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

reply to post by matafuchs

it was just a car crash, right

Yes, definitely and that is why I am here trying to dispell the myth of assassination

Everyone is not aware

Please allow me re-phrase that. ..
Everyone on ATS is aware. If you do some searches you will find a Boat Load of information regarding "Vehicle Hacking".

get visits from the FED

Are you aware that the FEDs have denied that visit?
Do you know the intended purpose of that supposed visit?

Also, if you would like, I can post links to some of the other threads that we have "Worked" on regarding this Michael Hastings conspiracy.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Why are you trying to prove it is not an assassination? Just curious...

And sorry, I am new but are you the spokesperson for ATS by saying everyone on here knows? You remind me of those who say everyone knows 9/11 was a govt psyop I read about so often

Oh, and the FEDS denied it..go figure. Ask that kid in Orlando who got shot how honest they are...

reply to post by matafuchs

Why are you trying to prove it is not an assassination?

Because I think he was a victim of a Series of Unfortunate Circumstances. I honestly do not believe the he was murdered.

are you the spokesperson for ATS

Absolutely not a t all. However, if you did a search and looked around you would find that there are numerous threads with a ton of responses about the whole "car hacking" issue.

I think at this point it is very safe to say that Everyone on ATS is pretty damn familiar with car hacking by now.

everyone knows 9/11 was a govt psyop

If it is a matter of semantics then yes Everyone on ATS knows that 911 was a govt psyop.

Everyone Except for me. I have a completely different opinion on that than everyone else that I won't go into here.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I am quite aware how the search function works but we are discussing this thread, not others. If you start to refer to other threads you will lost the point and validity of this one which seems to be your goal. We are all entitled to our opinions and I think that is what the thread is inviting. Do you have a theory not can you debunk our thoughts and ideas.

Not everyone knows a car can be hacked. Never assume anything especially in these forums from what I have read and searched. You sure sounded like a spokesperson though...

This thread is also not about 9/11 so we can leave that for another forum but please, in this thread, tell me why he was not murdered? What is your reasoning and what is your evidence. Thanks.

reply to post by matafuchs


To give that explanation here would literally Hi-Jack this thread and I don't want to to that.

Here is a thread I did that should answer your question.

Hastings Car Crash

After reading that if you have any questions, you can post them here.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


That thread is nothing but opinion...like this statement.

On the other hand although someone might gain control of your vehicle during operation, the computers are smart enough to accept a manual input as apposed to a digital if it had to choose.

The video I posted proves this is incorrect. Why not put out a theory as to why he 'would not' be murdered and add to this thread.

You also try to paint Hastings as a drug addict and drunk. Now, if he was high, why burn a body and NOT release a autopsy to crucify him?

reply to post by matafuchs


If you read through the post to the point where I give my opinion, it is ALL Fact. I was very careful about that. I did quite a bit of research before that was ever posted just to be certain.

The video you posted proves nothing and is really void in the way of practical. If you notice, the video you posted shows that they have to be Physically attached to the vehicle. If someone murdered Hastings as you might think, then it was an operation that had to be performed wirelessly. To date, there is no satisfactory data that shows, to my satisfaction, that this is even possible. In addition, the software on board vehicles was designed to accept manual input over digital input as a safety precaution.

Why not put out a theory as to why he 'would not' be murdered and add to this thread.

I did not add it here because the OP of this thread, WanDash, is already aware of that information and has added here what he felt was necessary.

You also try to paint Hastings as a drug addict and drunk.

If you read through the entire post then you know it was listed as a fact. I in no way tried to paint him as either. I was just providing the Known Facts. Those were by his own admission. I am not saying that he was either way, I was just saying that it has to be included as one of the many possibilities.

why burn a body and NOT release a autopsy to crucify him?

The autopsy was completed and the toxicology was completed before the body was cremated so those results will eventually be made public when the investigation is complete.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I only have to read the OP you created. That is where you should state you case and you do not. It is all opinion and NO fact.

The video I posted proves that a car can be controlled by computer and that driver DOES NOT have control. This is a crude method that shows anyone with a laptop could hinder a car with basic knowledge. If a 'hit' was to be performed, and the control of a car was used remotely using technology that is available, maybe not to the public, but can be verified than it is a possibility. People have the ability to have planes remotely take off and land. Do you think the military does not have the access to control a car? These are not leaps of faith of available technology...it exists.

