Michael Hastings: Unlikely coincidence or conspiracy?

[7forever]

Very interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...son-computers/

Just imagine shooting video of files being deleted from your laptop.

Perhaps the most eye-opening tale involves CBS***8217;s ***8220;60 Minutes,***8221; Benghazi and the president. During the second presidential debate in 2012, Obama challenged Mitt Romney by insisting he had labeled the assault in Libya a terrorist attack the very next day. This became a huge controversy, especially since CNN***8217;s Candy Crowley had sided with the president.

Turns out that Steve Kroft had conducted a ***8220;60 Minutes***8221; interview with Obama the day after the attack, portions of which had never aired. When Attkisson did a story on the flap, her CBS bosses instructed her to use a particular script and a particular sound bite that seemed to back up the president***8217;s version.

She was stunned when a CBS colleague later read her another exchange from the interview:

[squealpiggy]

he was most likely murdered by the cia via car hacking......

Yes, that certainly seems to be "most likely".

[SterlingStained]

i want to believe this conspiracy.

wasnt he suppose to meet with some hacker or something and he was suppose to get some kind of explosive information?

was it anonymous? i heard about this story but never really read anything on it. i think his death was mentioned in bill maher show...

[7forever]

PressTV - New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

Quote:
Jul 12, 2013

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

Quote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.

[7forever]

Yes, that certainly seems to be "most likely".

She's the wife of the silly jew with the garden hose. A most important eyewitness who contradicts (the police report) that Hastings was on fire for 3-5 minutes. The relevant audio starts around 12:00.

This is a real and nasty image of a man burned in a car fire. http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps8fae8b59.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3jrSU0DdU

https://www.survivalmonkey.com/threa...mbushed.38357/

As to the unprecedented Obama regime action of cremating Hastings body without his family’s permission either being sought or granted, the InfoWars News Service further reports:

“A witness to the aftermath of the Michael Hastings accident on June 18 in Han**** Park in Los Angeles, California told Infowars Nightly News that the journalist’s body was not badly charred as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The LAPD and the Los Angeles County Coroner were “trying their best” to hide the body from the witness, who asked to remain anonymous, when it was pulled from the vehicle approximately three hours after the fire was extinguished, between 7:20 to 7:40 AM.

After the ferocity of the fire, the witness expected to see a body charred beyond recognition. “What I saw was the full body,” she told Infowars Nightly News, “with a completely burned face, up to say the shoulders. From the shoulders down I saw the whole body, completely intact, not burned in any way.”
She identified the body as a “white guy about 25 to 30… a white young guy… I saw full, white arms.”

This contradicts the official story. “The body was badly charred and identified only as ‘John Doe 117,’ law enforcement authorities told The Times. Coroner’s officials were attempting to match dental records to help make a positive identification, according to authorities,” the LA Times reported.”***8203;
As to why the Obama regime, and now the LAPD, are continuing to cover-up Hastings assassination can be readily viewed in this map [below/see video HERE] showing the sheer impossibility of this award winning reporter who was running for his life having been killed by his vehicle hitting a tree, especially in light of the fact the debris field extends for nearly 300 meters (100 yards) clearly indicating an explosive event.

[SterlingStained]

7forever,

who was michael hastings supposed to meet when he died?

was it some hacker?

[7forever]

7forever,

who was michael hastings supposed to meet when he died?

was it some hacker?

It wasn't Barrett Brown, although he may have worked with him. I've read who it was before but can't think of the name. He was supposed to meet a friend of his for lunch later that day to reveal what he was working on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown

http://nymag.com/news/features/micha...tings-2013-11/

By the middle of June, though, Hastings, then 33, had become openly afraid. Helicopters are a common sight in the Hollywood Hills, but he had told Jordanna Thigpen, a neighbor he’d become close to, that there were more of them in the sky than usual, and he was certain they were tracking him. On Saturday the 15th, he called Matt Farwell, his writing partner, and said Farwell might be interviewed by the FBI. Farwell was unsettled. “He was being really cagey over the phone, which was odd, very odd,” Farwell says. On the 17th, Hastings e-mailed colleagues at BuzzFeed to warn them that “the Feds are interviewing my ‘close friends and associates’***8201;”; he was “onto a big story” and needed to go “off the rada[r] for a bit … hope to see you all soon.”

“He was deeply agitated,” says The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur. Since Hastings didn’t want to say anything more over e-mail or the phone, Farwell, who lived in Virginia, set up a lunch for him the following Thursday with a trusted friend of Farwell’s, also in L.A., so that she could pass along whatever Hastings had to tell him on her forthcoming trip East.

The lunch never happened. At 4:20 a.m. on Tuesday, June 18, Hastings’s silver Mercedes C250 coupe, speeding south on Highland Avenue, crossed Melrose, jumped the median, hit a palm tree, and exploded. The charred body of the driver was identified by the Los Angeles coroner as John Doe 117 until fingerprints confirmed that the deceased was Michael Hastings.

[rorymac]

You're antisemitic? I'm surprised

[7forever]

Yes, that certainly seems to be "most likely".

Facts have everything to do with it. Why didn't the LAPD just open the passenger's door? NO EXTRACTION WAS NEEDED WHETHER ONE OCCURRED OR NOT.

[7forever]

I don't think anybody is reading this.

Are you on drugs? Because it's okay if you are. Neither door was badly damaged and the passenger door handle was available to try. That means at the very least the body could have been pulled through either car window. There was nothing holding the pumpkin head in the car. That means the extrication that took place some three hours later was staged. It wasn't needed because the supposed body was not trapped in the Mercedes.