CIA Director Brennan Confirmed as Reporter Michael Hastings' Next Target | Hacker News Reader

CIA Director Brennan Confirmed as Reporter Michael Hastings' Next Target

sandiego6.com

131 pointsSan_Diegian35 comments

Two points stick out from this article:

1: > "By using the video and the distance traveled (195 feet) as well as the seconds that lapsed prior to the explosion – in his opinion, the car was traveling roughly 35 mph."

2: > "The pre-explosion could possibly explain the flash of light on the video that preceded the appearance of the car in the video. 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."

Also remember his body was cremated without permission [1] making this whole incident rather suspect.

[1] http://www.inquisitr.com/856084/michael-hastings-cremated-ag...

The article and your comment are misleading. Despite the professor's calculation, it contradicts other evidence including the eye witnesses.

Michael Krikorian observes that Hastings' car was going at least twice as fast as the other cars in the video. He estimated that the car was travelling at least 80 mph.

And the video from Loudlabs' clearly shows Hastings' car speeding through a red light prior to the crash.

And in the Krikorian article, a special effects expert said the bright flash of light could be due to the auto exposure of the camera causing the explosion to look bigger than it actually was. The "pre-explosion" appears to be the car hitting the 30" x 2' wide metal protusion for a water main between the curb and the tree.

And the expert noted that a bomb would blow the car and engine upwards and not forwards.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-...

Well, I'm not a special effects expert but I would assume a bomb placed between the engine block and the firewall would indeed push the engine forward. One placed beneath the engine would seem to push it upward. Until placement (big if on placement in the first place) is determined, it doesn't seem likely to be able to explain the results.

The single biggest piece of evidence is that the engine and drive shaft were blown 200' away from the rest of the wreck. That seems like quite a big explosion, based on my extensive viewing of Mythbusters.

I doubt any witnesses saw much beyond the fireballs (which would have ruined their night vision), so whether the car was thrown up or not is unlikely to have been noted.

I'm not clear on a few things here:

>Michael Krikorian observes that Hastings' car was going at least twice as fast as the other cars in the video.

Does that tell us anything without knowing how fast the other cars were going? For instance, could they have been slowing for a light as the article suggests?

>He estimated that the car was traveling at least 80 mph.

Not sure why some dude looking and estimating (i.e. "eyewitness") is more reliable than calculations based on time/distance caught on video? Granted he could have been slowing down or speeding up, but that could be so with the eyeballed account or the video. So, still not sure why this "eyewitness" estimate has more weight than the video in your mind?

>And the video from Loudlabs' clearly shows Hastings' car speeding through a red light prior to the crash.

Speed could have changed between then and the accident a couple minutes later, right?

>And the expert noted that a bomb would blow the car and engine upwards and not forwards.

Why couldn't it be both? In fact, even if the engine were blown upward, wouldn't it still have inertia from the car's forward momentum, thus also continue traveling forward?

Fair points but the author of the article, Kimberly Dvorak, appears convinced that Hastings' was murdered. It seems she found someone to support a theory that his car was travelling 35MPH. I think you can deduce from him speeding through the red light, the lack of brake lights in the 2nd video, the witness who said the car was travelling 100MPH, and the nature of the impact that he was in fact driving very fast.

If the video evidence was so clear that he was travelling 35MPH, I'm sure other people would be supporting this claim which would easily confirm a bomb was used.

>I think you can deduce from him speeding through the red light, the lack of brake lights in the 2nd video, the witness who said the car was travelling 100MPH

I don't think we can deduce that. There are gaps. And witnesses are notorious for being wrong. Besides, why should we be deducing anything when there is actual video?

>If the video evidence was so clear that he was travelling 35MPH, I'm sure other people would be supporting this claim

That's an odd position to take. I mean, how many people have to agree before it's "clear"? Instead of asking for other people supporting, shouldn't you be asking others to refute it? It's out there for all to see. So, tell us the timing is off, the distance was wrong, the video was not real-time, or something which would prove his conclusions wrong.

In all of the mystery surrounding this, this particular point is easy. There has to be a physics based reason that his video analysis is wrong.

