As has been stated by the staff of ATS, repeatedly – “Attack the ball – Not the Player”.
I would just as soon there be no participation in this thread…than to belittle or attack others for not seeing things as you (or I) do.
Likewise – categorical attacks are just as incendiary and cowardly.
If you have the legitimate “high ground” on a fact or angle or interpretation…and someone-else (others) does not see it…the point of
collaborative effort is to allow you to “show” (prove - explain) and others to question.
If you don’t care about moving toward the development of plausible theory regarding “Foul Play or Not”, take your ego to another thread that
needs more hot-air balloons.
For any still standing after that tirade, here are a few more “facts” for your consideration.
Was He Going Off-Radat, Or Not?
SSgt Biggs, in an interview with Alex Jones
and another (earlier)
interview with RT
, stated that – after receiving the “going off the radat
he was highly perplexed, and immediately called Michael Hastings’ to see what was up. He said that there was no answer…and, the call was not
returned. How much later, we don’t know, but he said that “later” (on June 17th), he texted Hastings’…and received no response.
To me – under the circumstances we are aware of…this suggests three possible scenarios:
1. Hastings’ was as sincere as possible, about getting off the radar
, when he sent the email…and…had done what such sincerity
would require – being – as soon as the email was sent – he submerged.
2. Hastings did not send the email – having already been abducted by “the bad guys” (being the persons responsible for sending the email from
his smart-phone, laptop, iPad, or whatever). This “explanation” has problems…as – how do we explain the call to the WikiLeaks lawyer, later
(if, indeed, it was “later”)…?
3. Hastings was not sincere, when sending the email – and was using the email as a diversion (sleight of hand) to mask something else…and, to
maintain the façade, he needed to go “into character” immediately…or, the ruse would not be successful.
Of these three scenarios – the first has the fewest tricky-spots to get around…and, to my mind, is the most likely.
There should be at least one person (alive) who could set this question to rest – that being, his wife.
If I were going “off radar” because of concerns for my life (or for being able to perform my work)…I would not consider my wife/family
“safe”, just because I was gone.
In fact – I would be more
concerned for their safety, under such a scenario, and would absolutely NOT have gone “off radar” without
letting them know…something.
We know, from early reports, that the family had/has enlisted the services of a private investigator.
Whether the private investigator is the same as the author of Selective Silencing: Was Michael
…or not – we can only guess.
If you have not read the article, however – I suggest giving it a browse…as, it looks like Mr. Hagmann, who is privy to more information than we,
does not consider “no foul play” as a viable candidate in this particular case.