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

Until someone shows “why” my calculations are wrong on the speed of the Mercedes, in the first 1 second (or so) of the security camera footage…we’ll go with that speed…
I will show, here, how that “speed” was derived:
1. 1 mile = 5280 feet
2. 195 feet from camera to “where the car jumped the curb”
3. 56 feet from “where the car jumped the curb” to the palm tree
4. About halfway from “where the car jumped the curb” to the palm tree – is the metal utility cover (for the u-shaped water pipe)…supposedly 30 inches tall and 2 feet wide…(we’ll split the distance, & call it 28 feet)
5. There are 11 frames captured from “Mercedes entry” to the encounter with the metal utility cover, including the first frame with the Mercedes in it…
Three of these frames show almost no forward progress of the automobile… So - we could go with only 8 frames…or 11 frames…
If we go with 11 frames (and thus – equal ticks of the clock)…and use the average of 7.5 frames per second…we are looking at 103-104 mph from “Mercedes entry” to the encounter with the metal utility cover (assuming that the first “sharp rise” of the rear end signals that collision).
If we go with 8 frames (eliminating the 3 frames that show no forward progress)…and use the average of 7.5 frames per second…we are looking at 142.5 mph from “Mercedes entry” to the encounter with the metal utility cover…

If you triangulate the position of the metal utility cover…against certain fixed objects… Use the same “anchors”, dimensions and angles to apply to each frame thereafter…I think it is evident that the Mercedes hit the utility cover between Pic #17 and Pic #18…
There is some “slight” forward movement of the car, from Pic #17 to Pic #18…

The rear-end has begun to “rise” in Pic #18…but, as yet…no “flash”…
The rear-end has risen further in Pic #19…but, again…as yet…no “flash”…
There appears to be “even slighter” forward movement, from Pic #18 to Pic #19…

In Pic #20, the rear-end is even further elevated…and, here…it appears that a “flash” has begun.
The forward movement is “even slighter” from Pic #19 to Pic #20…

In Pic #21, I do not believe that we are seeing any forward movement of the car… I believe this is another of the anomalous “multi-frames” that actually captured a change…but, more instantaneous than an equidistant spacing therebetween…
The “flash” now appears almost full-grown…and does appear to be “brake lights” (imo)…

Pic #22 shows the “brake lights” glaring even brighter than in Pic #21…and the “beam-angle” of the headlights, appears to have shifted slightly “up” and “to the left”…
Again – the car does not appear to be moving forward…more than inches or a couple/few feet (at most)…

Pic #23 shows the “brake lights” dimming to, perhaps, just “running (tail) lights”…but the head lights have been extinguished… The “rear-end” appears to be rising more sharply than before…and…while I don’t think this is “provable”…it looks as if the “southeasterly flying object” is in the edge of the glare-cloud on the left side of the vehicle.
It appears that the “rear end” has moved forward…but, that forward movement seems to be associated with its “upward” motion – which I believe to be evidence that the car has already met the palm tree…

Pic #24 shows the “brake lights” dimming more (than the previous clip)…the “southeasterly flying object” is obviously in flight…the only evidence (I see) of the car’s movement forward, appears to be in the “rear-end” rising further…

The next two “screen shots” (Pic #25 & Pic #26) show the “residual light” mentioned in a couple of prior posts…moving first “up”, then to the right & down (losing altitude)…with the “southeasterly flying object” continuing its southeasterly flight…
At the risk of being redundant – no brake or head lights are apparent in these screen shots, or any hereafter…

Screen shots Pic #27 & Pic #28 continue to show the “southeasterly flying object” flying & glowing (Pic #28 seems to show another object separating from the “southeasterly flying object”)…while, at the tree…movement is apparent, but what is moving where & “how” can only be “deduced” or speculated…

Screen shot Pic #29 shows the first sign of “explosion”… I believe the car has stopped moving before this occurs.

_ ~ - | - ~ _ ~ - | \ / | - ~ _

In my opinion…this, newest translation of the security camera footage, shows the car having met the palm tree by, at least Pic #21…
If this is correct…then, puzzling over “how the engine/tranny could eject, as a result of hitting the metal utility cover” is now moot…
On the other hand – under this scenario – we have another puzzle…being – witnesses (eye & ear…but not – throat) associated the “boom” with an immediate explosion…but this would seem to place a full second (or thereabout) between the collision and first sign of explosion.

Anyway – realize this is boring as heck…but…gotta correct the errors when possible.
Thanks!

reply to post by WanDash


The video shows about 4 seconds screen time. And if you say it is 250 feet. Puts him at about 75 MPH.



Using this calculator. Put in 75 MPH and 110 feet show. Almost half the distance per second. He might have been going less?

www.calculateme.com...

55 miles per hour would be 80 feet per second. He would of traveled 250 feet in 3 seconds the distance from first seen to the tree 250 feet. Maybe he was going the speed limit? It really brings that crash test at 50 mph into question. That engine never left the car in the same type of crash.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by WanDash

 

...The video shows about 4 seconds screen time. And if you say it is 250 feet. Puts him at about 75 MPH.
...Using this calculator. Put in 75 MPH and 110 feet show. Almost half the distance per second. He might have been going less?
...