Add a theory to the OP here or you are derailing the thread. It does not matter if the person who created this post knows, it is up to you to let all who read the OP and want to know your point of view to understand your take on the situation.

If someone says they smoked crack they are not a drug addict. If someone gets a DUI they are not an alcoholic. You tie them together though as if it is fact and can be applied that night.

Like I said...not release an autopsy report. Why not? Why would there still be an investigation if this was a simple car accident as you are deriving from your extensive research.

That is the question I am asking. Real simple and direct. Why do you feel there was no foul play?

reply to post by matafuchs


I guess we are going to have to disagree on most of that. However, I will answer this question ..

Why do you feel there was no foul play?

Because for me, there is entirely too much evidence which suggests that it was either mechanical failure or operator error. That you will find is an informed deduction as there is no real evidence to suggest that it was murder.

Now, If the EMBRACE system was able to retrieve the telemetry data on impact, as well as the autopsy and toxicology, then there may very well be some data to prove otherwise.

I am open to any facts. If you have facts that you think I am not aware of I would gladly entertain whatever you have.

Originally posted by matafuchs
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
...Why do you feel there was no foul play?

This is a legitimate question.
Just as the question "why do you (or I or whomever) think it was foul play?"

Where I think most people get off-track, is "picking a side" on a whim.
Once an allegiance has been placed on one side of the fence/argument or the other...we get contests and wars...when, in fact, (imo) all we really wanted to know, in the first place...was "what happened".
Honestly - I lean more toward the "foul play" argument... But, those leanings, so far, have proven difficult to justify better than "no foul play", when it comes to the known details.
Not that I don't place stock in the "email sent to associates & close friends", or in the "call to WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson only hours before (the accident)", or the knowledge that he had threatened the Obama administration with "journalistic war" only a month before...
In fact --- THOSE are the reasons that --- even in light of the difficulties encountered in "explaining a reasonably plausible theory for how Foul Play was involved"...I continue to count Foul Play as the chief contender.
And - even though we expect there to be one or more "reports" that give "the official findings" of the coroner & police investigators (don't know if we can expect one from the Fire Marshall...?) - whether we will be able to believe it or not...will largely depend on what facts we are familiar with before-hand.
If they make no mention of security camera footage from other shops/businesses on North Highland Avenue leading up to Santa Monica Blvd -- I'm going to have great difficulty accepting that they took their job seriously.
And...that's just one piece of the puzzle I will be looking at...

Making a note here...before calling it "a night"...
In reviewing the security camera footage...again...I've spied a "detail" that I have not seen before...and have not seen mentioned.
Don't know what it will tell us...if anything...but - details are details, and...always good to have in your pocket...just in case.

In the last two frames (screen-shots) where tail lights can be seen still lit...there is no evidence of the headlights shining...ahead.
So - the headlights were lost immediately after (as a result of?) the "flash" that appears to be "brake lights".
... ...This might lend weight to the suspicion that the engine/tranny is the object seen flying southeasterly in the second of the two screen-shots (where there are no headlights...but tail lights remain)...

I’d like to post another observation from the security camera footage…

ATS Big Pic #24 (as displayed in this post) is the last “screen-shot” I was able to pull from the CCTV footage, where the tail lights were still lit.
(*The last screen-shot, where the headlights are still on, is ATS Big Pic #22…*)

In the screen-shot following #24, the tail lights and headlights are extinguished…but…if you look closely, you’ll see another light, almost dead-center of where the tail lights were, in the previous screen-shot…

The next screen-shot (‘Pic #26) shows that light appearing to dim…and move to the right (toward the south-bound lane)…and even, perhaps, descending toward the ground…

But – *note that I could be wrong on this – but after many many many times looking at it…this is my interpretation* - the next frame (‘Pic #27) shows a dramatic rise of the rear-end…and…this residual light, has disappeared.
Bear in mind, when going through these pics…that the awning of the restaurant entry-way presents a barrier against some visuals that might have been going on above (at a higher elevation than) that line of demarcation…

The next frame (‘Pic #28) is the screen-shot that shows the initiation of the flash that is the explosion at the tree. The “light” we were following, is not evident (and – would not be, even if still “on” – imo).

