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

reply to post by WanDash


Are you in agreement that there might have been flames before it hit the hydrant?

I questioned his eyewitness account also. I am not saying that he is lying, but like you, there might have been too much to take in all at once like that.

I had listened to another interview with a woman who claimed that she had seen his white arms when he was initially taken out of the car. That woman was completely genuine with how she was talking but her facts were completely fouled. Here again, I believe her but I question her facts.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Wewillrise77

 

Apparently you never seen the thread I did. I even calculated the details of the engine ejecting from the vehicle.

Michale Hasting Car Crash Facts

That is the thread if you think you have the capicity to understand it.

ETA:

I also wanted to add that the video from the pizzaria shows the car for all of about 2 seconds. If you think you did any calculation to extrapolate your conclusion I have to call Bull S[SNIP]T.

edit on 29-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

Not sure if you remember but I posted in that thread already and unfortunately your agenda was as clear as your lack of understanding regarding modern automotive electronics.

As for the 2 seconds of footage, slow it down, take measurements, do the math. I can't make it any easier for you.... Nor do I want to give you the answer as you will never learn otherwise. It's not that difficult. If you put half the effort into working that out as have in trying to undermine certain posters who don't subscribe to your theories, then you'll have your answer.

There's this,

Does the FBI have any records on the late investigative journalist Michael Hastings? I don't know. But fellow FOIA terrorist Ryan Shapiro and I just filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the agency to find out.

With tired of not getting a response, a failed one of the FBI, he's going to sue.

"By suing the FBI for failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, [we] hope to obtain records pertaining both to the unusual circumstances of Michael Hastings's death and to the broader issue of FBI surveillance of journalists and other critics of American national security policy," Shapiro said.

Source

Interesting how it will turn out.

Originally posted by JBA2848
...

Here is the under side of a Mercedes. I can't see much that can be damaged from bottoming out. The exhaust came off but was still directly behind the car when it hit the tree.
...That is what is laying behind the car in this picture.
...It seems the only thing that was effected under the car was the tail pipe. And it managed to hold on till the last second it appears. But some how the gas tank that is behind a shielded cover was damaged between the tail pipes so bad the fire burned super hot? And I have heard some one say well maybe he had Nitros on the car to make it burn so hot. Well where is the Nitros? We have a pretty good picture of the motor when it landed a couple hundred feet down the road with no Nitros lines on it.

Do you see the fuel line in this picture?
Is it possible that a fire hydrant (or, partially busted fire hydrant) could have come in contact with and ruptured it?
If so - would you mind pointing it out?
Thanks!

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

Are you in agreement that there might have been flames before it hit the hydrant?
...

I do not think the vehicle was on fire (or - that there was a fire already brewing) prior to impacting the tree.
There is one entirely dark (no lights emitted from any part of the vehicle) frame, after the second flash (which immediately followed the first flash, when hitting the utility cover).

Originally posted by dreamingawake
There's this,
...

Does the FBI have any records on the late investigative journalist Michael Hastings? I don't know. But fellow FOIA terrorist Ryan Shapiro and I just filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the agency to find out.

...With tired of not getting a response, a failed one of the FBI, he's going to sue.

"By suing the FBI for failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, [we] hope to obtain records pertaining both to the unusual circumstances of Michael Hastings's death and to the broader issue of FBI surveillance of journalists and other critics of American national security policy," Shapiro said.

Source
...Interesting how it will turn out.

Thanks for the article.
Hope something develops from it... Surely "they" wouldn't go after a doctoral candidate at MIT...too...?

reply to post by Wewillrise77


Post your math because I think you are Full of IT.

I have the ability to work it out. There is Not enough data to draw that conclusion.

You are talking out your @$$.

Now prove it. Else wise I will consider you to be nothing more than a ******* ****. Or a Shill.

Honestly I suspect someone who claims to be a stay at home dad in addition to tired n hungry does not have the aptitude to complete such a calculation even if there was enough data to do so.

reply to post by WanDash


I had also seen a video last week of a woman who was talking about the EMBRACE system and she said that all of the data is transmitted in less than a second.

The first impact could have been enough to trigger the equipment such as airbags, and the Telematics, which would have sent the data.

I am going to do some more reading on the EMBRACE equipment. It seems to me that they may have included a provision to give the device power when the battery dies.

reply to post by WanDash

Do you see the fuel line in this picture?