Thanks JBA' ... good to see you!
The Mercedes doesn't enter the video 'til just past 14 seconds.
If you calculate from "when" he enters, to the explosion, however...you will get only an average of the whole...whereas, I believe I have adequately demonstrated (above & before) that almost immediately after the car entirely mounts the curb/median, forward progress slows to a virtual "halt".
For at least one full second before the first evidence of explosion...there is almost no forward progress of the Mercedes...aside from the elevating rear-end.

I have a spreadsheet with all those numbers...that I've been working with for more than two weeks, now...

70 mph = 102.66667 feet/second
75 mph = 110 feet/second
80 mph = 117.3333 feet/second
...etc...110 mph = 161.3333 feet/second

time to travel 27 feet @ 70 mph = 0.262987013 seconds
time to travel 27 feet @ 75 mph = 0.245454545 seconds
time to travel 27 feet @ 80 mph = 0.230113636 seconds
...etc...time to travel 27 feet @ 110 mph = 0.167355372 seconds

front to rear dimensions = 180.8 inches (15.066667 feet)
front center-tire to rear center-tire = 108.8 inches (9.066667 feet)
Inside Driver wheel to Inside Passenger wheel = 61 inches (5.083333 feet)
Drive-side exterior to Passenger-side exterior = 69.7 inches (5.808333 feet)

But...they're just numbers...
I have been 'wrong' a good three times in the course of these endeavors -- so -- who knows --- maybe I'm still wrong.
Always look forward to seeing what you have to say...(and pleased when you say something)...

reply to post by WanDash

Just to make things a little "plainer"...(after seeing how the previous posts could be interpreted otherwise)...

The "timer" on the video, shows the "14"-second mark (with accompanying screen-shot/frame) pass...then 1 more screen-shot/frame pass...before the Mercedes is in the picture.

Looks like the explosion (flash accompanied therewith) begins 5 screen-shot/frames into the "16"-second portion of the video.

If we count 8 frames per second (for simplicity's sake...since there are certain "anomalies" that have been highlighted in previous "translations")...then, the "split-second" the Mercedes is "on camera" to the first flash of the explosion-at-the-tree...spanned a full 2.375 seconds.

With the widest margin I count possible...the vehicle hit the metal utility cover within 1.25 (or - between 1.125 and 1.25) seconds of "screen-entry".
The on-screen distance travelled would have been ~ 223 feet (according to the dimensions provided in Michael Krikorian's article)...

If these numbers (times & distances) are correct, then...the vehicle covered the first 223 feet at a speed of 120+ mph.

Having come into this topic/debate/investigation with a disposition leaning in the direction of “Foul Play”, yet cognizant of the difficulties associated with a “Foul Play explanation”, I have considered any “news” that tended toward the sinister carefully…and, to be honest, “hopefully”…thinking “this could be the piece I’ve been missing”.
After examining the video footage provided by LoudLabs and from the security camera of Pizzeria Mozza, and after the many “finds” of various contributors on this thread (and others), however, it seems that all (or, at least, most) claims of “obvious inconsistencies” in the final seconds of the Mercedes’ flight are explainable with a subheading of Natural & Inevitable Consequences…
I see no “video evidence” of explosion/s that precede the vehicle hitting the palm tree.
As ShadellacZumbrum (and others) has pointed out – no “crater/s” either on the pavement or in the median…
The engine/tranny appears to exit the vehicle after forward progress was halted…
…etc…

You might wonder what this does to my admitted predisposition toward “Foul Play”…
Not much…
We (meaning – you and me) are at a disadvantage.
It’s like reading a mystery novel…where the Hero-Investigator suddenly shows that they had a secret bit of information/knowledge in their pocket, all along (that you & I were not privy to)…and after dragging-out an otherwise easily-solved enigma – all of sudden – NOW – by adding this new “secret key” to the puzzle – they are able to Save The Day…and pretend to deserve credit for superior brilliance and intuition… …(If you can’t tell – I HATE those stories! ! !)
Well – you & I could be the unwitting “butts of a joke” here…as THEY withhold information that would/could have set many/most/all questions to rest, early-on…but desire, rather, to drag out the drama…laughing their @@sses off…at each “new” outlandish claim and interpretation as it is made…and at everyone who continues to repeat the “outlandish claims” as fact.
Then – of course – they reveal the information…and we are all made to look like “fools”. And – those who speculated are lumped into a wide-ranging classification of “conspiracy theorists”…that can now be coined as a label with connotations of “uneducated, paranoid, delusional and non-critical-thinking” voices to be ignored.

