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

The final batch (of this sequence)… I actually have the sequence that follows, but am not discussing it at the moment…
Screen Shots 21 through 30…


ATS Big Pic #21


ATS Big Pic #22


ATS Big Pic #23


ATS Big Pic #24


ATS Big Pic #25


ATS Big Pic #26


ATS Big Pic #27


ATS Big Pic #28


ATS Big Pic #29


ATS Big Pic #30

reply to post by WanDash


How the Hell can you see that. I have strained my eyes quite a bit. I can see the point at where the lights go out and the frames before that and after that.

From what I can see, the lights go out on impact and then the explosion occurs. Is that also saying that the engine ejected on impact OR just before impact?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...How the Hell can you see that. I have strained my eyes quite a bit. I can see the point at where the lights go out and the frames before that and after that.
...From what I can see, the lights go out on impact and then the explosion occurs. Is that also saying that the engine ejected on impact OR just before impact?

I use a 30+ inch monitor...
If you download these pics from the "ATS Big Pic" links...and number them in consecutive order...then open the first one in Windows Photo Viewer (or some other such picture-viewing application)...and click through them quickly (or slowly - however you prefer)...you should be able to come to most of the same conclusions as I.
I arrived at some conclusions that I would hope others might be able to confirm or contest (giving another/better explanation).
Once the lights go out...when in the larger viewer, you can actually track the motion & progress of the car by the totally-black shape that continues moving to the tree.

I don't know about the engine.
The object that comes flying off to the southeast (referenced in the earlier "narrative"), that begins its visible flight just prior to the lights going out...is probably the metal utility cover...but, I have to allow for the possibility that it was the engine (don't think so - just have to consider it possible, since it appears to have significant size, and is headed in the general direction of the engine/tranny's resting place).
Aside from that - I'm still having to guess & assume that the engine did not eject until the vehicle hit the tree.
On the other hand...the number of distinct frames from the first evidence of the car hitting the metal utility cover, until the explosion...would suggest that the car was slowed tremendously prior to hitting the tree.

reply to post by WanDash

Before I go for the night...I need to let you see what I'm seeing in the last part of this sequence...

If we accept that the first evidence of "explosion" is likewise when the car hit the tree...then, the forward speed of the car, for the last 25 (or so) feet averaged ~15.51136364 mph...

If that is just too hard to swallow...and we say the car hit the tree three frames before the first evidence of explosion...then, the forward speed of the car, for the last 25 (or so) feet averaged ~20.25974026 mph...

The widest margin I can possibly give...still only allows the car's speed over the last 25 (or so) feet, to average ~23.63636366 mph...

So -- if I'm not entirely off my rocker... if I'm not entirely off my rocker...
Well - I'd rather you confirm or rebut my calculations... ( 'cause, if they are even within a margin of 50% error - I would think you could see what kinds of kinks this might throw into the story)

reply to post by WanDash

When you make a claim like the one in my previous post…the angel on the right, and devil on the left are talking all night long…
Admittedly, the distances travelled in the last sequence of frames (screen-shots) are difficult to distinguish.
The assumptions present in my calculations were based on a rough-handed knowledge of the distance between the “water-pipe” and final palm tree…combined with the “eye & ear”-witness testimonies…and the report derived from Mr. Krikorian’s review of the materials and lay-of-the-land…
After rehearsing these calculations and “findings” all night long…however…I cannot bring myself to accept that the car-speed was reduced by such a factor on account of hitting the metal utility cover, without placing *asterisks*all*around*such*claims*.

In my latest estimations, I believe the car was travelling near 100 mph until hitting said utility cover.
Photos I’ve seen of the concrete block that the utility cover was secured to, do not suggest (to me) that the “cover” would have presented so significant a hindrance, as to reduce the car’s momentum by such a margin.
Likewise – Mr. Krikorian’s review of the footage concluded that the “first flash” accompanied the car meeting the utility cover… And that, the first flash was followed immediately by a “second flash” – which might have been the brake lights (or not)…and that…the “second flash” was followed immediately by a frame that showed “no lights” being emitted from the vehicle…followed by the car hitting and exploding at the palm tree.
Mr. Krikorian gave physical dimensions of: (a) 195 feet past the front door of the restaurant…to where the Mercedes jumped the curb, and (b) 56 feet from the curb-jumping-point to the palm tree.
We can estimate the metal utility cover to be in the range of 25 feet from the palm tree. (I have seen numerous estimations on this site and other reports…and am giving a middle-of-the-road number, for the distance from utility cover to palm tree… It won’t make that much difference, in the end.)

