Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petraeus. Show all posts

Friday 28 June 2013

Predictive Programming and the Threats on the Obama Family

"Don't you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. ...?"

President Barack Hussain Obama, recently.
(According to Left Progressive friends of Ray McGovern)
(But then again, the man is "ex-"CIA, so who the hell knows)



An Example of Predictive Programming (1993) 

"It was just unreal... 

...almost like something out of a movie..."







Predictive Programming in The Faculty from InvestigatingtheTerror on Vimeo.

Clip from 1998 hi school horror flick The Faculty in which two of the characters discuss the idea of predictive programming. 

One character suggests that the X-Files is real and that aliens have been here for a long time, putting stories about themselves into science fiction books and films to prepare us for when they take over.



Tarpley: Syria, The Shadow Government and Threats to Obama's Life. from Paul Coker on Vimeo.
After the failure of the Benghazi coup and the stealing back of the election, he's really made them MAD now...

All bets are off and no holds barred for the next 3 1/2 years.

Gaps are appearing in the Secret Service cover for him and Michelle and clear (non-verbal) warnings are being issued, clear as day, with a full programme of predictive programming in effect.

Stay Vigilant .



"Serious students of the events of September 11, 2001 are aware of the process by which the memes or elements of that tragic day were carefully introduced, accredited, and developed in the public mind, especially through a series of Hollywood movies.

An example is the final scene of the movie The Fight Club, which shows the collapse of a number of skyscrapers in a manner eerily prophetic of the fate of the New York Twin Towers.

Hollywood is, after all, not far away from Santa Monica, the home of that leading scenario factory known as the Rand Corporation.

Precisely in this field we have this sudden emergence of a new genre of a Hollywood blockbuster - the movie extravaganza devoted to an armed assault on the White House.




Predictive Programming - Olympus Has Fallen

"The United State of America does not negotiate with terrorists...!!"

Said with absolute, dead-pan seriousness...
My Lord...

The first of these arrived in March of this year under the title of Olympus Has Fallen, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Gerard Butler, Ashley Judd, and Morgan Freeman.

Here a large force of North Korean rogue terrorists strafe and storm the White House and take the president prisoner in the situation room, demanding that the US get out of Korea.

The tone is paranoid/serious, with no element of satire or irony.

The accent is on a certain kind of naturalism, including by having the real-life MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell report the events in a newscast.

Many images portray the blowing up of the entire West Wing of the premises.






Due in theaters in late June is a second movie with virtually the identical theme, this time called White House Down, from Sony Pictures and Columbia. The director is the German Roland Emmerich, known for Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Patriot. The stars are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx.

This time, the White House is attacked by a domestic paramilitary group led by Emil Stenz, according to the script by James Vanderbilt of the well-known oligarchical clan.

The attackers also blow up the dome of the US Capitol as a diversion.

So far as is known, Obama has not commented on either of these two motion pictures.

The Kokesh march on Washington: Rifle-toting reactionaries

Are there correlated developments in the real world?

There certainly are:

Over a period of several weeks, the disgruntled Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh was recently calling for a July 4 anti-Obama march of 10,000 black-clad white reactionaries to violate federal and District of Columbia law by crossing the Potomac from Virginia into the District and thence around the National Mall, passing by most of the executive departments, the Congress, and the White House - all the while armed with loaded rifles.

Until about a year ago, Kokesh was a leading supporter of the Republican austerity fanatic and antigovernment demagogue Ron Paul, but he then broke with Paul and set out on his own course of provocation and adventurism.

In the unlikely event that Kokesh’s march had succeeded, he would have had the equivalent of one rifle division in position to intimidate the Congress and the White House in turn - a clear step towards anarchy.

After being arrested at a pro-marijuana rally in Philadelphia and spending a few days in jail, Kokesh has changed his strategy, and is now calling for marches on July 4 in the 50 state capitals to demand immediate secession and breakup of the federal union.

Loaded rifles would still be de rigeur.

The question of secessionism was answered with thundering finality in the American Civil War of a century and a half ago, an episode which caused this nation more than 700,000 dead.

Since the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April 1865, anyone attempting to be open this question must be regarded as a dangerous madman.

For our purposes here, it is enough to recall that the Kokesh march is too close for comfort to the two scenario films we have just discussed.

Such then is the immediate background for the Bilderberg 2013 deliberations this weekend."


Webster G.Tarpley.




Dick Gregory agrees with me and Webster Tarpley.

"When he went off to Arizona, and that white woman, the Governor, shook her finger in his face...?

Well, if you're the head of this State, and there's a whole lottsa people who would die for you in the National Guard, then is there somebody up there on the roof...?



I'm takin' my lead from you, yo' the Governor, you're the Head of the National Guard...


And yo' leader she her fist in my face...?

An' the people around him let him keep going...?

Like it's Business as Usual...?

...or is it different protocol for a negro President...? 

Huh?"


I don't know why all of you can't see it.