I do not claim to know what the light is...
But - two guesses would be - (1) the license plate illuminator, or (2) the hot-spot on the underside of the car, where the tranny/axle had just broken free.
I think it is more likely... #1.

Not much going on the Michael Hastings’ news front…
Seems no-one wants to say any more than “he was murdered” and/or “it was a tragic accident”….then, fizz-away like a balloon that wasn’t tied properly.
Might as well deal with what we have…

First Questions:
1. Is there anything in the video & photographic evidence that, by itself, categorically rules out “Foul Play” as a possibility?
2. Is there anything in the video & photographic evidence that, by itself, categorically rules out “No Foul Play” as a possibility?

If you have an answer to either or both of these – please put it forward. (or not – up to you)

Second Questions:
1. Is there anything in the peripheral facts that, by itself, categorically rules out “Foul Play” as a possibility?
2. Is there anything in the peripheral facts that, by itself, categorically rules out “No Foul Play” as a possibility?

Again – please offer your answer…if you have one…to either or both of these… (or…not)

Third Questions:
1. Is there anything, when photographic/video evidence and peripheral facts are combined, that summarily eliminates “Foul Play” as a possibility?
2. Is there anything, when photographic/video evidence and peripheral facts are combined, that summarily eliminates “No Foul Play” as a possibility?

If you have an answer to either or both…please put it forward…and please demonstrate which peripheral facts are combined with which photo/video evidence…and “how” and “why” the combination, thereof, supports your conclusion… (or ------- not)

~ - ~ - ~ ||| ~ - ~ - ~

My own answers to the questions above…would be fairly lengthy (as you have, no doubt, grown to expect and abhor)…so – I will wait until it is apparent that I am the only one concerned with the subject of this thread…and thus, I will be the only one bored by…myself…and…then…a merry old time will be at hand for all my dormant personalities…and… well …guess I’ll just wait and see (maybe – – – – – if you’re lucky)…


Bonus question...worth a full 10 bonus points:
If a peripheral fact - or - If any video-graphic evidence...categorically rules out one possibility...does it automatically validate the other?
(Or - is there a "possibility" that is not accounted for in these questions?)

reply to post by WanDash


I'm sure there is enough evidence for a court review.

remember:

""The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof". Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"[3]

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by WanDash

 

...I'm sure there is enough evidence for a court review.
... remember:
...""The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary explained the parenthetical maxim as follows: "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof". Black's Law Dictionary 516 (6th ed. 1990).'"[3]

Now ---- How was I supposed to remember that, if I never read it?
Good point/s, though!

reply to post by WanDash


Wan,

I spent quite a bit of time today putting all of the frames into a slide show and streamed them to my 42" T.V.

I watch the last 20 frames over and over and I could not really see anything. Then when I went out to the kitchen for a drink, I turned to look at the T.V. .. and. .. I'll be Damned. .. . I could see like I had just opened my eyes. I was really surprised that everything was much more clear when I was at a distance of about 15'.

I was trying to remember how fast video runs. I think it is around 26-28 frames per second. BUT, I must have really had my head up my *** because the rate you captured the frames at did Not equate to the same timing. Imagine my surprise when I spent about 45 minutes looking at each frame thinking that all happened in a second.

Anyways, I took notes from what you had posted in your last post last night to see if I could corroborate what you were getting at.

Frame #27 - The residual light at the center of the back of the vehicle. .. .. .
I went through the picture before and after that frame to watch that light as it appears to be the last to extinguish . .. . well, .. . Let's no call this a solid conclusion, but.. .. . it appears to be the 3rd tail light above the trunk. By law cars are required to have that 3rd light. So I went in search of a pic that shows that 3rd tail light. Anyways, some cars have them above the rear windshield but the Mercedes has a light bar at the base of the windshield. There was 1000's of pics on Google and I'll be damned if there isn't one that this bar is visible on. I did eventually find one. The bar appears to be made up of LED lights.

I want to make note of the electrical characteristics before I went any farther.

