If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   The coroner has completed the investigation into journalist's Michael Hasting's death and it turns out there is nothing to see here. And also he's a druggie. And also the FBI wasn't investigating him in the first place   (seattlepi.com) divider line 65
    More: Unlikely, FBI, Los Angeles County Coroner, medical examiners, investigation, journalists  
•       •       •

4836 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 7:33 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 12:05:46 AM

Bareefer Obonghit: StoPPeRmobile: Surool: sheep snorter: Don't mess with the CIA, peasants!!!!!

http://www.sandiego6.com/story/cia-director-brennan-confirmed-as-rep or ter-michael-hastings-next-target-20130812

The release of a new surveillance video from a nearby Italian restaurant ....blah blah blah

You know that accident investigations rely on things like length of the skids on the pavement as well as calculations for how much force it takes to bend the car frame up and not video to calculate these things, right? ...or is this a covert CIA tree that suddenly accelerated towards his car?



Then please explain how cops are able to ticket you for speeding, without using radar or any instruments, other than themselves?

They pace you. If they have to go 65 to keep up with you and the speed limit is 45, then you exceed the limit by at least 20. So you're saying a cop should have been following him into the tree to check his speed? Maybe it was a pace tree that followed him too close.


Someone hacked the computer in his car.
 
2013-08-21 12:28:51 AM

leadmetal: BolshyGreatYarblocks: What will Greenwald's death story be?

I'm going to put my bet on a mugging gone bad.

Gyrfalcon: No, conspiracy theories "get a foothold" because idiots say "Aha! He couldn't POSSIBLY have died in a fiery car crash all by himself! THEY must have killed him (in this spectacularly obvious and blatant way) to keep him quiet because!!! Let's not wait for any proof, let's run with it!"

Decades later often the instinct that the official story is bullshiat is often shown to be correct. Of course by then nobody is paying attention any more. People who were involved tell their stories before they die but nobody listens besides the same kooks who didn't believe the official story in the first place.

Besides that, coincidence theory gets spread a little thin after awhile. Just too much just seems to happen to benefit politically powerful people. Then add the produced nature of the mainstream news and the secretive/cya nature of government to that and that really gives life to things.


If you want it to. However, "coincidence" is often nothing more than "things which happen at the same time and which people want to believe are too closely connected not to be related."  And the fact that it benefits powerful people overlooks the fact that things OFTEN benefit those who are in a position to benefit from them--which is why they are in a position of power in the first place.

A thing can just as easily be argued the other way. People die in spectacular car accidents every day. It would be surprising if some of those deaths DIDN'T benefit at least a few people; in fact, it would be miraculous if NONE of them benefited anyone in some way, if all those people died and nobody was better off somehow. And yet exactly none of them spawn any "conspiracy theories" or even murder investigations, although probably more of them should.

And then, too, "conspiracy theories" are often hopelessly contradictory. Hastings' death being a perfect example. The prevailing "theory" is that he was killed by the CIA or the DoD because of his Petraeus "expose" or because of something he was working on, either in retribution or to silence him. Already there are problems with this "theory", but suppose the intent was to silence him. Then why do it in such a spectacular and public fashion? Well, the theory goes, to send a "message" to anyone who might be tempted to speak out. But then why go to such lengths to cover their tracks? Well, because nobody can know the CIA was involved. Then how are we to know they sent a "message"? As with most conspiracy theories, the logic becomes circular: We know it was the CIA sending a message because we can't tell it was the CIA sending a message.

Finally, conspiracy theories have to rely on people not understanding how things work. There's just "no way" Hastings' car could possibly have burned like that if it was "only going" 35 mph! It had to be going faster/had an accelerant/been hit with an explosive device. Except any firefighter or driver on the LA freeways can tell you it certainly IS possible for a car to burn like that, depending on how it crashes. All that has to happen is for the fuel line to be severed. But people think they know because they "just know" or they remember things differently later--memory not being the flashbulb storage device people seem to believe it is. People will tell their stories decades later, but it may or may not be the truth as it happened (it may be the truth as they remember it, but that's not the same thing).