Should we find that Michael Hastings “drove like a grandma” at times…but, on other – exceptional – occasions, drove like a Bighorn Ram in mating season…we might be less likely to “sell out” to the “Foul Play” explanation.
Should we find that Michael Hastings had a history of paranoia…and the hysteria often associated with it…we might be more inclined to consider his last “email”, and reports of the LAPD visiting his residence in the days leading up to the fateful drive…with a few more “greys”, than the simple “black & white” conclusions of – “He wouldn’t have called them out to his house – if there weren’t a real threat” &/or “He wouldn’t have risked damaging his professional reputation with such an email, if Danger was not imminent”…

So – in short – we’re shooting in the dark. We see movement/s here and there…but when you try to take aim…the dark has swallowed them whole…and we’re left saying “I know I saw it”…to the guffaws of a host of “mystery writers” on the other side of the two-way mirror…and…
...
…Back to the task at hand…

Hope to continue moving forward with questions and answers…as they develop.
**Note to self – while some “sources” are unreliable, and take some of the largest leaps in “logic” imaginable – they often have some good information, as well.**

reply to post by WanDash


If it were in fact 120mph you can add a couple of hundred tons of force.

I keep thinking back to 2 witnesses. 1 setting at the light said he flew by like a freight train or something like that. The other was at the seen and he said that the car was going "Top Speed". I can honestly say that based on at least these 2 witnesses, he must have been going like a Bat Out Of Hell. Which translates to FAST.
120mph fast? maybe, maybe not.

In any event, if you add that couple of hundred tons of force to to the original figure then that only adds weight to the claim that there would have definitely been sufficient force to eject the engine/tranny.

Then today when I was trying to think outside the box I started to wonder . .. ... .. what "Other Parts" could have ejected from the vehicle as well? I am talking about attached parts. It really does have no bearing either way, but it is more of a curiosity.

You might wonder what this does to my admitted predisposition toward “Foul Play”…

We are both sharing that boat from opposite ends. Like I mentioned before, if we were to make a Pros and Cons list Pros being No Foul and Cons being Foul we might find the deck stacked in favor of No Foul, however, there is no Real concrete proof.
The 5 pieces of Concrete Evidence that are available are the 2 emails, a crashed car, a body, and the Pizzeria video. As far as that goes speculation has run rampant in circles chasing its tails to no end. The I would venture to wager that not being privy to what evidence is available to the police and coroner, oh, and Mercedes, I think we have done a damn good job of putting some of the pieces together.

we’re shooting in the dark. We see movement/s here and there…but when you try to take aim…the dark has swallowed them whole

Maybe we can use some advice that my mother once gave me. . ..
If you are working on something that you can't see, close your eyes and it becomes more visible.
That is such a damn true statement. It really works. Maybe we can figure out how to apply that here.

OR .. . .. .. ..

Should the theory of Occam's Razor be considered here?

I say Absolutely NOT.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...based on at least these 2 witnesses, he must have been going like a Bat Out Of Hell. Which translates to FAST.
...there would have definitely been sufficient force to eject the engine/tranny.
...we...find the deck stacked in favor of No Foul, however, there is no Real concrete proof.
The 5 pieces of Concrete Evidence that are available are the 2 emails, a crashed car, a body, and the Pizzeria video.
...I would venture to wager that not being privy to what evidence is available to the police and coroner, oh, and Mercedes, I think we have done a damn good job of putting some of the pieces together.
...Maybe we can use some advice that my mother once gave me. . ..
If you are working on something that you can't see, close your eyes and it becomes more visible.
That is such a damn true statement. It really works. Maybe we can figure out how to apply that here.
...OR .. . .. .. ..
...

Thanks Shadellac'...
We are proof that two opposing "predispositions" can work together toward a common goal...as long as they treat each other fairly, and attempt to maintain an honest handshake between.
The answer to this riddle is not more important to me, than treating you fairly... I do not need to be "right" more than I need to be "straight". I can see that with you, as well.
Sincere appreciation for all your assistance, contributions and insights (not to forget your "expert" testimonies, either).
We should be no more than a few days from "when" the toxicology reports should be returned.
I don't know if they will be made available to us in a timely manner...or...what...
When my uncle's toxicology report was available...it was not given to his children... They had to go...& pay for it... And, even then, they had to take it to "an expert" to translate into terms they could understand.
Nevertheless - with as many parties as have filed FOIA requests...I would think that some kind of information will be forthcoming, shortly.
Thanks AGAIN!

Hi there, if you are not already following Ron Brynaert ‏@ronbryn on Twitter you may want to give a look. He is the guy that was trolling Hastings re Barrett Brown until he made that famous "get ready for your mind to be blown" remark. He does not have the answers either but he is asking a whole lot of very good questions!





Also have a look at my updated Hastings/Barrett Brown Timeline if you find the time - some very interesting tweets by Barrett re Booz Allen (Snowden's last employer).

