicized in both).
I'm sure that "they" are/were absolutely correct...in their own mind/s...and according to their own experience/s...

Looking forward to your further insights into the matters under discussion...

reply to post by WanDash


The use of the phrase and the connotations that you have given it play an important role in your investigation. I am quite impressed by the yeoman-like work you have done on Hastings death and have followed it for weeks; it is refreshing to read the research of someone examining this through an unbiased prism. In that light, by misunderstanding the commonly accepted use of "off the radar" by journalists (remember his email was to other journalists) you're utilizing "off the radar" as a crutch to establish that Hastings was in hiding and the catalyst for him to be driving at 4am must have been quite important because it "lured him out of hiding." Frankly not only is this patently false, but it is completely unnecessary to include in your investigation; I would argue that it would be universally accepted that the reason for Hastings to be driving at 4:30am must have been important (as long as you can prove that it was not common/routine for Hastings to be driving circa 4:30am).

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by WanDash

 

...The use of the phrase and the connotations that you have given it play an important role in your investigation. I am quite impressed by the yeoman-like work you have done on Hastings death and have followed it for weeks; it is refreshing to read the research of someone examining this through an unbiased prism. In that light, by misunderstanding the commonly accepted use of "off the radar" by journalists (remember his email was to other journalists) you're utilizing "off the radar" as a crutch to establish that Hastings was in hiding and the catalyst for him to be driving at 4am must have been quite important because it "lured him out of hiding." Frankly not only is this patently false, but it is completely unnecessary to include in your investigation; I would argue that it would be universally accepted that the reason for Hastings to be driving at 4:30am must have been important (as long as you can prove that it was not common/routine for Hastings to be driving circa 4:30am).

As stated before - I am willing to concede the point.
What I did not state, however, is that "this particular proposition" is/was just that - a proposition or hypothesis.
I do not doubt that the phrase could be exactly what you've proposed - but, likewise, I see nothing in the text or context of the email that would "rule it out" either.
He was an "investigative journalist"... This label has been used and repeated continually since I was first introduced to the matter. You were a journalist. I was ( /am ) an investigator (when not cleaning sewers or otherwise)...that has worked with many journalists. For me, the interpretation you've given to his statement isn't as "cut and dried".
I might be able to "infer" that meaning...if accepting that - after writing - "I'm onto a big story and need to go off the radat for a bit" and following it with "All the best, and hope to see you all soon" - we consider that the intended recipients of the message are not someone he might bump into through the course of normal day-to-day activities. I, however, only know of two such recipients...and not the entire list...and further, am unfamiliar with many more potentially-relevant bits of information in these regards (including - is/was he an early riser? - does he have difficulty sleeping, and occasionally-or-routinely get in his car and drive-around at odd hours of the night? - was he a vampire? - etc?).
Nevertheless - upon considering your credentials and having witnessed your integrity with other subjects - I will discount the propositional-value I have formerly credited to this "hypothetical puzzle piece" - that (btw) falls under the subheading of possible Foul Play explanations - unless/until I have no other "hypothetical puzzle piece" that will make an explanation work (and this ... might).
If that does not suit your sentiments - please counter.
Thanks again!

reply to post by WanDash


Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hope that I have appropriately communicated that I find your research and hypothesis on this topic to be most impressive; I appreciate your the integrity of your research and analysis.

As I previously stated I've been following your work since shortly after you transitioned to this thread from the other one. I think you're on the right track and I appreciate your open-minded approach you've taken in your writings on this subject. I recognize the credibility you have demonstrated on this topic and that is why I wanted to chime in with my knowledge about the usage of "off the radar"-- simply because understanding that usage will only enhance your research and keep you on the right track.

You mentioned that you are "unfamiliar with many more potentially-relevant bits of information" regarding if Hastings being on the road at 4:30am was uncommon; I'd suggest that it is an important area to explore in your continued research. For example, I am en route to the gym every morning at 4:55am to go workout before heading to the office. I understand that it has been stated by many that Hastings drove like a Granny, but his wife or others very close to him might know if Hastings had a passion for driving fast but only did so at a time when the roads were pretty much empty. Or, perhaps driving at that hour was something he did when he couldn't sleep. Working to understand Hastings various routines will be critically important as you work towards a presentation of your findings as it will aid in making your findings bulletproof from those who want nothing more than to debunk your hard work.