One thing I would like to know is the possible range of speeds the car was traveling at the point of impact. The most that can be deduced from simple time/distance is that the average was 35 MPH, unless there was frame-by-frame analysis. I don't think that was the case here. So, given what's known about the car's acceleration/braking performance, as well as the distance traveled, what is the maximum speed at impact? I don't think it's too big a delta because the distance is relatively short. Still would be nice to be more precise.

Let's be fair. Krikorian had access to the ENTIRE video and this professor only a short Youtube video clip. Kirkorian wrote, "Three seconds later, another vehicle goes by, traveling from the restaurant front door to the crash site in about seven seconds." And you can see from the video clip, that Hastings' car travels the same distance in about 3.5 seconds- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaPHWNzTHQ

The car that slowed down was travelling the other direction. There's no indication the two cars travelling the same direction slowed down.

Why wouldn't Krikorian, a former LA Times reporter, want to not break the biggest story ever, proving Hastings was driving 35MPH? His investigation also contradicted other things Miss Dvorak claimed- http://krikorianwrites.com/blog/2013/7/24/michael-hastings-i...

EDIT: I did a rough estimate of the professor's math. The pizza shop to the impact is about 200'. Looking closer, it appears it takes Hastings 2.5 to 3 seconds to travel that distance. So if the video surveillance is played at real time, Hastings was travelling between 45MPH and 55MPH? To be 35MPH, the time would have to be about 3.8 seconds.

Sure someone could do a more accurate estimate but it seems very unlikely that he was going 80MPH assuming the video surveillance is not delayed. It'd be interesting to get accurate measurements and use some video analysis to get a real answer.

Fair points. I think it's good that we're focusing on the video, BTW.

>Why wouldn't Krikorian, a former LA Times reporter, want to not break the biggest story ever, proving Hastings was driving 35MPH?

I have no idea. Maybe because he's a former reporter? Some other reason? I don't know. But, I think it's good to keep focusing on verifying or refuting the numbers from the video.

>Hastings was travelling between 45MPH and 55MPH?

That's what I get.

>It'd be interesting to get accurate measurements and use some video analysis to get a real answer.

It would be good to have more precise numbers (distances, times, etc). But, even with rough (but reasonable) numbers, this takes us way under 80MPH and definitely the 100MPH that some have suggested.

But, doesn't it seem like such analysis should be part of the police investigation?

Why is the "security camera" moving? It looks like someone was holding the camera. Aren't security cameras usually mounted to walls?

The investigative reporter lives nearby. He recorded the surveillance camera playback with his camera or phone. Perhaps the recording of the playback slowed down the video slightly?

Maybe someone could load the video up in Physics Toolkit (http://www.physicstoolkit.com/) or another program (http://jabryan.iweb.bsu.edu/VideoAnalysis/) and get a more accurate estimate of how fast Hastings was travelling.

The investigator that released the video wrote a good article debunking a lot of the claims out there- http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-...

Although I'd never heard the story about Charles Colson, the Special Counsel to President Nixon ordering to kill Jack Anderson, a pioneer in investigative journalism. They considered dosing his steering wheel with LSD among other things but were stopped when they were arrested for the Watergate burglary- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist)#Targe...

In 2008, President Bush gave Mr. Colson the Presidential Citizens Medal for all the good work he did after prison.

Who'd believe that a White House lawyer would order CIA agents to kill a famous journalist if those involved hadn't confessed to it under oath?

One statement in the investigation sticks out to me:

As Anderson put it, “None of this happens without the speed.”

So now that we've got evidence the speed wasn't so high, what does that mean for the investigation?

Conspiracy theories aside, remember what happened to Aaron Swartz. Psychological pressure & abuse is used without a second thought by LEO & government agents. I would like to see a solid reconstruction of the hours preceding Michael Hastings demise, who he was with, and who he talked to.

It's weird, there was a (stupid) debate on HN a ~month ago about whether cars "explode" the way Hastings seemed to have (it smoldered on despite the photographer who pointed out how much more violent the flames would have seen due to nighttime videography, and despite the EMT who posted his experiences dealing with car fires, and despite the posted video of a car almost literally appearing to explode when it ran into a tollbooth).

