It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...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? was SOOO popular...
Well - maybe it will be back, soon...under another name...or something.
I did like your and JBA2848's take on the break-away-engine, though.
Can you imagine? Mercedes engines flying everywhere...
Thanks for

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 11:40 AM
Perhaps one of the worst aspects of entering into a collaborative real-time effort to investigate a matter, is the fact that all your musings (brilliant, inane, preposterous and just plain wrong) are not only engraved in stone, for all to see…but…might be all that many see (consider).

Who wants to read through 10 pages of back-n-forth banter…to see if the same conjectures on pages 1, 2 or 3 have survived to pages 8, 9 &/or 10?

Perhaps ATS could instill some annotative functions for “active & ongoing” discussions…where one could place addendums to posts, such as “update”, “revision”, “correction”, and possibly “debunked”…that would direct readers to later posts (or – at least, warn them not to grow too cozy with the claims…just yet) for immediate or later review.

But – as they say – “it is what it is”…and, I have a couple of piles of crow still begging to be eaten…from this thread, alone.

A writer – Guy Montag – has put together a lot of good information on Michael Hastings…should you care to take the time.
May give you another view/perspective of the man we’ve spent weeks discussing…
More Lies Borne Out By Facts, If Not The Truth.
I am still reading…so – will be back, later.

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

looks like sch 40 electrical pvc

posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 10:11 PM
ShadellacZumbrum – I respect and appreciate your willingness to have walked this path with me…though we have walked it with opposing tilts
And, while allowing for the possibility of “accepting an answer in opposition – if it meets your criteria for…acceptable”, you continue to strongly hold to the “accident” theory – – which, incidentally, is “how I tilt” to the other side.
What I would desire from you, is a better understanding of/for “why” you are convinced (persuaded) in said direction.
Hoping you understand that – even if I challenge some/any/all of your points with questions…for the most part, it is probably that I’m trying to see if you have something I am missing or overlooking.
(PS: Please do not feel obligated or taxed by this… I will try and work through it as best I can if you do/can not participate.)

I will begin with the following:

With regard to Michael Hastings’ younger brother, Jeff…who was awarded a Bronze Star as an infantry officer in Iraq…Guy Montag quotes Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone reporter (dated August 1, 2013), with…

“…he accepts the obvious and, in some ways, more difficult explanation for his brother’s death: that Michael simply drove too fast and didn’t survive. ‘I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy … There’s no part of me that’s troubled by that.’”

In an earlier post, I gave reason for “why” I lean toward “Foul Play”… I won’t restate it, here…but will qualify it with…but that’s not the only reason I am inclined in said direction.

Historically, I have found that if you find one, two, or perhaps three striking coincidences…that each bear telltale “question mark tattoos”, you need to look deeper.

There are those occasions – those Exceptional occasions – when the one, two or three tattoos were answered by a resonating confluence of circumstances…as you (and others) have called “the sweet spot”.

More often, however – they are not explained with this otherwise flippant phenomenon, and take one down the oft-feared rabbit hole.

As I have iterated more often than I’m sure you care to relive…the question mark tattoos seem to be everywhere…in this matter.

For the sake of this stretch of discussion – I am not counting the engine/tranny ejection, or the distance it travelled, in that category.
If you want to address it – because it lends weight, substance or some other qualification to your reasoning – that is fine with me.

If you (anyone – everyone) care to enjoin this discussion…please know that it will be genuinely appreciated.

For anyone who does not know – Shadellac’ is not uneducated in matters of explosives…and has been a proverbial treasure-trove of insight for me…in those regards.

For anyone-else who thinks they know better…just………pipe up…and I’m sure your contributions will receive their just reward/s (in whichever Heaven you aspire toward

See you later.
Thanks AGAIN

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by WanDash


Firstly I appreciate that you have been so thorough and diligent in this whole matter. I will also state that your work here on these threads stand only unparalleled to those who are actually working the investigation. What you have tried to strive for is to apply unadulterated facts and what evidence is available to extrapolate a "Factual" Conclusion. That in itself says allot about a persons character.