Thanks again for your commitment to investigating this important topic through an unbiased prism; I look forward to continuing to follow the developments in your research.

If it appeared that I was combative &/or defensive with NickDC202…appearances can sometimes be…accurate.
Yes – my ego (best friend & worst enemy) felt threatened, and…rather than simply taking the information offered for the betterment of discussion, I found it necessary to describe how enlightened I am/was…
So – to NickDC202 (and all offended parties) – my apologies.
Truthfully – your suggestion has broadened the scope of considerations…for me.

And, on that note, I would like to re-direct attention to the Ron Brynaert article – “BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief ignored May 2012 email about possible Hastings probe”…
Mr. Brynaert, while initially & chiefly discussing questions surrounding BuzzFeed's handling of Michael Hastings’ death…likewise delves into questions surrounding Staff Sgt (retired? / inactive?) Biggs.

For some time, now, we have either been exposed to arguments (by RT, Alex Jones &/or Kimberly Dvorak) that highlight or confirm the close bond/relationship between Michael Hastings and said Biggs -- or -- with arguments/vettings that claim to relegate “Biggs” to a much-lower-rung in the “circle of close friends, associates &/or acquaintances”.

Mr. Brynaert takes the public involvement of “Biggs” to the source…being KTLA of Los Angeles (Authorship of the article is attributed to KTLA 5 Web Staff)…whom Biggs contacted within two days of the tragedy.
They (the KTLA staff) apparently contacted other recipients on the list of Sendees, and after confirming that said recipients had received the same email from Michael Hastings’ account…ran the story.

My question ------ (and, I must wonder if it wasn’t also Michael Hastings’ question) ------ Would we even know of the email…or the alleged FBI/(Feds) probe, if not for Staff Sgt Biggs?
This was, likewise, a part of Mr. Brynaert’s concern…

So – while we do not know that Michael Hastings was, in fact, in fear for his life – we do see that…when he chose to send an email (coinciding with the 24-hour day that his life tragically ended) to colleagues & associates…warning of potential Federal Agency intrusions/inquisitions…he, likewise, chose to “blind” copy this relatively irrelevant dude (according to some of the more “credible” sources) that (according to Mr. Brynaert’s research, etc…) did not even have a recent or frequent history of communication with Hastings.

If you find no fault (or no outlandish fault) with the previous paragraph…then, please consider:

Aside from Staff Sgt Biggs disclosures…to date…we would not have known of the email…at all!

Be back…later.
Thanks.

Originally posted by NickDC202
reply to post by WanDash

 

...You mentioned that you are "unfamiliar with many more potentially-relevant bits of information" regarding if Hastings being on the road at 4:30am was uncommon; I'd suggest that it is an important area to explore in your continued research. For example, I am en route to the gym every morning at 4:55am to go workout before heading to the office. I understand that it has been stated by many that Hastings drove like a Granny, but his wife or others very close to him might know if Hastings had a passion for driving fast but only did so at a time when the roads were pretty much empty. Or, perhaps driving at that hour was something he did when he couldn't sleep. Working to understand Hastings various routines will be critically important as you work towards a presentation of your findings as it will aid in making your findings bulletproof from those who want nothing more than to debunk your hard work.
...

My greatest weakness (as far as investigative prowess goes), is "dealing with people"...personally.
I have traditionally been able to unravel mysteries that no-one-else could...holding to an unwavering allegience to verifiable facts (doesn't mean I don't consider un-verified facts...) -- while others have easily bested me in other cases, by looking directly into the horse's mouth.
I almost feel like I could approach someone of his family with such questions - but, cannot stand the thought of irritating fresh wounds, either.
Your questions are the same that I have proposed - so, of course, I count them "ingenius".
I recognize that you were just giving an example...but...for clarities sake, would like to reiterate that, the direction Hastings' Mercedes was travelling, would have been more in line with "heading home" than "leaving home". Does not preclude the possibility that he had "left home" a few minutes before...realized he forgot something, and "turned around" and headed back... but ...it is still "something to consider".