Make note that cars run on a 12 volt system. The tails lights would be 12 volts as with any car. BUT, the LED light bar that makes the 3rd tail light is different. How? . . well,. .. . the LEDs are strung in a parallel configuration. They are driven by what is called an RC network. RC just basically mean Resistor Capacitor. LEDs require a 1.6 volt power source which is why they are coupled with resistors and capacitors. The resistors reduce the voltage and the capacitors store the voltage. So, .. when the power is on the LEDs light. If the circuit becomes open with power applied the power come from the capacitors until the voltage from the capacitors is drained.

In effect because the tail lights require 12 volts with No capacitance, when the circuit is opened it means an immediate death. On the other hand, when both the tails lights and LED light bar are on when the brakes are applied and an open is caused in the circuit, the taillights will be the first to go out because they are dependant on the voltage coming from the battery. With the brakes still applied the 3rd light bar will slowly dim because of the voltage that is still be driven by the capacitors.

Damn that crazy. . I hope you can understand it.

By the way, .. don’t quit posting what you have. I follow it on a daily bases in search for answers that I can't find myself.

First Question . .. .
No
and
No

I have tried like hell to find proof of anything either way on this video that would even remotely suggests either.

Second Question . ..
No
and
No

EVERYTHING is either circumstantial or Incidental absolutely NOTHING Concrete.

Question 3
No
and
No

I have scoured facts and video through Hell and high water for even an inkling either way and can not produce one damn solid piece of anything.

I have Never been good at bonus questions. .. .. .

For me, .. . the presence of explosives is Invalidated because of several reasons. No Smell, No Crater, No Residue ( going off of the fact that the investigation has not been turned into a homicide ), and no flash in the video that is indicative of a blast.
Does that Invalidate Murder. . .. .? . .. .. Absolutely Not.

Keep it coming I'm still here.

ETA:

P.S. .. . I have somewhat of a full plate. I am trying to post as I have time.


P.S.S.. .. Is it wrong of me to insist that those who believe this was Murder come forward with what evidence they may have to prove it?


P.S.S.S... Did I get the Bonus Question?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...Wan,
...I spent quite a bit of time today putting all of the frames into a slide show and streamed them to my 42" T.V.
...I watch the last 20 frames over and over and I could not really see anything. Then when I went out to the kitchen for a drink, I turned to look at the T.V. .. and. .. I'll be Damned. .. . I could see like I had just opened my eyes. I was really surprised that everything was much more clear when I was at a distance of about 15'.
...I was trying to remember how fast video runs. I think it is around 26-28 frames per second. BUT, I must have really had my head up my *** because the rate you captured the frames at did Not equate to the same timing. Imagine my surprise when I spent about 45 minutes looking at each frame thinking that all happened in a second.

Before going any further --- I am so glad that someone-other-than-I is actually interested.
Seems a lot of people (blog writers, alternative-news-show-hosts, etc...) want to act like they "have answers"...but, fail to do the work to prove it out...
The one thing we have to remember is - this is "security camera footage"... I did a little research on the topic, and it appears that the “vast majority” of security camera’s in use, record at a frame rate of between 6 and 11 frames per second (because – it is cheapest, I’m sure). It appears to me that this camera records 7 to 8 frames per second…
I don’t know the absolute answer to “why” there are a couple/few stages of the video, where two consecutive frames appear to show the car having moved far less than it should have, if all things were equal (meaning – each frame captured with the same span of time in between)… In each such “very similar frame sequence”, however, there is a “distinct” difference from one to the other.
For example – in the first pic’ that the Mercedes is in the video…the second pic’, that looks like only the “headlight broadcast” is different…actually, also shows the passenger-side front tire “turning” more toward the median…

Frame #27 - The residual light at the center of the back of the vehicle. .. .. .
I went through the picture before and after that frame to watch that light as it appears to be the last to extinguish . .. . well, .. . Let's no call this a solid conclusion, but.. .. . it appears to be the 3rd tail light above the trunk.
…The bar appears to be made up of LED lights.
…the LEDs are strung in a parallel configuration….driven by…an RC network. RC…mean Resistor Capacitor. …the capacitors store the voltage. So, .. when the power is on the LEDs light. If the circuit becomes open with power applied the power come from the capacitors until the voltage from the capacitors is drained.
…Damn that crazy. . I hope you can understand it.