The fuel line appears to be covered by the cover that is laying over the heat shield.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

...The first impact could have been enough to trigger the equipment such as airbags, and the Telematics, which would have sent the data.
...I am going to do some more reading on the EMBRACE equipment. It seems to me that they may have included a provision to give the device power when the battery dies.

Yes - it would seem to me that the airbags (and fuel pump shut-off) might have been triggered by the first impact, as well.
If that is the case, then - the airbags' usefulness might have been exhausted by the time the car hit the tree.
Makes you wonder why the electrical system seemed to "quit", prior to impacting the tree - since the battery is located in the trunk...

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Wewillrise77

 

Post your math because I think you are Full of SH T.

I have the ability to work it out. There is Not enough data to draw that conclusion.

You are talking out your @$$.

Now prove it. Else wise I will consider you to be nothing more than a ******* ****. Or a Shill.

Honestly I suspect someone who claims to be a stay at home dad in addition to tired n hungry does not have the aptitude to complete such a calculation even if there was enough data to do so.

Shill??? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who notices the irony in this statement of yours???

So, you expect me to help you work something so simple yet insult me when I do not?
You claim to know me soooo well that you can draw conclusions based on the fact I'm a stay at home dad and I'm tired and hungry??

Let me enlighten you a little, I'm a stay at home dad because I made enough money to comfortably retire at 35. Tired and Hungry is based on saying that I'm chasing intellectual stimulation but cannot find it, You are my case in point. XD hahaha

Now, seen as you're too lazy and would rather dish out insults than do some research yourself, just like your thread you linked earlier. The car takes .9s to cover 25metres then .7s to cover the following 25m. Measurements taken from google maps. After you have the measurements this was a pretty simple equation which could be worked out in your head. A car doing 60kmh covers 1km in a minute or 100m in 6 seconds. Meaning the car was traveling at almost 100kmh in the first 25m then increased to around 120kmh in the 2nd 25m well within the engine spec of this particular Mercedes.
Next time, work it out for yourself!!!

reply to post by Wewillrise77


Well, considering that the brake light don't even come on until less than a third of a second before the car disappears would indicate that your math is completely fouled.

You said

Shows him braking well before the impact but the car is speeding up??

The braking doesn’t happen until about .26485 seconds before impact. There is absolutley No way in Hell that you can tell me that the car is accelerating faster than that at that point.

According to the witness he was already going at "Top Speed". If the engine was opening up to accelerate there would have been a noticeable sound in the engine. The witness would have certainly confirmed that if it was the case.

By the way my calculation has him going about 90 mph.

reply to post by WanDash





Arrow shows the fuel lines next to the frame rail.Then it travels up into the fender well behind the tire.
Where the box is at is where the fuel pump and regulator would go. Connected with rubber hoses no less.

Video that shows Mercedes being built. 2:21 seconds was the screen grab.



This video shows you where they hide the fuel pump and regulator where I marked the square box at.older model Mercedes but it is still in the same place.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Wewillrise77

 

Well, considering that the brake light don't even come on until less than a third of a second before the car disappears would indicate that your math is completely fouled.

You said

Shows him braking well before the impact but the car is speeding up??

The braking doesn’t happen until about .26485 seconds before impact. There is absolutley No way in Hell that you can tell me that the car is accelerating faster than that at that point.

According to the witness he was already going at "Top Speed". If the engine was opening up to accelerate there would have been a noticeable sound in the engine. The witness would have certainly confirmed that if it was the case.

By the way my calculation has him going about 90 mph.

edit on 30-7-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

Have another look, the video shows the brakes on well before then... The car is then thrown into reverse just before impact "looks like a futile attempt to stop it" as you can tell by the reverse lights which you are mistaking as brake lights. A white light is much brighter on night vision/low lux than a red light. Furthermore you're stating it was traveling at top speed??? What is Top speed??? Mercedes say that it is 245kmh or 140mph there abouts, a little faster than the video suggests I would think.

As has been stated by the staff of ATS, repeatedly – “Attack the ball – Not the Player”.
I would just as soon there be no participation in this thread…than to belittle or attack others for not seeing things as you (or I) do.
Likewise – categorical attacks are just as incendiary and cowardly.
If you have the legitimate “high ground” on a fact or angle or interpretation…and someone-else (others) does not see it…the point of collaborative effort is to allow you to “show” (prove - explain) and others to question.
If you don’t care about moving toward the development of plausible theory regarding “Foul Play or Not”, take your ego to another thread that needs more hot-air balloons.