I myself believe in the "No Foul Play" scenario for allot of reasons. For the sake of this I will bare any non-relevant information. This includes the engine/tranny ejection because it has absolutely no bearing on either scenario.

So, .. .. ..

Let's start at the beginning with the emails.

I do believe the email was sent to his colleagues the day before and then called WIKILeaks lawyer on the day in the early morning hours just before the crash.

I also believe, after careful study of the email that he was very careful in what was being said in that email. For example he is Not specific about why they are being investigated, but, talks in a fashion that he may have known that there was wrongdoing in their "News-Gathering" techniques. Make note, that in my opinion, that he may have known that his emails may have been intercepted and tried not to mention anything that could be used against anyone. To me, that appears to be nothing more than a "Heads-Up" kind of warning.

In addition, he mentions going off of the radar, but, here again if he is working on a Big Story, maybe he was giving them an indication that he needed time alone to concentrate on his work. To me that hardly seems suspect.

His call to Jennifer Robinson the Wikileaks lawyer could have been nothing more than to put her on retainer for the aforementioned investigation. Again, I find nothing suspicious about that. People call lawyers everyday to put them on retainer for allot of different reasons.

For some, both the email and the phone call seem to indicate that he was acting Irrationally as he may have been in danger.

I honestly don't believe that he thought he was in danger. If he was, or thought that someone in his family might be, I would think that he would have Never sent that email. Instead he would have been planning an exit strategy of sorts. After all, if you think that you or your family is in danger, the last thing you are going to do is send an email to your colleagues warning them about a "Possible" investigation. So that really doesn't add up for me.

Regarding the LoudLabs red-light video. I find it to be quite sketchy as it is merely impossible to verify that it was in fact his car. I am not saying that it wasn’t, just that it is hard to prove that it was really his car.

There are also many people that believe that his car was hacked. I cannot in my mind fathom that at all. I do not believe at all that this technology exists in a ready to use wireless configuration. I am not saying completely impossible, just completely improbable.

One big damn problem I have with the car hacking scenario is that the individual who first said that he was probably hacked was Richard Clarke. I think this idiot was talking out his @$$. I also think that if he had never mentioned it that it would have Never entered the arena. If you haven’t noticed, those who heavily rely on that as a possibility only think so because they found some information on the Internet about it. Furthermore each subsequent video that is produced regarding “Car Hacking” is only adding insult to injury.

How about those Explosives?

Well, .. . That is a tough cement block to swallow considering that there are so many reasons that can easily explain it away.

A lack of Smell at the scene.
The lack of a Crater.
The lack of Damage to the vehicle and surrounding area.
The lack of residue on the vehicle.

Now, we can all agree that the fire was hot, however, if the LA Fire Marshall had though that explosives had been used, I am certain without any doubt whatsoever that it would have been tested for that very morning while the vehicle was still at the scene. The fire Marshall is Highly trained in such areas to recognize the use of explosives. AND, if in fact there would have been explosives used, the investigation would have turned into a homicide IMMEDIATELY on that day.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by WanDash

Let’s talk about this murder scenario. .. .. .

When you murder someone you want to do it the easiest way possible while leaving No evidence or Witnesses.

If they were going to murder him then why didn’t the “SNEAKY BASTARDS” do something that they are known for like. … . affixing a needle to his door handle that had been infected with Anthrax, or Ebola, or even Radiation? All he would have had to do was grab the door handle and would have been dead in a short period of time.

OR,. ..

Why didn’t they just shoot him?


Why didn’t they just push him out a window and leave a suicide note?

I could go on all day.

The point is that ALL of the ways people are saying that he was murdered are really impractical and would have taken entirely too much effort.

How about if we look at it from an economical standpoint. .. . .

Pushed out the window.. . .. FREE
1 Bullet .. . . $1.29
Deadly Infection through a needle. .. .. . $300
Explosives .. .. .. . Several Thousand Dollars.
Car Hacking. .. .Hundreds of Thousands or maybe Millions.

In conclusion I would like to be clear about 1 very important thing.

If WE could acquire at LEAST 1 piece of evidence that would lend weight to the “Foul Pay” scenario, I might very well be inclined to lean in that direction.

