
CIA Director Brennan Confirmed as Reporter Michael Hastings' Next Target - San_Diegian
http://www.sandiego6.com/story/cia-director-brennan-confirmed-as-reporter-michael-hastings-next-target-20130812
======
salimmadjd
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...](http://www.inquisitr.com/856084/michael-hastings-cremated-against-
familys-wishes-deepening-mystery-of-journalists-death/)

~~~
dram
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-...](http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-video-
evidence-offers-a-few-clues/)

~~~
unclebucknasty
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?

~~~
dram
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.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _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.

~~~
dram
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](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...](http://krikorianwrites.com/blog/2013/7/24/michael-hastings-
invesigation-updated)

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.

~~~
unclebucknasty
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?

------
dram
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-...](http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-
wreck-video-evidence-offers-a-few-clues/)

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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_\(columnist\)#Targeted)

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?

~~~
AJ007
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.

------
tptacek
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.

------
jmadsen
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.

~~~
unclebucknasty
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.

------
eli
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

~~~
APoliteRequest
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.

~~~
spoiledtechie
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.

~~~
APoliteRequest
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.

------
at-fates-hands
"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.

------
lamontcg
"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...](http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-05/national/39048053_1_motor-
vehicle-crashes-two-wars)

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.

------
dangero
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.