Originally posted by MindBodySpiritComplex
Hi there, if you are not already following Ron Brynaert ‏@ronbryn on Twitter you may want to give a look. He is the guy that was trolling Hastings re Barrett Brown until he made that famous "get ready for your mind to be blown" remark. He does not have the answers either but he is asking a whole lot of very good questions!
…
Also have a look at my updated Hastings/Barrett Brown Timeline if you find the time - some very interesting tweets by Barrett re Booz Allen (Snowden's last employer)…

Thanks MindBodySpiritComplex –
I was reading your Barret Brown -..- Michael Hastings tweeting history earlier, today…then, was pulled away, and just got back online.
I have looked no further than this post…at “who” Ron Brynaert is… What are your thoughts?
I agree that some of his questions are pertinent… Some of the same questions that I’ve asked…but, seemingly – to the wind.
His cell records, text records, email (to include “ip addresses”) records…obviously credit & debit card records, bank deposits/withdrawals…etc…ALL of them – records of interest.

But – just because I’m interested…to satisfy my own curiosity…doesn’t mean I deserve to see them.
It’s a strange situation…
“If wrongdoing was afoot…we should be able to see them. If it was not…we shouldn’t.”
So…who makes the call?

And...we're right back to the issue of – “who has the right to probe someone-else’s private affairs?”

We’re angry at the government for probing “ours”… Does the blade cut both ways?

I am suspicious – like you. I want questions answered…and I want to know that the matter was investigated properly…with the utmost regard for “the truth”.
But…do I want the answers…if they reveal that Michael Hastings was just as human…as me?
'Cause...if he was...and this was just an exceptionally conspicuous...though innocent...set of circumstances that resulted in a dramatic finale on scale with Hollywood's finest efforts...his "hero status" will lose a few stars in most of our estimations...and...we'll have to keep looking for another, to...fill that role...

A couple of pieces to add to the pile...
From early in the process I have been convinced that - if "remote hacking/control" of the vehicle was the method used to accomplish an "assassination"...SOMEONE would have to have eyes on the vehicle...to the end.
I do not see "a failed attempt" as an allowable or acceptable option, if "assassination" was afoot.

Will get to what I've seen in the video footage, regarding this, in a moment...but, first, two "possible" pieces of information that, at least, contribute to the possibility, that "eyes" were on the Mercedes in the final stretch.

We have been exposed to the article "Selective Silencing...", by the Private Investigator in upstate New York (Doug Hagmann)...who spoke of a heretofore "unreferenced & unidentified" vehicle that may have played a part...that was stopped (ahead of the Mercedes) at Melrose Place & North Highland Avenue.
There is, likewise, a reference given by John B. Wells - who, I guess, is a staff member or contributor to the Coast to Coast show...stating that he viewed the video footage of the Mercedes running the red light, early on...and saw a Jeep close behind the Mercedes...but, when attempting to "re-view" the clip later (using the "saved URL"), the video was not to be found.

Whether either or neither of these accounts are reliable...here's my observation...
Earlier, I stated that it was possible that the brake lights were "on", when the Mercedes passed through the intersection at Santa Monica on North Highland Avenue.
After much more study...I have come to the conclusion that they were not.
As it stands...based on the information available to us...I do not believe the brake lights were "on" at any time prior to two or three frames after the car first hit the palm tree (or - after the rear-end went into a "sharp rise").
IF THIS IS THE CASE...one has to wonder ------ WHY THEN?
In other words - if Michael Hastings was driving at break-neck speeds...bottoming-out on Melrose, and apparently going through efforts to regain control of the vehicle once the "swerving started"... And, apparently...carefully and tactfully mounted the curb onto the median (without hitting the two palm trees that were RIGHT THERE)...why hit the brakes...when it was too late?

Possible answers?
1. He was not driving the car...being comatose or drugged and strapped-in...and not until forward momentum pulled is body forward along with gravity resulting from the rear-end rising...were his feet ever near/on the accelerator or brake pedal/s...
2. The flash of brake lights had to do with mechanical/electrical system "trauma", and nothing to do with the occupant in the vehicle.

...Other possible answers...? ? ?

reply to post by WanDash


I can't imagine him not trying to brake in all of that. Can you?? I have been following the thread and read your earlier analysis where you thought you saw brake lights, and or and then the reverse lights.

So being unconscious is a possibility. Having entertained that: could a car be operated remotely to do what the Mercedes did?? I don't know.

The other hypothesis of the electrical system being taken over also is a possibility.

I cannot imagine one scenario that a human being would not have hit the brakes at the end of that trail. It would have been an automatic response.

We have ourselves a murder here.

There is no other explanation.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Thanks GrantedBail
You and I suspect the same thing... You're just a little more adamant about it.
Thought I'd add this...

Cyber-attack...from adriaen22's blog... "Michael Hastings - Death by Mercedes" - dated July 18, 2013...states that Stefan Savage - Professor in the Systems Networking Group - University of California, San Diego, who authored one of two major studies on this topic, "wrote"...