Got it.
I was expecting (if it wasn’t the hot-spot where the bomb went off ) it to be a result of capacitance.

…First Question . .. .
No
and
No
…I have tried like hell to find proof of anything either way on this video that would even remotely suggests either.
…Second Question . ..
No
and
No
…EVERYTHING is either circumstantial or Incidental absolutely NOTHING Concrete.
…Question 3
No
and
No
…I have scoured facts and video through Hell and high water for even an inkling either way and can not produce one damn solid piece of anything.

Thanks for taking the time on these…
As you probably know…they are simply “building-block” questions…but…they need to be addressed before progress can be made (if progress is actually possible).

For me, .. . the presence of explosives is Invalidated because of several reasons. No Smell, No Crater, No Residue ( going off of the fact that the investigation has not been turned into a homicide ), and no flash in the video that is indicative of a blast.
Does that Invalidate Murder. . .. .? . .. .. Absolutely Not.

“No Crater” is the biggest problem, for me… There are others, but…as to physical evidence, that one rises to the top rung.

P.S. .. . I have somewhat of a full plate. I am trying to post as I have time.
P.S.S.. .. Is it wrong of me to insist that those who believe this was Murder come forward with what evidence they may have to prove it?
P.S.S.S... Did I get the Bonus Question?

I have followed your insurance thread…and am/was aware of your “other obligations”. I would have posted in it, but…all I could add would be frustration and disgust at an industry that holds no warm place in my heart…anyway.
I don’t know if it’s wrong to insist… I think that most people would prefer to simply “cheer for a team” than actually have to “play the game”… So – when you say – “Okay, Johnny – put on a uniform, I need you…” – they go into the locker room…and that’s the last time you see them.
As to the “bonus question” ---- I didn’t see an answer…but…have awarded an undisclosed quantity of bonus points…for rivaling me with an abundance of… .. … … words.

reply to post by WanDash

Bonus question...worth a full 10 bonus points:
If a peripheral fact - or - If any video-graphic evidence...categorically rules out one possibility...does it automatically validate the other?


I have Never been good at bonus questions. .. .. .

For me, .. . the presence of explosives is Invalidated because of several reasons. No Smell, No Crater, No Residue ( going off of the fact that the investigation has not been turned into a homicide ), and no flash in the video that is indicative of a blast.
Does that Invalidate Murder. . .. .? . .. .. Absolutely Not.

By the way, if we can get just 1 concrete yes on anyone of those 6 questions it will change allot of things depending on which question was answered.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...By the way, if we can get just 1 concrete yes on anyone of those 6 questions it will change allot of things depending on which question was answered.

And, that is the truth.

In ruling-out "bomb" (or other such explosive-type catalysts) - what do you conclude (or "make") of the numerous claims regarding the "white-hot fire" resulting from accelerants?
Seems to me that in many other kinds of fires, gasoline is considered "an accelerant"... But, does it burn "that hot"?
I have found the "color of fire = temperature range" charts interesting to consider... Are you familiar with them?

reply to post by WanDash


That's a good question, but I think there might be several answers to the "Heat" Factor.

If you look around the wheels in the Loudlabs video those points appear to be the hottest.

At first I was thinking about the rubber of the tires. It takes like 400 degree temperatures burning for 4 minutes to ignite the rubber. When the rubber starts to burn then it burns hot as hell. Somewhere around 1400 degrees.

If the wheels were magnesium alloy and were ignited by the burning tires then you have some serious heat on your hand. It is somewhere of 2000 f. After doing some reading I couldn't find anything to support that the C250 came stock with magnesium rims, but I did find something that said that they have Magnesium Wheel Spacers that I think go between the wheel and the rotor.

I have found the "color of fire = temperature range" charts interesting to consider... Are you familiar with them?

Yes. About a month ago or so I was looking at a couple of charts trying to figure out how hot the fire was.
If you look around the areas where the tires are those areas appear to be the hottest. They are out of the yellow/orange and into the white/yellow range. After reading about the magnesium it sort of made some sense about the rims or spacers.

Also, I believe the only accelerant that night was gasoline.