I hope my explanation offered herein is what you are looking for.
I also hope that you can find something here that you would find useful.

Keep looking. . I know I am.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Thanks - Didn't expect a reply this quickly...
Hope to be back in the morning.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Thank you Again for taking the time and effort.
Hopefully, we can continue to move this forward…even if only a millimeter at a time.
I have summarized (immediately following) your talking points from both posts into 6 categories. I will address the first 5 in this post… If you see an error or consider some “categorization” to be inaccurate or insubstantial…please let me know.

1. Email & Call to Jennifer Robinson
2. Mercedes not verifiable in LoudLabs video at Santa Monica Blvd
3. Car Hacking
4. Explosives (Integrity & Professionalism of the Investigators)
5. Hot Fire (Integrity & Professionalism of the Investigators)
6. If Murder … Why this method…?

Of the points you’ve raised, I am guessing that some minimal values were assigned to … we cannot verify that the Mercedes travelling through the red light at Santa Monica’ was the same Mercedes “on fire” in the subsequent footage …since… the odds are strongly in favor of – “it was the same one” (unless Hollywood is trying to pull a “fast one” on us – which possibility remains at the top of my far-fetchedest considerations).

Likewise – to your point regarding anyone considering/questioning “car hacking”…I must take issue (personally), as it was my first suspicion – which was prior to anyone-else’s attempt to add it to the discussion/s.
Not saying that is what happened – just that I would have to knock a couple of value points off your argument, since, personally…it was invalid.

It appears (to me) that your reasoning & rationale hold no regard for coincidence/s…
In a way, I can understand &/or even agree with this approach…because…they…are unquantifiable qualities.
Five people could say “he drove like a grandma”, and someone-else…from some far-away county…might say “well – it wasn’t that way when he was around me”…
So – how do you quantify that information?
How do you apply its value to the equation?

In your point regarding the email…even if counting “going off the radat” to have been intended to convey the same as (& nothing more than) electronic-data-cellular incommunicado, and that there was “nothing any more unusual about the email, its intent/s or content than might be expected or practicable if he was genuinely concerned about the topics related”…I don’t see how we can get around the strangeness of its recipient list.
I would like someone who has considered my argument & points in this regard…while coming to another conclusion…to address how or why they/you don’t count that “a red flag”.

I can only ascribe a minimal value to the news of the call to Jennifer Robinson.
We have not been told “the exact time” of the call…or even, the exact date…
And, other than the report that he told her he was being investigated by the FBI (I think)…we know nothing more.

Your knowledge and experience with explosives and/or fires…and my lack thereof…preclude me from discussing or contesting anything further than “what I witness”…and…I see no evidence of explosion/s prior to the tree.
And – aside from how long it took for the “explosion” to ignite (and/or what ignited it)…I don’t even know what questions could/might be asked to further that discussion.
My difference with your take in these regards, is your apparent trust in the integrity, ethic and skill of these “official capacity investigators”.

I will address your second post regarding “why Murder?” shortly…and address the “coincidences” component, as well.
Much of what you have proposed in the ”why Murder?” segment…is what tames my “Foul Play” inclinations…to about 51%. So – as you, I consider it worthy a separate treatment from the above.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:31 PM
I'm just curious, is there any proof that his car was controlled remotely or is it just all speculation based on speculative proof of concepts?

I really haven't been following this whole thing but been hearing bits and pieces of it and just trying to draw my own conclusion based on the facts at hand and other previous accidents like this.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Laxpla
I'm just curious, is there any proof that his car was controlled remotely or is it just all speculation based on speculative proof of concepts?
...I really haven't been following this whole thing but been hearing bits and pieces of it and just trying to draw my own conclusion based on the facts at hand and other previous accidents like this.

Good question.
At this point - there is no such proof...only speculation based on proof of concept.
One would expect, however, that based on the fact that the LAPD is holding to their claim that this was "just an accident", that they have identified no such "proof" either.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Laxpla

is there any proof that his car was controlled remotely

That is a tricky question.

At the moment there is absolutely no proof. However, if there has been access gained to either the telemetry transmitted to EMBRACE ( if he had the subscription ) or through data retrieved from the "Black Box" (by the LAPD), I believe that we would know for certain.