"There's quite a bit of misinformation on this topic on all sides.
...First, I don't see any particular reason to believe that this car crash (or any particular car crash) is due to cyber attack. Absent other evidence it doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test.
...Second...taking over a car's computer systems is not "easy". It's quite difficult to get working reliably and the research needs to be specialized to each individual platform targeted - a significant piece of work.
...Third, on the other hand, I think the debunkers are minimizing the potential for problems in this domain. There are in fact a whole bunch of digital channels that have the potential to reach internal buses (directly or indirectly) in modern vehicles, including not only tire pressure and cellular telematics, but also bluetooth, keyless entry, WiFi (in many models), digital FM, RDS, USB and CD media, charging (for electric cars,) aftermarket devices (e.g., the Progressive dongle), and so on (soon to be joined by DSRC) - many of which are wireless.
...Fourth, while our work is always prefaced with "in the lab" it is worth understanding that we're not talking about 'white lab coats up on a bench' here. We were able to demonstrate a remote takeover (i.e., absolutely no physical access) of an unmodified vehicle over a thousand miles away after which we were able to track the car, listen in to conversations, turn off the brakes, cause a skid, etc... basically reflash any unit. Any safeguards in place go out the window once you start running your own code on a given ECU.
...While I think I speak for our whole group when I say that we don't believe such attacks are imminent threats for any of us normal people...I also think its not something that is totally off in Sci-Fi land either.
...Moreover, the genie is out of the bottle and the number of groups now developing this expertise is just growing (e.g., Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek have a DEFCON talk coming up looking at infiltrating a different set of vehicles). This is why there is now real and significant work going on in the OEM community to harden their electronic systems.
...Do I think Michael Hastings was killed via hacking? Seems pretty unlikely to me. But I think the detractors may go too far in minimizing the problem here."

Here is what I find interesting about many/most of the "professional" opinions on whether Michael Hastings' vehicle was (or - could have been) cyber-hacked...and resulted in the high-speed crash.
After highlighting the fact/s that "they" (the researchers) successfully cyber-hacked an "unmodified" vehicle a thousand miles away...with no physical access...causing (at least some of) the behaviors/displays required to facilitate the final stretch of the Mercedes' ride...they turn around and say they think it's "unlikely" that this is what happened.
They compound this with "Absent other evidence it doesn't pass Occam's Razor test" ...and... "...taking over a car's computer systems is not 'easy'... It's quite difficult to get working reliably and the research needs to be specialized to each individual platform targeted..."

So - what is he saying...?
The prime suspects would be three Geek-Squad techs sitting in the back of their van...seeing which cars they can "hack", as they pass by?

Rather than disallowing it outright...why not consider - "If anyone did this...who COULD?"

Who would be in a position to invest millions & billions of Other People's Money...to develop such "tools"?
Seems that "Q" (and his/her group) were always working on these kinds of projects...and that was well before the "War On Terror" made such endeavors even more attractive to the DEEEEEP Pockets (endless supply) of our current cascade of Tyrant in Chiefs.

I am not saying that "it's obvious - someone hacked the Mercedes and sent Michael Hastings into the palm tree"...
I am saying - the expert disclaimations are impotent.
If Hastings was targeted for such an assassination...they would not have used Hondas or Ford Pintos to practice and refine their maneuvers...
They are not your "typical non-profit agencies"...

And...for those that forget...the Internet...networking...and all the hard & soft ware protocols, etc...were developed by (and for the use & benefit of)...the military.
They have been in it...from Ground Zero.

Occam's Razor applied to the fatal car crash of Michael Hastings

...among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

...one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

Simple theory...that accounts for most of what we know:
...well... Is there a "simple" theory...that accounts for what we know?

BobAthome proposed -
1. Car go fast
2. Car go boom
3. Man dies

That, however, is really not a theory...
It is a rehearsal of certain facts.
There are other "facts" that could be included...now that more information has been made available...such as:
4. Car left skid marks past the cross-walk on North Highland Ave. south of Melrose Place...
5. Car lost some degree of control after crossing Melrose Place...
6. Car mounted the curb-then-median in time to hit the metal utility cover for the u-shaped water pipe that sat ~ midway between the "two palm trees" and the "fatal palm tree"...

7. We don't know how long (what distance) the Mercedes had been travelling on North Highland Avenue...thus...do not know "where" he was coming from...but we do know that he had been on said North Highland, at least, long enough to have accelerated to somewhere in the range of 60 - 70 miles per hour, prior to running the red light at Santa Monica Blvd.
8. While we cannot state with "absolute certainty" that the Mercedes was being handled (steered) by Michael Hastings (or anyone-else), we can "leap" to an odds-on-favorite assumption that...the car, at relatively high speed...nimbly avoided collision with two vehicles stopped at the Santa Monica' red light...

(9.) We can further "leap" to the conclusion that the Mercedes was successfully & uneventully guided through another traffic-lighted-intersection before arriving at Melrose Place.
(10.) And...we can even go further...and deduce from the security camera footage, that "whomever was steering the car" did not just "let it remain out of control"...but rather, attempted not only to "correct" and "stabilize" the vehicle (and...whether mounting the median was "his" idea/intent, or simply the best option presented), but also, mounted the curb in staggered fashion - one wheel at a time...at as minimal (and safe?) an angle as possible...
(11.) AND - I know this is jumping to a conclusion (of sorts)...but - everything (except for the speed of the car and disregard for the red light)...suggests that "someone" was attempting to keep the vehicle from crashing.

