Michael Hastings Car Crash Facts And Why I Don't Think He Was Murdered

reply to post by introV



The car Nasa Drives on Mars was designed to be driven by remote control on mars. The car you drive on the road, is designed to be driven on the road by you not remote control..

A really big difference there... Cost of the Mars rover and your standard car should show you that too.

reply to post by Boomer1941


Are you saying you don't buy the facts?

Do you care to elaborate?

Or, are you calling me a shill because you lack the mental capacity to deny ignorance and formulate an effective argument?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

I am curious what you think happened to Andrew Breitbart (and the Coroner while you are at it)........

I don't even know who either of those people were.

The coroner who died wasn't even associated with Breitbart's autopsy, so it doesn't even matter if you know who they are. It's a long dead theory that this guy apparently didn't get the memo on.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


This is a bit of a tangent, but I thought this was funny. It's from the link you provided to Dictionary.com.

Also under Fact -

"4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened...

5. a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement"

They denote the latter definition only to separate it from the definition of "opinion". An opinion cannot be proven right or wrong, but a fact can be proven either way. The point is that "facts" can be observed transpersonally, and opinions are unobservable personal beliefs.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by boncho

You however, have totally dismissed the possibility. Which I find very strange because none of your "facts" support your argument.

I have not dismissed the possibility of murder and I do show that he was more than likely Not hacked, and that explosives were not used.

So there are a least 2 reasons why I think he was Not murdered.

Now, if they "HACKED" the braked lines then I would says that is a matter of semantics.

On the other hand I have also demonstrated that there are possibilities other then murder that may have caused this.

edit on 30-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

yes, it seems as if you'd rather marginalize the man by saying "oh, he had an alcohol problem", or "oh, he had a drug problem"....i would ask that you take note of the operative part of both statements, that being the word "had".

You have also not proven in any way, shape, or form, that his car was not remotely tampered with (ie: hacked), or that explosives were not used...

completely discounting the presence of explosive materials, simply because nobody said anything about smells in the video is ludicrous....it was a car fire, they smell bad..there was no need for people to talk about what they were smelling...

honestly, when is the last time you saw a head on collision between a car and a tree, and seen the engine and tranny 100 feet away? did it somehow magically phase-shift, so it could go through the tree? that sounds a bit more wild than the possibility that this guy was purposely killed because of what he was working on..

i feel you are not being intellectually honest in your arguments....to accept your arguments, positions, and theories, one would need to completely suspend disbelief, in the face of a mountain of evidence showing exactly how it would have been possible to kill this man, and make it look like just another horrific accident in California..

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

I am curious what you think happened to Andrew Breitbart (and the Coroner while you are at it)........

I don't even know who either of those people were.

you should look into it...it's fascinating stuff..

journalists, about to release big stories, or who have already released big stories about government misconduct, suddenly dying under suspicious circumstances....Hastings ain't the first, and he won't be the last....while you're at it, look up Danny Casolaro, and Gary Webb

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Aliensun

 

I added the except from the manual about the recording devices because I thought it was rather interesting that the EMBRACE System transmits all of the data in the event of an accident.

So, if none of the recorders were retrievable due to fire damage, they (investigators) would have the data to review.

Also, there was something in manual around the same area that says the information could be subpoenaed by a judge.

edit on 30-6-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

i've seen you mentioning investigation a few times.....you're also making a huge leap, and assuming that the investigation will be done above board, or that the publicly-released version will not be a complete fabrication, like the 9/11 report, or that some other chicanery won't be done here....i honestly don't believe we'll ever get a real answer here...

Originally posted by drock905
Can you even over ride the mechnical systems of this car?

If it doesn't have parking assist there is no connection To the steering and braking system outside of driver inputs, it's a mechanical linkage with no computers and servos outside of sensors that measure various systems.

All modern Mercedes have fly by wire throttles controlled by a computer interpretting the drivers inputs on the gas pedal, they have no mechanical connection to the engine, I guess that could be overridden if the systems are able to be intercepted, which I don't think they can. They are closed systems.

like it or not, ABS, and CC do allow direct override of brakes and throttle, regardless of mechanical linkages....they're computer controlled, thus, the firmware controlling them can be tampered with.

assuming the car is sufficiently sophisticated, there are many avenues of attack for remote tampering.

Originally posted by introV
Maybe they created a scenario like speed. If he didn't maintain a certain speed a bomb would go off

Or maybe they installed a mechanical device to make his accelerator stick after it's pressed so far and a bomb/incendiary device planted that was rigged to explode on impact.

You said he liked drugs or whatever, maybe he was given that exotic drug that makes the user do whatever they are told, and he was told floor it into a tree.