As stated before – from start to finish, everything about this story is extraordinary…as if scripted for an Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rambo blockbuster.
Under the paradigm of every-day-living (&/or dying), if paying attention and looking…you can usually identify one or two “what are the odds?” bits & pieces of a story, to spend a little time puzzling over – before they all eventually settle into place, and over time, work to mature into another anecdote, strange tale &/or nursery rhyme of one's conversational repertoire.

We recognize that some of the bits & pieces we are calling “strange” now…may find their respective ways into “expected & ordinary” later, as more/other information becomes available, or as some of the clouding clears.
We have already seen such transitions as certain of the mechanical/physical details of the crash (and crash site) put to rest (logically, though perhaps not effectually) a bevy of inaccurate claims.
And, even accounting for other questions that might be laid to rest (routines, medical issues, psychological issues, marital issues, professional issues, financial issues, etc…), we are left with a story that is – exceptional.

60-70 mph through a red light at Santa Monica Blvd at 4:15 a.m. (or so)…
Heading – not toward the/a highway, but rather, deeper into a business-turn-residential district…
No caution – no slowing (apparent) – while passing through at least three traffic-light-intersections…
(some) Loss of control at/after the Melrose Place “high-rise”…(but…apparently attempts to “correct” and regain control ----- rather than ----- letting the Mercedes go where it will)…
Gradually (in staggered-wheel fashion) mounts the curb to the median – narrowly missing/avoiding two closely-situated palm trees…
Sends a metal utility cover and its ward flying to the southern end of the block…

--- Here’s a fact we need to consider ---
If the frame rate for the security camera footage is at 7 frames per second (fps), 7.5 fps, or 8 fps…the car was travelling at ~28 feet per frame for the first 223 feet (at least) of the video.
IF that is the case, and…we count that the metal utility cover did not offer much resistance (enough to take more than a couple/few mph off of the forward momentum)…THEN…the front end of the Mercedes had met the palm tree in the frame that follows the Mercedes hitting the utility cover.
And – according to my “latest revision” of the interpretation/translation of the security camera video, that is exactly (~ within one frame/screen-shot) where I see the rear-end starting to rise.
That translates to 11 full screen shots from initial impact…to first light of explosion (at the tree).
Accounting with a frame capture rate of 7.5 fps…that would mean that 1.466667 seconds elapsed from initial impact to evidence of explosion. ---

The hot engine was gone…
The electrical system had apparently gone bye-bye a half-or-more second earlier…
What – was he lighting a cigarette…and the match fell from his fingers?
I know – there are other components that were “hot” (brake shoes, etc…) – …but…something to consider.
And – in line with the premise of this post…it falls under the category of “unusual” – or – “not obvious” - &/or – “needs to be explained”.

And, of course – the “engine/tranny” ejection…while physically possible (and perhaps, even, expected – if we knew every detail of the last second prior to explosion)…is still “extraordinary”.

“Flamboyant” would be another oddly appropriate descriptive, for the story.
Was Michael Hastings a flamboyant character?
If so – all of the “extraordinary” circumstances might wash away as par for the course.

Otherwise – what inspired this diatribe…?
Well – we’re back to Biggs.
I know – I may be putting way more emphasis on this than it deserves…but…it has continued to bug me.
In one of the “Infowars” broadcasts, Biggs was asked when he last spoke (&/or communicated) with Michael Hastings. To my recollection, Biggs placed said “communication” at a number of months prior to Hastings’ demise.
Had Biggs felt the need to “beef up” or “justify” his personal relationship with Hastings, in light of the scrutiny that had already started building on the matter…I could see him ‘fudging’ this detail.
Brynaert detailed that Biggs only had a “couple of tweets” from a year or so ago…as proof of “communicative history” with Hastings.
So – THE SPACE ODDITY IS – Why (if the email was as innocuous as many continue to suggest) did Hastings choose to include Biggs (secretly – if you will) in the list of recipients?