We have information (from JBA2848) that Mr. Hastings' residence was only a short distance from the intersection of Melrose Place & North Highland Avenue (a short distance to the west).
We have other information (from miner49r) that the office/s of BuzzFeed weren't too far from the crash site (further south a couple of miles).
These two facts suggest that he was likely "familiar" with this intersection.
The fact that the Mercedes, at an apparently accelerating-pace, made it from before Santa Monica...TO...Melrose Place...suggests that he was familiar with the drive...
It is not likely that this intersection offered a surprise "rise" or "constriction of lanes"...that would have resulted in an unwary misstep.

So - while I have not offered anything "new", here... And - we're trying to go with the "Occam's Razor" strategy for constructing theories... It would appear that the simplest theory that might explain the above...has already been offered by ShadellacZumbrum (mechanical failure / driver error).

Will think on this...and return.
If you have thoughts...please bring them forward.
Thanks.

reply to post by WanDash

Stating that “Mechanical Failure &/or Driver Error” is the simplest theory that would explain the final mile or two of the Mercedes’ trip down North Highland Avenue…does not necessarily imply that one accepts it as “the best” explanation.
It is a theory that foregoes any reckoning with such peripheral issues as:
1. Why was he out driving at 4 a.m.?
2. Why was he on that particular street…travelling in that particular direction?
a) Was he driving to his house?
b) … … …to his office?
c) … … …to a foreign consulate?
d) Was he running from…or to…someone/something/someplace?
e) Was he even in charge of where he was driving?
3. If we consider the “Driver Error” explanation –

“What kind of error could the driver commit, that would be consistent with the last moment/s and seconds of evidence?”

4. If considering “Mechanical Failure” –

“What kind of failure would explain those last moments?”

Have any assumptions (logical leaps) been made in the above?
In most of them, there is an assumption that Michael Hastings was the party responsible for the actions & movements of the Mercedes.
And – while under other (more normal) sets of circumstances, this would not be a questionable assumption – this…is not a “normal set of circumstances”…

In fact, all of the information available to us – paints this is an “extraordinary set of circumstances”.
…From beginning to end – nothing about this would fit within the realms of “expected & ordinary”.
NEVERTHELESS – if a “simple” explanation can handle all the out-of-the-ordinariums ( )…we must count it a contender.

Driver Error / (Driver Mischief) – What kind of driver error/s would result in the bits we know?
Would falling asleep at the wheel?
Probably not…as it is unlikely the Mercedes would have arrived at Melrose Place without hitting another vehicle (or two), a building, a sign or some other obstruction (such as palm trees) in the multiple medians…
Heart Attack/Stroke/Seizure?
For the same reasons stated above…doesn’t seem likely.
Testosterone Gone Wild?
If needing to flex his muscles and leave a scent…who was he trying to impress? ...at 4 a.m.? (himself?)
Suicide?
I have ruled this out, in my own reasoning… If you consider this worth discussing…please bring it forward – maybe you’re seeing something I am not…

Mechanical Failure / (Mechanical Compromise) – What kind of mechanical failure/s would result in the bits we know?
Here, we must account for multiple possibilities…
1) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes continue working…and steering remains under his control;
2) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes stop working…but steering remains under his control;
3) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes stop working…and steering is no longer under his control...

Bluetooth comes as standard equipment in this model of Mercedes…
I can’t imagine that he didn’t have his iPhone or smart-phone synched… I have Bluetooth…and my phone was “synched” before leaving the dealership.
As has been proposed, before, there is a strong probability that, if his email about going off the rada(r) was sincere…he would not have had his “smart phone” with him…and thus – if he had any phone with him, it might have been a “pre-paid” version…that was not synched to the Bluetoothy system…
In any case – I have wondered if he might not have attempted a call to 911 during his last minutes… (?)
On the other hand – if the “mechanical failure” surprised him suddenly, and relentlessly, he may have been (probably was) too involved in attempting to find a mechanical solution (and steering the vehicle) to have attempted to bother with making a call…

…will get back to this, later.
Thanks.

I received a message from miner49r yesterday, passing-on information that had been passed to him regarding the latest "findings" of the Investigative Reporter that has kept San Diego Channel 6 at the "forefront" of news on developments in the case of the mysterious death of Michael Hastings.
While following a tip from MindBodySpiritComplex that SSgt Joe Biggs is in Austin, TX...to be a guest on Alex Jones broadcast...I saw a new article written by Paul Joseph Watson, wherein the San Diego Channel 6 reporter - Kimberly Dvorak's latest updates were repeated...and, as an interim - here - I will bring you current, if you are interested.

As had been published early-on...(at least) one of Michael Hastings' latest stories had to do with CIA chief - John Brennan. And - reportedly (though not confirmed by the magazine), Rolling Stone will be publishing this exposé in coming weeks.
There were, likewise, some WikiLeaks dumps, that showed a Stratfor email identifying Brennan as “behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources.”