There's literally a million scenarios that could have happened, they don't need to control the car remotely to do any number of things. It's as easy as swapping out a mechanical part and the car can seriously malfunction.

or.. maybe he was just drunk... but the e-mail to the lawyer is oddly timed

edit on 1-7-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)

now that you mention it, there is scopolamine....that might do the trick.....

a slightly off the wall theory, but plausible...

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by introV

Universities possess some of the smartest people on the planet. The Alphabet Agencies Also have some pretty smart people though I have Never heard of an alphabet agency making a technological breakthrough. Although I am smart enough to know that they certainly keep that kind of information Super Secret. The point is that the agencies more than likely don’t have much better technology than the universities.

NASA

They can control a remote control car on Mars, controlling a car would be piece of cake if the Gov wanted to do so.

Not making any speculations about the topic at hand, just sayin'

edit on 30-6-2013 by introV because: (no reason given)

The rover was made to receive wireless signals this car was not.

that really depends on the car, you know this.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
I think there is still confusion regarding the "Wireless Hacking".

Again for the sake of argument let us say that he was hacked.

One thing that has been confirmed here is that fact that the devices were designed in such a manner that a Manual Input will Override a Wireless Input.

Which basically means that if a hacker locks your door you simply have to just push the unlock button and it unlocks. So I really don't buy the idea that If he was under wireless control that his inputs would have been disregarded.

I guess you could say that it is more of a Safety Feature.

Unless, as was talked about in the DARPA presentation, a custom firmware is installed, or the stock firmware was corrupted.

which can be done without having access to the car.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Originally posted by amfirst1
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

 

You can control via bluetooth. The mercedes are equip with bluetooth. U can prob attach a bluetooth transmitter or bluetooth phone under the car and connect it directly into the bluetooth on the car and control it that way.

edit on 1-7-2013 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

That may be true, but here again that Requires a Physical attachement.

no, it does not. bluetooth is a wireless communication standard.....

Originally posted by Daedalus
...no, it does not. bluetooth is a wireless communication standard.....

So - to your understanding - the fact (I believe it is a fact) that the vehicle was equipped with the MBRACE (like OnStar) capabilities... Does this not automatically say "wireless capable", and, perhaps, even - "wireless connected"?
I think Shadellac' is pulling for the "underdog theory", here. There are minimal probabilities that his "operator or mechanical error" theory is correct (or - in the ballpark)...but...they remain possible.
Nevertheless - who's to say a malicious but exceptionally-tech-savvy culprit could not have gained access to the "wireless signal"...? People tap into wireless networks all the time...

reply to post by Daedalus


Thanks for responding. There are several rebuttals I would like to make.

Let's start with where you quoted me saying "oh, he had an alcohol problem", or "oh, he had a drug problem". What you really need to do is back and copy and past Exactly what I said. Some people here take it personally when you quote them In your Own Words. Regardless of either being past tense the facts remain that he was admitted to both alcohol usage and drug usage. You say that I " would rather marginalize the man" when that is not even the case. I clearly stated facts that are potential causes for what happened. I am not saying that it is what caused the accident but it does need to be considered. Weather he was or wasn't on either that night will be determined when the toxicology report is published. So how will you feel when the published findings show that he had high levels of either in his system? Are you going to say that his samples were tampered with?

You have also not proven in any way, shape, or form, that his car was not remotely tampered with (ie: hacked)

You are right, however, while you are going back to quote me on the other 2 items, you might as well grab the part where I mentioned that any evidence regarding the Hacking, Tampering, or Explosives will be published when the investigation is complete.

completely discounting the presence of explosive materials, simply because nobody said anything about smells in the video is ludicrous

Then apparently you know nothing of explosives so I will fill you in. Although there were items burning that would have emitted odors as well, the smell of explosives would have been prevalent immediately after the explosion. Before the other items would have had the chance to catch fire. With the exception of the gasoline, which also has a very distinct odor.

As far as the transmission goes you have been very keen at pointing out that it would have had to go through the tree. My calculation and theory on that is Highly plausible. At this point No One Including yourself has even bothered to offer an explanation of how the tranny and engine landed where it did. How about if you offer your theory on how it landed there. I would be very interested in hearing it.

While you are offering your theory on the transmission/engine ejection please do take the time to produce and exhibit this "mountain of evidence" that you say proves that he was murdered. I would be Extremely interested in entertaining that as well.

you're also making a huge leap, and assuming that the investigation will be done above board

Of course I expect the investigation will be above board. In fact I will bet money that it will be. To suggest that either the evidence or data will be tampered with is completely asinine. There are several different agencies/groups handling the investigation. It would not be easy by any stretch to fabricate either.