And anyways, what's weird is that since then I've driven past two horrible vehicle fires. One was on the west side of Chicago, a high-end Lexus on the side of the road roaring with flames as if someone had thrown a grenade into it. The other was a semi driving on the inbound Ike --- driving lazily across 4 lanes of traffic while burning so violently that little flaming chunks of it were flying off it and bouncing off the road in front of me, so hot that it was actually uncomfortable to drive past it (what else do you do?) even with the windows shut and the AC on.

The people who say it's implausible for routine circumstances to cause a car to burn violently don't know what they're talking about.

I just brought up Michael Hastings' death in a conversation yesterday - I think that, more important than the death itself, the lesson to be learned from this incident is how many "non-tinfoil hat" types who would have just rolled their eyes before are now willing to entertain the notion that he was assassinated by our own govt.

Before, this would be the point where I say, "my guts tells me it was just.." Now, my gut tells me to just sit back and wait for what comes of it.

I've lost all trust of my govt. and believe them capable of pretty much anything. We're living "The Bourne Conspiracy" or whatever other movie you think is more apt.

What's funny is that the "burden of proof" to even open people to the possibility of an alternative explanation is so much higher than that required to prove the "official story" (i.e. none for the latter).

As a result, the "official story" almost always stands because it doesn't require evidence. Even if that story makes zero sense whatsoever, people don't tend to consider that there could even be an alternative explanation, unless such an explanation can be exhaustively detailed and proven.

Here's a story about an FBI FOIA document that included the language, "planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary." The plotters names are redacted but seems rather disturbing-

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/27/fbi-document-deleted-plots-...

His wife also said: "I have no doubt that he was pursuing a hot story. He always had five hot stories going, I mean, that was Michael."

And: "Right now the LAPD still has an active investigation ... my gut here is that it was just a really tragic accident and I'm unlucky in the world, the world was very unlucky

This would require the source.

A source:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-michael-hastings...

Not sure what to think of this story. I would appreciate less political content on 'hacker/startup news.'

That said there is no doubt what Hastings was working on would touch many in the tech community.

As you might think it is political, I think it otherwise. Investigative reporters have been shown to be investigated and their loss of the 1st and 4th amendments very credible.

I think this article and these news stories should be as far reaching and as far spread as they can be to let EVERYONE know they are losing these freedoms unless they take a stand.

The rightful distinction between a political story and a story with politicians involved, yes.

This just feels part-way there, if you get my drift. I fully appreciate the focus on the details given by many here while avoiding the trap.

Yeah I'll go with the "gut" feeling of someone who couldn't possibly have been pressured by anyone to say anything in particular when she goes on a TV show that will be seen internationally.

Oof. I'm not going to argue with you, but that is pretty classic conspiracy theory logic.

I'm not going to argue with you either, but you are terribly naive if you think the circumstances around Michael Hastings death are not incredibly suspicious ;)

It wasn't too long ago that there were classic conspiracy theories about the NSA that would get you labeled as a crackpot which have recently been shown to be true.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-secur...

and

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

It was hardly a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps the point was that they were derided as being mere conspiracy theories?

Since I failed to mention the number of years I was referring to, I meant further back than last year.

It might be more conspiratorial if the US government hadn't already assassinated no less than 4 American citizens which it immediately covered up and systematically lied about the age and combatant status of said individuals in order to calm the outrage.

"That revelation is important because Jose, an employee of ALSCO a nearby business, and a witness to the accident told KTLA/Loud Labs (Scott Lane) the car was traveling at a high rate of speed and he saw sparks coming from the car and saw it explode BEFORE hitting the tree."

This is pure conspiracy here. Unless it was like two blocks from where the car crashed, I have to take this comment with a grain of salt. Plus, they don't say how far they thought it was before it hit the tree.

I love conspiracies, but I've grown weary to think EVERYTHING has to be one if someone was investigating the government.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras"

Assassinated by the government is definitely a zebra

Driving recklessly because of PTSD from being in a war zone is going to be the horse in this situation:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-05/national/39048...

And if he was not assassinated by the government, then this whole thread is just providing a distracting side show when there's a real known issue out there that kills thousands.

The timing in the video doesn't indicate the car's speed at the time of impact because that calculation assumes his speed was constant. If he was accelerating or decelerating all those calculations are invalid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com