For any still standing after that tirade, here are a few more “facts” for your consideration.

Was He Going Off-Radat, Or Not?
SSgt Biggs, in an interview with Alex Jones and another (earlier) interview with RT, stated that – after receiving the “going off the radat” email, he was highly perplexed, and immediately called Michael Hastings’ to see what was up. He said that there was no answer…and, the call was not returned. How much later, we don’t know, but he said that “later” (on June 17th), he texted Hastings’…and received no response.

To me – under the circumstances we are aware of…this suggests three possible scenarios:
1. Hastings’ was as sincere as possible, about getting off the radar, when he sent the email…and…had done what such sincerity would require – being – as soon as the email was sent – he submerged.
2. Hastings did not send the email – having already been abducted by “the bad guys” (being the persons responsible for sending the email from his smart-phone, laptop, iPad, or whatever). This “explanation” has problems…as – how do we explain the call to the WikiLeaks lawyer, later (if, indeed, it was “later”)…?
3. Hastings was not sincere, when sending the email – and was using the email as a diversion (sleight of hand) to mask something else…and, to maintain the façade, he needed to go “into character” immediately…or, the ruse would not be successful.
Of these three scenarios – the first has the fewest tricky-spots to get around…and, to my mind, is the most likely.
There should be at least one person (alive) who could set this question to rest – that being, his wife.
If I were going “off radar” because of concerns for my life (or for being able to perform my work)…I would not consider my wife/family “safe”, just because I was gone.
In fact – I would be more concerned for their safety, under such a scenario, and would absolutely NOT have gone “off radar” without letting them know…something.

We know, from early reports, that the family had/has enlisted the services of a private investigator.
Whether the private investigator is the same as the author of Selective Silencing: Was Michael Hastings Murdered?…or not – we can only guess.
If you have not read the article, however – I suggest giving it a browse…as, it looks like Mr. Hagmann, who is privy to more information than we, does not consider “no foul play” as a viable candidate in this particular case.

FACT ONE: car go fast
Fact two: car go boom.
fact three: man dead.

Those are the only facts,,which could NOT have been disputed,,untill they CREAMATED the body.

now fact 3 is no longer verifiable.

The guy was smart and tech. savy,,it would not be the first time someone faked their death.while the world watched.
or
he is dead,, and we go back too 1,2,3.

reply to post by Wewillrise77


I am very aware that a lower LUX has more light gather ability.

When the car enters the view of the camera the taillights are on and bright. Those are Not the brake lights. They appear to be bright because of the low LUX of the camera. It isn't until just before the impact that the brakes are applied. He never tried to put it in reverse.

He did what any typical driver would do. Hit the brakes just before impact.

He was working on a "big story" and dead men "tell no tales"......

Originally posted by BobAthome
FACT ONE: car go fast
Fact two: car go boom.
fact three: man dead.
...Those are the only facts,,which could NOT have been disputed,,untill they CREAMATED the body.
...now fact 3 is no longer verifiable.
...The guy was smart and tech. savy,,it would not be the first time someone faked their death.while the world watched.
or
...he is dead,, and we go back too 1,2,3.

So - the "theory" you are proposing, is like the plot to the movie "Fletch"...where one guy wanting to disappear, finds a "nobody" with similar build...and...plans to "burn" the nobody to a crisp (before DNA was a viable forensic option)... ?
I have considered this - and it remains a slim possibility, in my mind.
They do have quite a few hurdles to clear, however, to accomplish this... One, being, "inside help" - probably at the Medical Examiner's office...but, possibly, from other sources, as well.

There are, though, other substantial facts for consideration... Such as - "where" the car was driving at said speeds, "when" the car was driving at said speeds, and the "verifiable" history that preceded the incident.
While the argument can be made that - any one, and/or all of those "historic" facts are/were/may-be unrelated - to explain any theory - one needs to include "motive".
Otherwise...it isn't theory...but...fact/s.

Further - while you/we may not be able to narrow the possibilities to an "absolute" answer with the facts available (presently), we can reduce them to significantly fewer than are currently running amok, by weighing the various probabilities against/with each other - finding those that "cannot coexist" and those that "can", until the number of "considerable" theories have been reduced to a reasonably manageable few.

reply to post by WanDash


aahhh the age old corpus delecti " one needs to include "motive". "

motive,, so then Logical we must ask,,,"who has most too gain."