I realize that I may be the only one willing to go through the video footage, attach numbers (distances, speeds, etc…) to the screen-shots, and give calculated-guesses… but …the implications, here, are huge.

If we were to conclude that the screen-shot, where the lights extinguish, is when & where the car first met the tree…we are still looking at a speed of less than 50 mph (upon impacting the palm tree).
Likewise – it is clear that the object flying in a southeasterly direction from the car, has already taken flight before the lights go out. (and – you might notice a significant “cloud” arising at the same time)

So – two problems (at least)…
1. If the “southeasterly flying object” is the engine/tranny…what kind of a crap design would allow such an ejection, by hitting the metal (mesh) utility cover…?
2. If the “southeasterly flying object” is the metal utility cover…and, the car hit the tree at the suggested speed/s…what kind of crap design would allow such an ejection at 50 mph (or less)…?

In either – or both – cases, it would seem that Mercedes has a lotta ‘splainin’ to do.
OR – odd forces are at work beneath the covers.

reply to post by WanDash


Damn,. .. . . ..

I have read through your last 2 posts Several times just to get into your mindset and make sure I understood before I responded.

Let's talk about this speed thing.

My rough calculation puts him at about 90mph ( that figure is based on a Scientific Wild @$$ Guess ). With a final impact at right around 60mph.

Let's say that he was actually going 100mph.

Things to consider for the reduction of speed.

1 - Bottoming out crossing Melrose ( 2-3 times ).
2 - Swerving to the left direction before jumping the curb.
3 - Jumping the curb ( A wheel at a time )( curb appears to be 3-4" in height ).
4 - Loss of traction when solid on the grass.
5 - Hitting the hydrant cover ( NEED to know what it was attached with ( # of bolts holding it down )).

I have tried to consider everything to extrapolate a fairly accurate figure.

Now if we assign values to those 5 items, as far as speed goes, it might look something like this .. .

1 - -5mpg
2 - -5mph
3 - -3mph X 4 = -12mph
4 - -5mph
5 - -10-15mph

Add the figures from the high side of things and you get a reduction of 42mph

Subtract 42 from 100 and you get 58mph

My original calculation of 60 mph is pretty damn close.

When we go back and look at my engine/tranny ejection calculation we are still at around 510 tons of force on impact.

Seeing the object shooting to the left definitely adds some merit to the engine ejection theory.

Honestly, to me, the object appears to be larger than a hydrant cover. Since the engine was the largest object to be ejected into the debris field, deductive reasoning might dictate that it was the engine/tranny.

I also want to add that you are Absolutely Correct about Mercedes having "Splainin" to do.

And on a Small Personal Note .. .. . Did I ever mention the "Sweet Spot" theory?

You are going good. .. I definitely have to issue you an "Atta Boy".

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...Things to consider for the reduction of speed.
...5 - Hitting the hydrant cover ( NEED to know what it was attached with ( # of bolts holding it down )).
...

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond, Shadellac’
I have a photo of the concrete block that the metal utility cover was attached to…that is of significantly higher definition…and gives a better opportunity for inspection – but, it’s dimensions are too big to upload to ATS… So, here are a few “screen-shots” from the 5a55yfish YouTube video mentioned in earlier posts…

But, first – this pic’ of the “mangled” metal utility cover…after it has been moved back to its starting location…

Water-Pipe Cover

Outtake from 5a55yfish video… Leading to crash site. Again – this footage is dated June 20, 2013… I cannot verify that the “tire prints” (or - which tire prints) are those of the Mercedes…(though, the trajectory & path seem appropriate)…

Approach

Another outtake from the 5a55yfish video…of the water pipe remnant and concrete block (with empty bolt holes - looks like 8 of them)…

Concrete Block & Busted Water Pipe

Will be back – shortly.
Thanks!