The outside connection, namely the IP, would have been recorded as well as any Digital Inputs that the vehicle was receiving.

Although there has been allot of information posted, as of late, about "Car Hacking", no one has actually proven that it could be done remotely. At least not to my satisfaction,, but, that’s not saying allot, its just my opinion.

edit on 18-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 02:51 PM
Thanks for the response.

Right now I'm leaning on it being just an unfortunate accident, there's really no 'wow' factor.

The family and his wife said that it was an accident, and a car bursting into flames is not that uncommon during high speeds. Like when Ryan Dunn crashed his Porsche at high speed, engulfing him and his car in flames.

I drive a 2013 SLK350, and let me tell you when you put a Benz in sport mode it adds a few pounds to your feet so I can see him driving fast. I'll keep an open mind. I mean, it's not unheard of high speed accidents happening when someone needed to be killed off.

The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development. Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43. One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident. The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially "died of thirst" while traveling east of Riyadh one week later. And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan's Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly North-West Frontier province, along with his wife and closest confidants


posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

While I agree with the general gist of “if THEY were going to murder him…why choose such outlandish methods?”…we might want to tone that down with – “cutting the brake lines is a verifiable method that has been used for many decades” (though, admittedly, its effectiveness requires more mountainous, hilly or exceptionally curvy environs) and “car bombs remain such a method of murder” (though, the odds appear to be against said use in this case).

I loved your “mosquito sized drones carrying heat-seeking missiles” observation.

(…another thread…)

I can go (again) into the many hurdles for why “Foul Play” is a difficult proposition to establish in a manner that is easily digested and generally accepted as “plausible”…but…I am already well aware of them.
As they say – It is much easier to debunk something…than it is to prove something.
And, while you devoted a significant effort into showing a plausible explanation for “No Foul Play” in your other thread…you did not place the same values on some of the “facts” that I do – and, until we have evidence that shows your or my or another value should be affixed thereto…we will continue to arrive at differing conclusions.

For “No Foul Play”…and considering what we *know* (asterisks to allow for the limited credibility Shadellac’ suggests should be given to the LoudLabs red light video) of the final minute/seconds of the Mercedes’ ride…there are only three explanations I count possible:
1. Death Wish
2. Hysteria (Terror)
3. No-Control (mechanical failure, sleep-driving, drug-induced)

Of these three…I really only find two to remain plausible after considering the contextual evidence…
1. Death Wish (total abandon – including regard for anyone-else’s life &/or property)
2. Sleep-Driving (in a dream state…and you know how strange that can be)

As to “drug-induced” under a “No Foul Play” explanation…it’s hard to imagine someone getting so much drunker…or so much drunker & stoneder than ever before…the same evening (or – following morning…we really don’t know, yet) as sending the email & calling Jennifer Robinson…to the tune of entirely abandoning all bounds of decency and civility, with regard to his own and anyone-else-who-might-get-in-the-way’s life/lives and property.
That is obviously an opinion…and, on top of that, I have no facts, studies or illustrations to attempt to justify it with…

But…rather than work at contesting your views, I’m just going to let them settle for a while…

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by GrantedBail

Journalist Michael Krikorian who released a copy of the Mozza surveillance tape has stated in the comments section to one of his blogs (Hastings Tox) that MH was with an old colleague from the Times the night before his death. Krikorian is on extended Italian vacation. Says the "old colleague" is afraid to be interviewed by phone or email.
If the reported location of MH home is correct, it would seem traveling southbound on Highland at Santa Monica would be returning home. MH should have turned west on Melrose to get home.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

Thanks for all your info. I have found the LL video helpful, but strange as well. By comparing the dash cam part wich is about 25 min long to the part that is primarily Hand Held video, with a few seconds of Dash Cam video added at the beginning, it becomes apparent he stopped the video or edited the video numerous times. I noticed you stated the security patrolman got in his vehicle and moved it for arriving LL. Actually he is outside the vehicle. Both then and again when security vehicle moves for the arriving fire truks. Do security guys usually work in pairs in LA?