Unless, as was talked about in the DARPA presentation, a custom firmware is installed, or the stock firmware was corrupted.

If you had watched the video you would have seen that the bluetooth does require a physical connection through the OBD-II pass-through device. If you have evidence to prove otherwise please post that as well. I am not talking about things you have heard. I am talking about cold hard facts that have been documented. You are correct about bluetooth being a wireless standard, but, it has to be accessed through the OBD-II pass-through device.

In addition for your sake, I wanted to post this again in case you missed it. . ..

I also think this is Extremely important to add. . .. . .

When the facts come to light how many people do you suspect are going to jump on the 'ol "Alphabet Agency got to the investigators and made them concoct a story" bandwagon?

My guess is many. Especially when they show facts that prove it was either a true mechanical failure or operator error. Everyone who believes in the conspiracy theory is going say that the Data Was Bought or Manufactured.

Now, go get your evidence and theory and find your way back as I am anxious to examine them both.

reply to post by WanDash

People tap into wireless networks all the time...

Yes, yes, .. . But there are irrefutable records left behind as evidence of the connection.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...Yes, yes, .. . But there are irrefutable records left behind as evidence of the connection.

Virtually true.
I have run (Operations Manager) three broadband ISPs, one of which, the product was delivered entirely through wireless transmission &/or reception... One would expect MBRACE to have logs out the kazoo. And - one would expect there to be no "missing" blocks of time when examined. (Let's go a step further ------ I wasn't as good at setting up servers as I was at trying REAL HARD.) Lastly, though - no matter how smart the configurer...there is always someone-else (if given enough time and desire) who can find a work-around. Just ask Jason Bourne.

reply to post by WanDash


Jason Bourne?

Wasn't he a cartoon character? or something .. ..

On a more serious note,. ..

I wasn't able to find anything on the bandwidth as far as upload and download speeds go. Typically upload speeds are much slower than download speeds. Also, do you know if the embrace system uses 3G or even 4G, or maybe its own satellite?
I have really wondered if it was able to transmit its entire SITREP.

I honestly believe that data is going to show, without a doubt, some pretty damning information.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I am also on the fence on this one for now. But I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss the more sinister explanation of what could have happened. This isn't the first time someone has suspiciously died while working on something big. Do you truly believe that those other cases are all just coincidental deaths? I want you to believe this is a conspiracy for a moment. At least while you read my post. If this was a murder case, and some 3 letter agency or whatever did organize his death, do you really expect damning evidence against them to just fall into our hands? THINK ABOUT IT. Do you really have that much faith in your system that you think they are innocent? Do you honestly think that they would do such a sloppy job to leave traces behind or not have the ability to cover up surfacing evidence against them. Are you so ready to toss this case aside when the official response is presented for the mainstream to gobble up on and label the paranoid conspiracy crackpots as being wrong again? You say this stuff like you expect them to report "Evidence suggests this vehicle was tampered with and he was murdered by the FBI... case closed" Not in a million years. If that is what happened, then you can be sure the investigation will not help us get closer to the truth. Let's be real here.

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Daedalus
...no, it does not. bluetooth is a wireless communication standard.....

So - to your understanding - the fact (I believe it is a fact) that the vehicle was equipped with the MBRACE (like OnStar) capabilities... Does this not automatically say "wireless capable", and, perhaps, even - "wireless connected"?
I think Shadellac' is pulling for the "underdog theory", here. There are minimal probabilities that his "operator or mechanical error" theory is correct (or - in the ballpark)...but...they remain possible.
Nevertheless - who's to say a malicious but exceptionally-tech-savvy culprit could not have gained access to the "wireless signal"...? People tap into wireless networks all the time...

what are you even talking about?

you make no sense at all...

he was arguing that bluetooth would still require a physical connection, which is untrue, bluetooth is a wireless communication standard, meaning no physical connection is required to use it....

By the way OP, I know you want to discard the video evidence from the reporter (or paparazzi) but I checked the video and compared it to where the Hastings crash was supposedly located:

First from the video:



Then from Google maps:





and the location on maps:



Source

Originally posted by Daedalus
...what are you even talking about?

...you make no sense at all...

That's the spirit!!!
Every post or comment isn't an argument.
You don't have to assume offense just because I didn't viciously attack the thread's author.

...he was arguing that bluetooth would still require a physical connection, which is untrue, bluetooth is a wireless communication standard, meaning no physical connection is required to use it....
...

And - as you appear to be knowledgeable in "such matters", I was asking if what I proposed (regarding the interface and/or interaction between MBRACE & the vehicle) was generally correct.