Things happen. If the wealthy and powerful benefit, that's because things happen. Sometimes coverups happen, but that's also because things happen. Sometimes people just die, too. The better thing is to accept what is given BUT keep one's mind open for new information, NOT to spin conspiracies out of what one thinks makes more sense because coincidences seem too convenient.
 
2013-08-21 12:30:32 AM

OnlyM3: Slander the target. That's never been used by law enforcement before.


Isn't it amazing how the FBI got his own family to do it for them?
 
2013-08-21 01:02:22 AM

Gyrfalcon: Except any firefighter or driver on the LA freeways can tell you it certainly IS possible for a car to burn like that


Yeah, but he was driving a 2013 Mercedes.  Have they ever seen a new Mercedes burn like that?  Besides, Mercedes makes great cars and Germans are great engineers.

The real question is what was Dick Van Dyke doing that someone wanted him dead and why didn't they succeed?

I think that they used Van Dyke as a secret agent to kill Hastings and then they had to off Van Dyke so that he could never tell anyone.  I know this because I read it on the internet but I can't give you a link because almost as soon as it was posted the whole website mysteriously disappeared.

And even though Dick Van Dyke survived he's too afraid to tell anyone now because they told him if he did his whole family would be killed and he's not willing to put his family at risk.
 
2013-08-21 01:34:46 AM

Gyrfalcon: Finally, conspiracy theories have to rely on people not understanding how things work.


No, that's what official stories count on time and time again. Because the moment a person understands how things work the mainstream's media reporting on just about everything falls apart be it from error or just pushing a narrative. The absurdities of official stories time and time again show how the powers that be count on the ignorance of the population at large.

BTW, You seem to be caught up in this specific instance, which if you notice I offered no opinion on. Thus I am ignoring most of your reply.

If we were looking at purely random events we would see a nice standard distribution. Instead the distribution of events appears to be anything but a nice bell curve. It is highly weighted towards the status-quo power structure. Name one assassination from the 1960s that hurt the power structure. Instead lone nuts took out every important opposition figure. Not a single lone nut bagged a Nixon or Kissinger or LBJ or anyone of that ilk. One got close with Ford, so maybe that's one balancing instance but one isn't enough.These random accidents, when was the last time someone good for the status-quo was killed in one. Can you even think of an instance?

After five plus decades coincidence theory has become strained. The distribution is too lopsided. The same goes with legislation. It's extremely weighted against liberty over a long period of time, yet we are supposed to believe it's just random chance.

Beyond that the simple fact is that time and time again the passage of time shows konspiracy koooks to be justified in their suspicions and some get it dead to rights. The problem is the american public has long stopped paying attention by that point. Most americans don't know the gulf of Tokin was a fabrication, let alone other things. Six months ago the idea that the NSA was vacuuming up data was "conspiracy theory" as was using the IRS as political weapon. Both things konspiracy kooks, whistle blowers, and the like said publicly ages ago.

Furthermore people who want to discredit those who don't believe in official stories conflate things. That is if for instance, If I were to voice an engineering opinion that the official story of WTC7's collapse didn't make sense structurally, someone would then lump me into a group of people who says UFOs with death rays brought down the buildings. Someone might even say that a view of that debris from the towers and small fires isn't consistent with the structural failure of WTC7 doesn't jive well with alien death rays. As if all alternative ideas should come from the same person and work seamlessly together. Often I think the most absurd ideas are created for that purpose. To make it so that nobody listens to the well researched and people who actually do know their stuff.

So long as the american public simply believes in random events and crazy people they will continue to be duped. They continue to believe things like "they hate us because we are free" or that they are "crazy (religious) people". or that so and so just happened to die because accidents happen and people die.

So maybe Hastings was just an accident. Maybe it wasn't. The long term pattern however shows that we should look harder at things and be more suspicious of what government employees and political office holders tell us.
 
2013-08-21 02:55:29 AM

leadmetal: Often I think the most absurd ideas are created for that purpose. To make it so that nobody listens to the well researched and people who actually do know their stuff.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Morris Fletcher: You guys are the Lone Gunmen, aren't you? You guys are my heroes. I mean look at the crap you print.

Byers: We uncover the truth.

Morris Fletcher: The truth? That's what's so great about you monkeys. Not only do you believe the horse pucky we create, you broadcast it as well. I mean look at this!