Originally posted by WanDash
Another outtake from the 5a55yfish video…of the water pipe remnant and concrete block (with empty bolt holes - looks like 8 of them)…

Concrete Block & Busted Water Pipe

Looky, Looky

It appears as though the anchors pulled out as opposed to the bolts breaking. It takes more force to break bolts then to pull anchors out.

So, the loss of force would not have been as great as originally thought.

After seeing that it may be easy to conclude that he actually hit the tree at a greater speed then 60.

ETA:

Does that water pipe look like copper or black steel?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by WanDash
Another outtake from the 5a55yfish video…of the water pipe remnant and concrete block (with empty bolt holes - looks like 8 of them)…

Concrete Block & Busted Water Pipe

Looky, Looky

It appears as though the anchors pulled out as opposed to the bolts breaking. It takes more force to break bolts then to pull anchors out.

So, the loss of force would not have been as great as originally thought.

After seeing that it may be easy to conclude that he actually hit the tree at a greater speed then 60.

ETA:

Does that water pipe look like copper or black steel?

edit on 5-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

The pipe is PVC...
Hard plastic.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...My rough calculation puts him at about 90mph ( that figure is based on a Scientific Wild @$$ Guess ). With a final impact at right around 60mph.
...Seeing the object shooting to the left definitely adds some merit to the engine ejection theory.
...Honestly, to me, the object appears to be larger than a hydrant cover. Since the engine was the largest object to be ejected into the debris field, deductive reasoning might dictate that it was the engine/tranny.
...And on a Small Personal Note .. .. . Did I ever mention the "Sweet Spot" theory?
...

While I understand the consideration of “what factors” could play their various parts in reducing the speed…the guesses I’ve put forth are based on the following:
1. The car enters the video at 14 and 3/8th seconds (+/-)
2. The distance from where the car enters the video to the metal utility cover is approximately 223 feet
3. The car appears to be fully on the median at 15 and 2/8th seconds (+/-)
4. The tail lights begin their elevated-rate of “rise” at 15 and 3/8th seconds (+/-)
5. The lights (head and tail) go out at 16 seconds (+/-)
6. Evidence of the explosion begins at 16 and 3/8th seconds (+/-)
Even if we add an eighth of a second to the “start” and “utility cover collision” points…we’re close to 125 mph…for that 1¼-second stretch.
And yet – as can be seen – the flash of light that accompanies the start of the “explosion” takes another full second to evince.

As I study the footage further…trying to make sense of this – I believe a case could be made for the car hitting the tree 1/8th of a second after the lights go out…
It appeared that the tail lights (thus – the rear end) had achieved their apex in the last screen-shot that they were on…and the rear end was in the process of returning back to earth…and…the first screen-shot of the lightless-car seems to corroborate that the car had returned to earth --- but --- the next two screen shots appear to show the rear-end entirely in the air (as if the front end struck the tree, and the rear left the ground, slamming the roof into the tree)…before the next shot evinces the start of the explosion.

As to the “sweet spot” theory… Yes – virtually “all” odds go out the window when that comes into play. And, of course…that may be what we’re looking at, here. It would seem, though, that “the sweet spot” must have been mixed into more pieces of the puzzle than just “the conclusion”.

And – regarding the object flying southeasterly…appearing to be of greater substance than what we might expect of the metal utility cover – I agree. Furthermore – you’ll note that it continues to “emit” light, even after the car’s lights have gone out…which might be attributable to a quite-hot engine.
(If that is the case, though – then, the “super-heated engine” would not have been in place, to ignite the gasoline… I know, there are also the possibilities of “sparks”…but…just saying…)

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...Things to consider for the reduction of speed.