SDSU professor Morteza M. Mehrabadi, Professor and Interim Chair Areas of Specialization: Mechanics of Materials is reported to have carried out an analysis of the security camera footage we have all been privy to...and concluded that the Mercedes was travelling only 35 mph before/when hitting the palm tree...
The explanation for how this conclusion was attained is - "...by measuring the distance traveled by the car on the surveillance clip and the time that elapsed before the explosion...".
Brilliant!!!!
God - I wish I was a Professor!!!

Dvorak goes on to say - "The pre-explosion and slower speed could also explain the minimal damage to the palm tree and the facts the rear tires rested against the curb. It also provides an explanation for the location of the engine and drive train at more than 100 feet from the tree impact area..."

So - There - you have it.
Voices of Higher Wisdom, Learning and Expert Opinion -or- The Moronica Masquerade.
Take your pick.

So – back to… Mechanical Failure / (Mechanical Compromise)
1) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes continue working…and steering remains under his control;
2) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes stop working…but steering remains under his control;
3) Accelerator sticks in “zoom” mode…brakes stop working…and steering is no longer under his control;

In considering the 3 scenarios, above, we sort of need to admit that the only one that does not require a “what are the odds?” qualifier…is #1.
The accelerator-sticking is odd-enough (even including the possibility of a foreign object getting lodged underneath)…
If, in considering #1…we account for the brakes (and brake lights) continuing to work…one has to wonder why he did not have the brake pedal pressed to the floor, once it was obvious he was unable to get the accelerator to “un-stick”.
And even if we count the possibility of a foreign object lodged in such a fashion that both the brake AND accelerator pedals were obstructed…why not attempt to engage the “Emergency Brake”?
In years past (many years past), something of this nature happened to me, when exiting a freeway in Houston, Texas… The accelerator somehow stuck in “wide-open”…my brakes weren’t enough – and I immediately started applying pressure to the hand-brake. It was not a smooth stop. It was harrowing to the last moment… But – it worked.
…Yet…we see no evidence of any attempt/s to “brake” prior to when it was well past too late.

Having ruled-out “suicide” as motivation…and counted “Driver Error” &/or “Mechanical Failure” as the simplest explanations…to work within the parameters of Occam’s Razor…it seems to me that we’re back to square 1.
There are other No Foul Play possibilities that fall under the headings listed…but, they require “leaps” of assumption just as significant as Foul Play possibilities of remote control, remote hacking, etc…
Not that those “leaps” would be “assumptions” in the presence of other justifying information (that may be available to us at a later date/time)…but, given the information currently available, I’m looking back at square 1.

Three random observations to think about...

1. Onstar type systems can shut off your car. Remotely at anytime. This means remote access which means you can access any Computer unit on the vehicle if needed. All you need is electricity to make a connection...
2. The US government can take off and land a drone from an aircraft carrier. This shows superior remote capability
3. Remote hacking is not new. you just need access to the wifi signal to enter the domain that person has such as a .....car?

The newer Mercedes cars also have something called AutoNet. It is basically wifi. All you need is wifi to access a computer so you can access a cars computer also. DARPA is not filled with idiots folks...

keep going down the rabbit hole and do not allow the distractors to stop you....

Originally posted by matafuchs
Three random observations to think about...

1. Onstar type systems can shut off your car. Remotely at anytime. This means remote access which means you can access any Computer unit on the vehicle if needed. All you need is electricity to make a connection...
2. The US government can take off and land a drone from an aircraft carrier. This shows superior remote capability
3. Remote hacking is not new. you just need access to the wifi signal to enter the domain that person has such as a .....car?

The newer Mercedes cars also have something called AutoNet. It is basically wifi. All you need is wifi to access a computer so you can access a cars computer also. DARPA is not filled with idiots folks...

keep going down the rabbit hole and do not allow the distractors to stop you....

Thanks matafuchs
I have no problem with your statements... In fact, I believe I have accepted all these as possible...even in writings on this thread.
The issue for me is not - whether it is possible. Nor is it, necessarily, if it is likely... But rather -- How did it come about? What happened?
To answer those questions, you have to consider all of the peripherals in the equation.
If he was driving southbound on North Highland Avenue...he was not (in all likelihood) coming from his house...as, to get to his house, he would need to turn right (west) on Melrose Place...and travel another mile (+/-).
That brings us to another question/issue -- if he was not coming from his house (at 4 a.m.)...where was he coming from?
A lot of people have speculated that he was coming from the direction of Sunset Blvd (where many night clubs are located)...and may have been out partying late... "Last call" in California was still 2 a.m., as of June 19, 2013.
So...if he had been partying at one of the Sunset Blvd establishments...what was he doing for the 2 hours since last call?
There is another possibility...that fits with other peripheral facts...being - his email said he was going "off rada(r)"...and...he had gone off radar (not staying in his home...but at a "safehouse", "hideaway", an "off-the-radar motel", or some-such)... And - if that is the case...we're back to the question of - "why" was he out driving (back in his neck-of-the-woods) at 4 a.m.?
GrantedBail and I have both question - "was he lured out of hiding?"
For someone to pull off a "remote-hacking" scenario...they would need to know that he was in the car...driving.
For it to work out like it did...they would pretty-much need to know that he wasn't on the interstate (or some other highway with crash-water-barrel fixtures).
For me - there is almost no way around someone doing this "to" him...who did not have eyes "on" him...up to the final conclusion. Too many things that could go wrong to spoil the plan.
Anyway --- --- thanks again --- I've been trying to stay away from rabbit holes for the last few years...

reply to post by WanDash




Wan. .. ?