[headline reads: "Saddam testing mandroid army in Iraqi desert."]

Morris Fletcher: There is no Saddam Hussein. This guy's name is John Gillnitz, we found him doing dinner theatre in Tulsa. Did a mean "King and I." Plays good ethnics.

Ringo Langly: Are you trying to say that Saddam Hussein is a goverment plant?

Morris Fletcher: I'm saying I invented the guy. We set him up in '79. He rattles his saber whenever we need a good distraction. Ah... if you boys only knew how many of your stories I dreamed up while on the pot.
 
2013-08-21 03:11:28 AM

OhioUGrad: I admit I heard the conspiracy theories (and lots of them) long before I heard anything about drug abuse/addiction.

But who is to say the gubmint didn't make him inject/inhale/ingest those drugs then drive....huh, huh?

/the cremation thing bothered me, then I looked it up and saw it was on infowars and decided right then and there it was fake


s.mcstatic.com
oi43.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-21 03:35:00 AM

leadmetal: If we were looking at purely random events we would see a nice standard distribution. Instead the distribution of events appears to be anything but a nice bell curve. It is highly weighted towards the status-quo power structure. Name one assassination from the 1960s that hurt the power structure. Instead lone nuts took out every important opposition figure. Not a single lone nut bagged a Nixon or Kissinger or LBJ or anyone of that ilk. One got close with Ford, so maybe that's one balancing instance but one isn't enough.These random accidents, when was the last time someone good for the status-quo was killed in one. Can you even think of an instance?


Well, first you have to define "status-quo". You are looking at the short-term and saying "Aha! in the 1960's, lone-gunmen assassins only killed the people that I think were opposing the people I define as bad guys (i.e. you are defining the status quo) so clearly there is a conspiracy here to silence the opposition." And in the short term, that is true. Bobby Kennedy's death, and King's, were very bad things which hurt the Democratic and Civil Rights movement very badly, and the status-quo actors benefited greatly.

But. In the long term, and through the longer lens of history, the status-quo actors seriously blew it, if that was their goal. The death of King galvanized the Civil Rights movement in a way that his life might never have done--to this day, his Dream speech motivates and empowers kids whose parents weren't even born that day in 1968. Had he lived, he might not have survived whatever political assassination the FBI might have concocted; and the movement as a whole was not only not destroyed, it was and is still a powerful force in America today. So the fact that King personally suffered did not benefit the status-quo in the way you seem to think.

In the same way, the fact that nobody managed to even the score by killing one of the status-quo power brokers is an outstanding application of historian's fallacy; and again, you are thinking in the short-term. Who exactly would have been the one to shoot? You might have noticed by now that crazy shooters come almost exclusively from the right-wing side of the crazy spectrum, and right-wingers don't kill their own. Leftists are bombers by inclination, and Kaczynski was blowing up evil college professors during the 60's and 70's, just nobody knew it. Even assuming anyone would have shot Nixon, it's hard to know how killing him--again--would have changed anything in the "status quo", any more than King's assassination took the wind out of the Civil Rights movement.

If there is some kind of overarching conspiracy, it's very badly run and seldom achieves its aims. The reason people don't believe in them in general is the weight of evidence just isn't there. You cite the WTC #7 example: If 15 engineers say that structural failure was adequate to bring down the building, and one says it wasn't, then I don't need to lump that one with crazy space-alien nuts to discount his theory; I can simply say the evidence is not on his side. If 20 forensic specialists say that a death was caused by blunt-force trauma and one specialist says it was an overdose of heroin, then it's not calling that one a lunatic to say it was probably blunt-force trauma...but also not throwing the one on the pile with the fanatics saying it was demonic possession, either.

Now if the one engineer or the one forensic technician starts insisting that the 15 or 20 others have all been paid off or subverted by the government and ONLY HE knows the truth, going on AM radio to tout his theory and muttering darkly about coverups and sinister plots, then my opinion of his credibility goes down accordingly. Yours may not. I go with what can be proven, most of the time, not with JDFR. Even if it seems like all the good guys get murdered and all the bad guys don't. Remember, from the other side, all the bad guys got murdered, after all.
 