1 - Bottoming out crossing Melrose ( 2-3 times ).
2 - Swerving to the left direction before jumping the curb.
3 - Jumping the curb ( A wheel at a time )( curb appears to be 3-4" in height ).
4 - Loss of traction when solid on the grass.
5 - Hitting the hydrant cover ( NEED to know what it was attached with ( # of bolts holding it down )).
...
1 - -5mpg
2 - -5mph
3 - -3mph X 4 = -12mph
4 - -5mph
5 - -10-15mph
...

To be clear -- I am with you on the various "losses".
Whether arriving at the same figures, or not... I have agreed from the start that some of these factors should cause a loss of forward momentum (even though - as long as the engine is still going and the accelerator stuck to the floorboard...the car will try to regain any momentum lost, as soon as traction &/or stability are re-attained)...

But - the figure/s I've quoted (though it is certainly possible that I could be "off" by an 1/8th of a second in a couple of places) are simply - "how fast the vehicle moved from point A to point B" (and then, point B to point C).
They do not account for how much speed might have been gained from point A-1 to point A-2, and then, how much might have been lost from point A-2 to point A-3, etc...

While those "losses" affect the average speed from point A to point B...their only effect (as far as we're concerned) is the inspiration of a theoretical question - "How fast could the car have been going, if not slowed by the bump, skid, swerve, grass, and utility cover?"... ... ... ...I think

ETA -- (though not entirely addressing the same subject)
-- In the 5a55yfish video, there are numerous (numerous) screen-shots of and around the tree...to include the curb and street areas where the car sat on fire, and those areas surrounding the same... And -- it as apparent (to me), that the rear wheels were not on the ground, when the car adjusted from a "north-south" alignment, to an "ESE-WNW" alignment. Meaning the car's rotation took place while the rear tires were in the air (or, did not have enough weight on the ground to cause significant disturbance/s).
Likewise - I find it odd that, just past where the metal utility cover would have been situated...there are no deep gouges in the earth/sod...
Why is that important?
If the "cloud" (that is evident in the security camera footage - coinciding with the launch of the "southeasterly flying object") result from the metal utility cover digging into the earth...and spraying turf & dirt into the air...along with its EXIT-Stage Left...there should be significant evidence of that "disturbance" in the inches/feet near or close to the concrete block... But ...I'm not seeing it.
I would further point out that, the 5a55yfish video shows three "curb mounting points", with the first "mount" happening before the two palm trees. Each of these "mounts" is evinced with "white paint".

reply to post by WanDash


Where in relation to the brakes light coming on do you see the plume of dust?

I was wondering, if by chance, when he hit the brakes when the @ss end was in the air and then landed with the back tires' brakes engaged if that would have been enough to create the plume?


Does that make any sense?

I also agree about the acceleration. If in fact he was continuing to accelerate while engaging in the obstacle course, then he would have gained speed after each visit with the obstacles.

I also wanted to revisit the "Bomb" theory . ..

I watched the 5a55yfish a few times. I did notice that there was no significant ground damage that would have been caused by an explosive such as a crater or scaring of any kind ( aside from what the fire caused ). Then I hear one of the guys mention the same thing. If explosives had been used Underneath of the car it would have launched the front end off of the ground and by the same token left a crater. If explosives had been used on top of the engine, the blast would have completely removed the hood.

A Note About Brake Issues. .. .. .

I also wanted to point out a little something about brakes.

Brakes are designed to stop a car as we all know.

BUT, after a car has been traveling at a high rate of speed for any period of time, heat from friction builds up on the rotors and pads. This significantly reduces the braking ability and in some cases cause the brakes to Not operate at all.

I know that contradicts the first point I made, but, I am trying to think about all things equally.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...Where in relation to the brakes light coming on do you see the plume of dust?
…I was wondering, if by chance, when he hit the brakes when the @ss end was in the air and then landed with the back tires' brakes engaged if that would have been enough to create the plume?
… Does that make any sense?

Yes – it makes sense…but…
While I can’t categorically deny that the brake lights are what we’re seeing at that point...and it is certainly possible that that is the correct observation – *** – one has to wonder “why now?”, if that is the case.