…I’ll be back…

This is a RANT…
I know it…and admit it, right here…so you can turn your head and cough or…whatever you do to avoid watching something so unsightly…
(pause)

I go elsewhere (on the Internet) looking for news and/or other discussions on the topic under discussion in this thread…always watching “Recent Posts” on ATS…to see if there is anything “new” to add to what we’ve found (correct errors, add another straw to the pile, etc…)…and oddly (strangely), have found no-one with a discussion that has delved as intimately into the evidence as we. (“We” would include all participants in this and a number of threads that preceded this one.)
Then, today, scanning through Recent Posts…I see a thread title regarding new information (updates) on this tragedy… Of course, I am there as fast as molasses…and start reading, only to find rehash after rehash of news we’ve viewed or discussed for weeks…(some legitimate – but MOST – crap)…and, to my utter amazement ----- THIS CRAP gets more Flags and Stars, with only 8 replies…than this thread has received with two weeks under belt, and 10 pages of thoughtful & intelligent posts behind.
Of course – Jealousy could be the first culprit to point a finger at… But – it wasn’t jealousy that brought my attention to the matter…
Going through the “few” responses the OP had garnered…I see “drone” getting more stars than any post other than the OP… !!!!!!!!!!!
Is THAT --- Is THIS…the real mentality – (intelligence quotient) – of the typical participant on this site?

Oh my!
Sorry…
But, honestly… What’s the use? No-one cares about facts… Just “If it ain’t sensational – we ain’t interested”…?

Anyway -- Back to business as usual.

reply to post by WanDash


It's ok,,, ,, after reviewing the crash scene photo's in detail,
it is my opinion that.
Michel Hastings was dead, in the car. His skull caved in.
He was cremated from the intensity of the accident.
drivers side, wheel compartment, went BOOM.,,took out dash and part of roof with it.
Mr Hastings was dead before car hit tree.

cause ya cant steer with 3 wheels, when the drivers side wheel aint there to begin with.
so drone strike on drivers side wheel,,, its possible.
See ,,,for ,,the life of me. I still thinks its chemical. In nature too produce that kind of Energy,,


old days just loosen the wheel nuts,, but today its always,,kill,kill,kill.

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by WanDash

 

...It's ok,,,

,, after reviewing the crash scene photo's in detail,
it is my opinion that.
Michel Hastings was dead, in the car. His skull caved in.
He was cremated from the intensity of the accident.
drivers side, wheel compartment, went BOOM.,,took out dash and part of roof with it.
Mr Hastings was dead before car hit tree.
... cause ya cant steer with 3 wheels, when the drivers side wheel aint there to begin with.
so drone strike on drivers side wheel,,, its possible.
See ,,,for ,,the life of me. I still thinks its chemical. In nature too produce that kind of Energy,,
... old days just loosen the wheel nuts,, but today its always,,kill,kill,kill.

Thanks BobAthome
I think I agree, regarding the skull injury... I believe it came, however, when the roof slammed into the tree.
The car was evidently balanced on 4 wheels in the screen-shot the preceded the rear-end starting its rise...
There was no "flash" (or - beginning of a flash) for two more "frames"...and the rear-end was continuing to "rise" in both of said frames.
And - in saying "when the roof slammed into the tree"...I believe that is evident in the security camera footage - though, admittedly, one has to deduce the same from shadows, shadow movement/s and the obfuscation of the street light/s that had silhouetted the tree in previous frames.
I don't know about how the fire came about... ...Can only question and speculate.
Thanks again.

reply to post by WanDash

This is a RANT…

It sure as hell is. .. ..

Is THAT --- Is THIS…the real mentality – (intelligence quotient) – of the typical participant on this site?

It sure as hell is .. ..

Jealousy could be the first culprit to point a finger

I think Bloody Likely Not. .. .

I honestly Flipped when I read that thread. I could Not beleive it myself as Everyone seems in a Big Damn Hurry to call it Murder with Absolutely Nothing to back it up

I actually bit my tongue as I am trying to turn over a new leaf, but still, couldn't help but to add just a little something to think about.

Anyways I think it is safe to assume as I suggested before .. . ...

This whole G[SNIP]D Damned thing is Tainted to Hell and back, and IF there is factual Proof presented that it was a "No Foul Play" accident, Everyone and their brother is going to cry foul.

You'll not find me in that crowd because I think my motivation is a little different than the average guy.

I am not inclided to believe that this was murder, but, if there were findings that indicated such with some concrete proof, I might very well change my line of thinking. .. . Right after I verified it for myself.

By the way, did you notice by any chance that the thread with the "Some Seriously Good Updates" died an extremely quick death?

Wonder Why?