2013-08-21 08:16:18 AM
Trace amphetamines can also be a false positive for sudafed.  So does Ritalin.     http://www.askdocweb.com/falsepositives.html
 
2013-08-21 08:22:56 AM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: What will Greenwald's death story be?


Auto-erotic asphyxiation accident.

If anyone starts to question the official story they'll just show them Greenwald's byline photo with the worryingly tight collar.
 
2013-08-21 08:32:03 AM

leadmetal: If we were looking at purely random events we would see a nice standard distribution. Instead the distribution of events appears to be anything but a nice bell curve. It is highly weighted towards the status-quo power structure. Name one assassination from the 1960s that hurt the power structur

e

OK, I'll bite:  Is a sitting president in the "power structure"?

And why just the 1960's?  I can remember an assassination in the 1860's that hurt the power structure, as well as one in 1880 and one in 1901.  1975 and 1981 were close calls.

But in any case, here's Wikipedia's list of notable 1960's assassinations:


Assassinations

17 January 1961 - Patrice Lumumba, the Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo. Assassinated by a Belgian and Congolese firing squad outside Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

27 May 1963 - Grigoris Lambrakis, Greek left-wing MP by far-right extremists with connections to the police and the army in Thessaloniki.

12 June 1963 - Medgar Evers, an NAACP field secretary. Assassinated by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Jackson, Mississippi.

2 November 1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam, along with his brother and chief political adviser, Ngo Dinh Nhu. Assassinated by Duong Hieu Nghia and Nguyen Van Nhung in the back of an armoured personnel carrier.

22 November 1963 - John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963 while in his open convertible car riding in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. According to the 1964 report issued by the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president, but there has been consistent speculation ever since that Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy. See JFK assassination for more details.

21 February 1965 - Malcolm X. Assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam in New York City. There is a dispute about which members killed Malcolm X.

6 September 1966 - Hendrik Verwoerd, Prime Minister of South Africa and architect of apartheid was stabbed to death by Dimitri Tsafendas, a parliamentary messenger. He survived a previous attempt on his life in 1960.

25 August 1967 - George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party. Assassinated by John Patler in Arlington, Virginia.

4 April 1968 - Martin Luther King, Jr., civil rights leader. Assassinated by James Earl Ray in Memphis, Tennessee. 5

June 1968 - Robert F. Kennedy, United States Senator. Assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles, California, taking California in the presidential national primaries.

Even just paring it down to purely US assassinations, there appears to be a little from all sides in there.
 
2013-08-21 11:13:22 AM

Surool: OnlyM3: Slander the target. That's never been used by law enforcement before.

Isn't it amazing how the FBI got his own family to do it for them?


Are you sure?  They don't quote anyone.  No names.  That's not admissible in court so why should it be in this report.  Not to mention the report says it didn't contribute to the crash so why mention it at all?
 
2013-08-21 12:31:02 PM

Prince George: Surool: OnlyM3: Slander the target. That's never been used by law enforcement before.

Isn't it amazing how the FBI got his own family to do it for them?

Are you sure?  They don't quote anyone.  No names.  That's not admissible in court so why should it be in this report.  Not to mention the report says it didn't contribute to the crash so why mention it at all?


Your last entry accused the FBI of slander because the drugs weren't considered a factor in the crash. We've covered that already, and it isn't in dispute. It can't be your first AND your next "point" in your conspiracy fantasy.

So, unless you talk to the family members in person you won't believe the drug use... and even then you'd just say "the FBI has something on them!"

I understand how badly you want this to be true. It's okay.
 
2013-08-21 01:55:35 PM

Prince George: Are you sure?  They don't quote anyone.  No names.  That's not admissible in court so why should it be in this report.  Not to mention the report says it didn't contribute to the crash so why mention it at all?


It was in the coroner's report with the name of the person giving that statement redacted.  They were quoting it and could not list a source.
 
2013-08-22 12:30:26 AM

Gyrfalcon: Now if the one engineer or the one forensic technician starts insisting that the 15 or 20 others have all been paid off or subverted by the government and ONLY HE knows the truth, going on AM radio to tout his theory and muttering darkly about coverups and sinister plots, then my opinion of his credibility goes down accordingly.


I feel this way about AGW deniers.
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report