The first quantifiable evidence of the “plume of dust” is, likewise, in the first frame that the “southeasterly flying object” is quantifiably evident…which is one frame before “lights out”.
The rear end is still in the air…and the “brake lights” have passed their maximum brilliance (perhaps, going out).

I also wanted to revisit the "Bomb" theory . ..
…I watched the 5a55yfish a few times. I did notice that there was no significant ground damage that would have been caused by an explosive such as a crater or scaring of any kind ( aside from what the fire caused ). Then I hear one of the guys mention the same thing. If explosives had been used Underneath of the car it would have launched the front end off of the ground and by the same token left a crater. If explosives had been used on top of the engine, the blast would have completely removed the hood.

I agree. Not much to add to what you’ve laid out.
The only possibility of “explosive” that I see (other than after/when the car hits the tree & the following fireball/s, etc…) is the point we’re quasi-identifying as “the brake lights”…and…even then, I would only consider it to have been in the cab of the car – not under the hood (unless it were near where the dash and hood overlap).
I, however, do not see the logic in such placement or timing…

A Note About Brake Issues. .. .. .
…I also wanted to point out a little something about brakes.
…Brakes are designed to stop a car as we all know.
…BUT, after a car has been traveling at a high rate of speed for any period of time, heat from friction builds up on the rotors and pads. This significantly reduces the braking ability and in some cases cause the brakes to Not operate at all.

Of course, you’re trying to cover all bases…which is best.
We, however, do not know “how long” the car had been travelling at such speeds.
In fact – if we consider that the car was travelling much faster than the posted speed limit (at the Santa Monica intersection)…and significantly faster than that…when entering the security camera footage – I have to wonder if the “speed trip” didn’t begin just a short distance prior to Santa Monica (maybe one or two traffic lights).
You have to wonder at how long he (or – the car) was actually involved in the antics we have evidence of. (I would think that law enforcement – if they were determined to get to the truth – would have looked at security camera footage all along North Highland Avenue…to see when & where the Mercedes came onto the street, its speed/s, etc…)

and then there is physics.

Was there enough "latent energy, in the fuel, too cause the amount of light seen from the explosions.
remember energy can neither be created nor destroyed.only transfered, from one medium too another.
Light is a product of Energy. along with ,heat,,fire,and other comb. materials.

or put simply,u cant put 5 gallons of gas,, in a 1 gallon can.
What was btu's / jue.

Originally posted by BobAthome
and then there is physics.
... Was there enough "latent energy, in the fuel, too cause the amount of light seen from the explosions.
remember energy can neither be created nor destroyed.only transfered, from one medium too another.
Light is a product of Energy. along with ,heat,,fire,and other comb. materials.
... or put simply,u cant put 5 gallons of gas,, in a 1 gallon can.
What was btu's / jue.

'Twas my favorite subject back in 'school days'.
I suppose that a part of the problem is coming to a relatively sane consensus on the quantity of energy that must be accounted for.
Was the car travelling 125 mph, 120 mph, 115 mph...etc...for the first full second it was in the video footage?
We can get the physical dimensions of the car...add the approximate weight of the passenger/driver, and a few pounds for miscellaneous papers, etc...
We don't, however, know how much fuel was in the tank (though that fireball and the subsequent inferno suggests that it could have been a lot)...
We can take some educated stabs at how much resistance the metal utility cover and u-shaped water pipe provided... That educated 'stab' might play with certain unknowns (at this point), such as - (1) had the vehicle attained a stable equilibrium prior to hitting the impediment, or (2) was it still attempting to regain its balance...? The answers to those would factor into what caused the rear-end to leave the ground...to the height that it did ... ... ... ...

I know you said "latent energy...in the fuel" - and I don't know that I am following your intent...
I would think that most vehicles are designed to insulate the fuel in the fuel tank from as much road & drive energy, as possible...under normal conditions.
So - I wouldn't think the un-combusted fuel would have much more stored, than at any other time.

What are you thinking...?
A combustion-event that did not require a spark or flame or "exceptionally hot surface"?
(I often think that's what I'm seeing, when looking at the video.)

reply to post by WanDash


"A combustion-event that did not require a spark or flame"

then the only thing left , is chemical.