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 07:15 PM
There is only one guy on these forums that I believe what he says by just his word, and it's Bedlam....he knows his stuff. You can read his past posts and you'll understand why I trust his word so much. I'm still not convinced about the whole conspiracy, but I decided to search some topics on taking control of a car and if it was possible and he chimed in on one of the threads.

It's absolutely true you can fiddle with auto bluetooth. At one time there was a way to listen in to your car's interior BT mike from the next car over, you just had to stay real close in the chase car.

As far as that goes, I've seen a program that could dump the info from your cell phone by exploiting the BT stack.

I've seen demos of taking over auto systems by installing a module onto the car's control bus. You could fiddle with the brakes by issuing ABS and stability control commands and on some cars you could command wide open throttle too. All you needed was to snap a little plastic widget into the diagnostic port. It looked like any other car module, you'd never know it wasn't supposed to be there.

edit on 18-8-2013 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2013 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Laxpla
There is only one guy on these forums that I believe what he says by just his word, and it's Bedlam....he knows his stuff. You can read his past posts and you'll understand why I trust his word so much. I'm still not convinced about the whole conspiracy, but I decided to search some topics on taking control of a car and if it was possible and he chimed in on one of the threads.

Thanks again, Laxpla
Nice to see someone digging to answer their own questions.
When you say you're still not convinced about the whole conspiracy-(side) of the story -- that is entirely understandable. I'm not ENTIRELY convinced either. In fact, I may argue more against various conspiracy propositions...than for --- and yet, I lean, admittedly, at least 51% in that direction.
A "good job" as a professional conspiracist...where "a message is being sent"...might be measured by how "split" the galleries remain...and for how long...and even what effect "the message" had/has on its intended audience.
I worked a case once...where the largest newspaper serving a certain region of the U.S. and a huge law firm placed their names and reputations on the line (front page article - huge reward - etc...)... Six months later, I walked in with the only evidence EVER FOUND in the case --- which PROVED that the real story didn't go in the direction they had expected (and broadcast)...and...they initially applauded me, slapped me on the back...offered high congrats, spoke of "our future/s together"...then...grew invisible.
Why? - well...I won't specify, here.
Thus - I don't run away from a story...because the official line...sounds official.
Unless you have inside information (that is missing or hidden from the rest of the interested public), I don't see how anyone honestly considering this story could be totally convinced in either direction...yet.

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by WanDash
...Of these three…I really only find two to remain plausible after considering the contextual evidence…
1. Death Wish (total abandon – including regard for anyone-else’s life &/or property)

Devil on the Left or Angel on the Right ???
Sorry, WanDash...but...I have a problem with this statement.
You have already posed that the manner of driving over the final mile or two was evidence of "concern for life" (at least his own, and probably others), as the Mercedes deftly roared past (between or outside) at least two vehicles at the Santa Monica red light.

Okay - so...just place asterisks around the qualifier!

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 09:48 PM
Doesn't matter what the prevailing theory is.

When you get too close to the truth, and at those levels of agency operations where you become a "potential liability" they have a number of ways to eliminate you, most are done in ways that no one would ever be suspicious, others are just overt enough to send a message.. And in this case investigative journalists were given a clear message...

Any car with computer systems and a sat/com interface can be set at 100% throttle, the transmission locked in OD, the breaks in ABS slip mode, the ignition (remote start functions are in most vehicle system software) disabled.

You have a vehicle that is literally running away at top speed, little to no breaking, cannot be removed from gear, and cant be shut off... Do the math, there is only one way that can end.

Tragic accident tied to many coincidences... Too many to not notice, and yet... No way to prove a thing except that the driver failed to control his vehicle.. End of story.

It can happen to anyone... Anyone!
edit on 18-8-2013 by ausername because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by ausername

Tragic accident tied to many coincidences

That is definitely true. Kind of an OddBall actually.

No way to prove a thing

That is very true also. You are definitely right there, there is no way to prove it was murder.

Wouldn’t that lead you to believe that since there is more evidence that suggests it was either mechanical failure or operator error, that it is more than likely that it Was either mechanical or operator error?

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in