How do we know what is true and what are lies?
Well, if the source doesn't benefit from what he says, there is a higher chance that he speaks the truth.
Another rule: Miracles are really really rare. Too many miracles on one day: don't believe the story.
Let's count the number of miracles on the day Hastings was killed in a road accident.
1. Hastings was on to 'some big new case'.
2. He planned to go 'off the radar' for a while. ( See below, or look here)
3. The FBI was trying to get information from his close friends, so he advised his friends not to say anything without a lawyer.
This is what Hastings emailed his friends.
Only 22 hours later:
3. Hastings drives at 4 am and at very high speed through a red traffic light.
4. A few seconds later he drives against a tree.
5. A photographer from 'Breaking News' happens to be parked at the crossing where Hastings drives through the red light and his windshield-camera films Hastings as he drives through the red light, and also proves that Hastings was not followed by another car.
How often does a person drive through a red traffic light, at very high speed?
Not very often, as people who do so will not get the chance to make it a habit: it will kill you.
And ìf this happens, how often is it filmed by a camera, so that we can be sure that Hastings was not followed ?
This is the official story.
Police give no information, but very quickly said that there was no reason to suspect any thing else than a normal accident.
( How can they know? They did not take the time for an investigation.)
My first conclusion:
Even with only the information as given above I suspected a liquidation:
- the motives were there: a journalist who was able to get a very high general ousted, and now is 'on to a big case' : 'They' must know what he is 'on to ' ( PRISM ?) and don't want it to be publicised.
- To drive through red light: a rare thing.
- To drive through a red light at high speed: a very rare thing.
- Then to hit a tree and get on fire: a very very very rare coïncidence .
On 9 july an investigative journalist Kimberly Dvorak was in L.A. to find out.
She came with more facts:
- Nobody has been granted the police-report yet.
- Police and firemen 'could not comment' or said they were told 'not to comment'.
- The fire was extremely hot, as military personnel said to Dvorak. Not normal for a car like this. The car was brand-new.
- The car drove from north to south, but its motor was found to the north of the wreckage. At 50 meters distance. University professors that Dvorak asked about this are puzzled.
What could have happened? Could he be drunk?
- He could be drunk, but there were zero skid-marks. Hastings did not try to use the breaks.
Could the car have malfunctioned ? Exploded from itself? Or was an explosive put on board?
Mercedes makes their car in such a way that they will never blow up. They take great care for that.
Could controle over the car be 'hijacked', could it be remote-controled ?
That could be. The University of San Diego gave out a report in 2010 in which they took a normal car like a Nissan Centra, and took a normal iPad and with that were able to hack into the cars system and operate: - the accellerator, steering, breaks, windshield-wipers, lights..
Here are some interesting reactions that appeared on ICH:
An excerpt from the LA Times article:
In an email sent hours before his death in a single-car L.A. crash, journalist Michael Hastings wrote that his “close friends and associates” were being interviewed by the FBI and he was going to “go off the radar for a bit.”
According to the email, sent to KTLA, Hastings wrote he was working on a “big story” and was going to disappear. He told his colleagues that if the FBI came to interview them, they should have legal counsel present.
UPDATE 23 OCTOBER 2013: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36657.htm