A combustion-event.

A theory? Yes, he was getting to close to something. The big story. There was another person who died of heart failure that comes to mind that was 'removed' before he could do anything else. Andrew Breitbart. He died the day the NDAA was to become the law of the land revised and was working on something that was to 'bring down the Obama administration'. He died of a heart attack and had no known health issues. His coroner...died of arsenic poisoning. In the case of Hastings, they made sure the burn him so there could be no body and one less death to the coroner who dealt with that one.

Now, as far as the car, please watch the following. This is 2 guys and a laptop. If you think DARPA can build robots but not control a car you are deluded. ODBII paved the way for easy access and code. Your car can email you when it needs an oil change. It can be hacked. Just as easy, it can be scrubbed. Watch this video...

Link

It seems he may have been trying to slow the vehicle down and if you watch the video...if someone wants to...they are in total control.

He was killed simply to stop what he was doing and to be a warning to those who were close or also working on things that could expose the current administration and the current affairs of the CIA. Remember, the FEDS visited him the day BEFORE he died. There is NO such thing as coincidence.

reply to post by matafuchs


Welcome to ATS .. .

But,

I think we are looking for a little more evidence to back up theories.

While everyone is Very aware of the ability to control a vehicle with a laptop connected to it, we have pretty much ruled it out as a possibility.

Also, Nearly Every journalist on the Planet is working on a "BIG" story and yet the assassinations are selctive. Are you able to explain that?

Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by matafuchs
A theory? Yes, he was getting to close to something. The big story.
...He was killed simply to stop what he was doing and to be a warning to those who were close or also working on things that could expose the current administration and the current affairs of the CIA.
...There is NO such thing as coincidence.

Thanks for your contribution.
The issue (in my opinion), however, is not what you suspect…but rather – “how did it play out?”
I can spout it was foul play – they knew he had the scoop on them, and shut him down before he could spill it all day long…and gather a super chorus of Amens from the audience (and a few – stupid conspiracy nut job’s to balance it out)…but, until someone can show a logical, rational and reasonably plausible…step by step theory…on “how it went down” … … …under the current set of nuts & bolts facts, the “no foul play” side seems to hold the most water.

You did notice in the video/article you linked that the “car hackers” were “in the car”…?
If we accept that someone could remotely (via Bluetooth, onboard satellite service/s, or otherwise) access the appropriate electronic/computerized systems in the car…they would also need visual/s (if we’re assuming/accepting that they had control of the steering, as well).
Even at 4:00+ a.m., there is plenty of traffic on the streets.
The car had to be navigated at high speed between other vehicles at the Santa Monica red light (at least).
The security camera footage that we have been made privy to…actually had 79 seconds of footage that preceded the Mercedes coming into view…and, during that 79 seconds, three other vehicles passed in front of the camera (two going south, and one going north).

Just as ShadellacZumbrum, I have been deeply involved in discussions on this topic since the day the story became news.
I have read other reports, coming from an academic perspective, which go even further than the claims in the link you provided…
There remain, though, hurdles to clear…for the “foul play” (and “no foul play”) explanation to begin to materialize & take form.
Would be interested in considering yours, should you have one.
Thanks again!

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Thanks, glad to be here....

1. I think we are looking for a little more evidence to back up theories. If we had evidence we would not be having this conversation but the LAPD sees it as an active investigation still.Why...it was just a car crash, right or is someone else curious .

While everyone is Very aware of the ability to control a vehicle with a laptop connected to it, we have pretty much ruled it out as a possibility. Everyone is not aware and no one has ruled it out as a possibility except maybe some of those who are looking in a different direction or do not believe in nefarious schemes. If this was an assassination then it is plausible. Otherwise, they could have blown it up in a parking garage but that is to old school mafia.

Also, Nearly Every journalist on the Planet is working on a "BIG" story and yet the assassinations are selctive. Are you able to explain that? Not too many take down Generals and other high ranking officials as well as get visits from the FED. A guy trying to impress friends with delusions of grandeur is one thing but this guy is documented and cut his teeth fighting the big boys.