First I wanted to add this quote from Einstein. .

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I like that quote because it really compacts the definition of Occam's Razor.

On the other hand, although your lasts posts were a damn good read, I Must submit that you are evading the Simplest explanation and shot the thing in the foot on your way out the door.

You have taken the simplest explanation and applied it to a Fractal completely over complicating it.

If you noticed when I mentioned Occam's Razor earlier you might also have noticed that I said that I didn't want to do that. Primarily because you could easily bring all of this work to a conclusion in one or two sentences or maybe even a 2 word sentence .. . "Speed Kills".

I on the other hand, like yourself, tend to over complicate things and in this case am Not willing to settle for such a simplistic answer. I want the Facts but I also want Details.

Besides, if we were to go that route it would be a No Brainer for the No Foul Play Version.

Anyways,

Everyday I am looking on both Bing and Google for new information about Michael Hastings. I usually type in his name and that days date. Needless to day I am getting really frustrated with the kinds of stuff I am finding.

Please allow me to be the first to say that there are ALLOT of really retarded theories coming out just about everyday, Everything from the "Drone Strike" that I have read quite often to the idea that someone was standing at Melrose waiting for him so that they could push the button and make him blow up. It is really disheartening to see this lack of critical thinking.

I am still being patient because I know that there is eventually going to be some concrete information made available to the public just about anytime now.

I wanted to add a little something about this. .. ..

SDSU professor Morteza M. Mehrabadi, Professor and Interim Chair Areas of Specialization: Mechanics of Materials is reported to have carried out an analysis of the security camera footage we have all been privy to...and concluded that the Mercedes was travelling only 35 mph before/when hitting the palm tree

I couldn't help but to notice your sarcasm when mentioning this.

Make note .. That guy is a complete Dumb@$$. Do you think he has any idea how badly he just destroyed his credibility with that analysis? I just want to see his math on How in The Hell he Extrapolated that conclusion. If he was using that same Pizzeria video than he clearly was not even watching it.

I might also go further to suggest that you print off a complete copy of this thread and send it to him so that he might get a clue as to how wrong he really is. I am with you on that, If that is what it takes to be a professor then I would say that we both have promising careers as such.

One last thing to mention .. .. . About the motor mount.

I am not sure if you had seen where I mentioned that before. Many years ago I had car that the motor mount broke on while I was driving it. The accelerator immediately mashed to the floor and gave me one hell of a ride until I was able to do a combination of things to get it to stop. Someone did mention that cars are "Drive by wire" now days, but when I went and looked at a couple of new cars, there is still a cable that controls the throttle on the carburetor. If the motor mount did by chance brake, it would have pulled the accelerator cable taut and forced the carburetor to throttle wide open.

If that was the case it would have been 2-3 or even 4 less bolts to brake when the engine ejected.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Thanks for the Einsteinionian? quote…!
The purpose of dealing with “Occam’s Razor” was simply an impulsive response to the comment by Stefan Savage.

…you are evading the Simplest explanation and shot the thing in the foot on your way out the door.
…You have taken the simplest explanation and applied it to a Fractal completely over complicating it.

I will agree that speed CAN kill.
It does not ALWAYS kill…and…as you know – the simplest answer is not always correct.
I, personally, hold no allegiance to Occam’s Razor…in this case (or many other cases I’ve worked).
I’ll just leave you guessing as to whether there is any value in that statement.
In this case we have too many unknowns (that are thus – variables) to address the mystery with any degree/s of certainty.

When your motor mount broke…and the accelerator went to the floor…didn't you attempt to “brake” the vehicle…or was there a large cotton candy patch just up the road?
At this point – I have no issue with how or why the engine ejected… Not saying I know the absolute mechanics of bolts snapping, shearing, stripping or the likes… It just seems to me that – it happened, and it’s not impossible…and, in fact, might even be a likely result.

My real point is – who would not have tried to ‘brake’ the vehicle…once the accelerator went ‘crazy’?
You did, when yours went bonkers.
I did, when mine went bonkers.
He did not (as far as video evidence goes)…until after it would make absolutely no difference.

Speed kills. (…sometimes...)

As I stated earlier (may not have been in this thread)…within the last couple/few months, a driver, driving one of the newer Mercedes sports (maybe a racer) models walked away from a 175 mph collision into a water-barrel escarpment.

Likewise – speed doesn’t necessarily kill…if you can slow the dang thing down…