Assuming a role that clearly strays far from his acting comfort zone, Ole' Blue Eyes hiumself, Frank Sinatra portrays a pint-sized low-level mob hoodlum hired to carry out a paid hit.

The assassination of the President of the United States by rifle fire from an upstairs window using a high-velocity rifle with mounted scope on the presidential motorcade during a hastily arranged whisltestop tour.

This was produced in 1954, by the way.







A production feature on series two episode two of Spooks, also known as the suicide bomber episode. 

Cast and Crew talk about the controversy that resulted from the show, and why it was produced. Very much informs the dialogue about predictive programming.

We are noticeably lacking in counter-measures to rebutt the attacks and refute the incoming Black Propaganda from the Cryptocracy...




"I'll tell you right now, unequivocally; 
I won't give the reason for your resignations.... 

If I were to do that, this country would go right down the drain..." 

President Jordan Lyman


"You can't HANDLE the truth!!" 

Colonel Nathan R. Jessep





"As Financial Times reporter Anna Fifield tweeted, "amazing how Medea Benjamin of @codepink gets in to all these speeches. every reporter in Washington recognises her, but security never does." "

Oh, REALLY.... I have had severe concerns about Code Pink, their behavior and in particular their targets in the past.

But this deserves its own write up, due to its importantance, especially of late...

More elsewhere, except to say this - that is a PERFECT Press Pool shot, 

- She could have easily had a gun.

- This was a speech delivered by the President of the United States

-The venue was the National Defense University.

- And who's watching out for the President....?

Or is that just the Secret Service standard operating procedure for a negro Commander in Chief?

I have to ask the question. Both of the following questions are equally valid:

Why didn't the Secret Service in Dallas weld all the manhole covers shut?

How did a known troublemaker penetrate Presidential protection cover at the National Defense University and how was she allowed to create a distraction (like, perhaps, the epileptic or the Umbrella Man in Dealey) and continue speaking over the President for over a minute?

Security is being tested, and breached.

Things are not being done which should be done as a matter of course without thinking.

The President, Petreaus & the Pentagon - The Michael Hastings Interview







Exposing Seditious Treason will get you killed.



Thursday 27 June 2013

Snowden: Previously Sealed Indictment Dated the MonthBefore "Whistleblowing" Interview Occurs


USA Today
June 12, 2013 
Pg. 6

Where Was Snowden In 2006?

When USA TODAY revealed a massive NSA database, phone companies denied contracting with the government.


By Ken Paulson

My first reaction when I heard that the source who tipped news media about a National Security Agency secret phone records database had come forward was "Where were you when we needed you?"
Edward Snowden, a government contractor, announced this weekend that he leaked a sealed court order requiring Verizon to turn over the private phone records of millions of Americans.
I was the editor of USA TODAY in May 2006 when reporter Leslie Cauley revealed the existence of a massive NSA phone database, much like the one disclosed by Snowden. It involved the collection of records showing who called whom, along with call duration, but did not involve eavesdropping.
President George W. Bush responded quickly, saying "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," and emphasized that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Other news organizations did their own reporting and confirmed the existence of the database.
But then came a surprise. We had reported that three phone companies had contracted with the government to provide the databases, but Verizon and BellSouth denied they had cooperated. Our sources indicated otherwise, but we now needed additional documentation. And that's where someone like Snowden would have come in handy. By disclosing classified information, he gave the world a glimpse into the legal infrastructure that put phone company records into government hands.
To this date, we do not know whether three phone companies contributed to the database in 2006, and if so, whether they did it willingly or knowingly.
Revelation faded away
After an initial two-day flurry of news coverage, our 2006 story largely receded from view, so much so that when The Guardian reported the existence of a phone database last week, most news media reported it as though it was a fresh revelation. The Guardian did note USA TODAY's earlier report, as did others after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended the program, asserting that it had been in place for seven years.
Much has changed in those years.
As we prepared the story for publication in 2006, a designer pulled out a large photo of President Bush to be placed adjacent to our exclusive. I objected, saying the prominent play of the president's photo would immediately politicize the story. We wanted readers of all political persuasions to focus on the privacy and security implications.
On Friday, my old newspaper carried this headline: "SPYING EYES" in stark white letters on black background next to a prominent photo of a pained-looking President Obama. Another headline alluded to "Obama's spy plan."
It was a bold and attention-getting presentation, completely in tune with an era in which every aspect of public policy is measured with a political scorecard.
Of course, the greatest change since 2006 has been the proliferation of communications platforms. Tracking phone calls to uncover threats to national security seems almost quaint in an era of instant messaging and social media, such as Twitter and Skype. Of course, that's why news of the phone database was quickly followed by revelations about a government database tracking Internet use. That, in turn, was followed by technology and Internet companies saying they don't give the government direct access to their servers.
Will time pass again?
In all likelihood, the current furor will pass. Perhaps seven years from now, we'll see another news organization "reveal" the phone database one more time, along with disclosures about the tracking of any new digital platforms that appear in the intervening years.
These issues couldn't be more important. Our right to privacy is in play when the government has records showing what numbers we call and potentially what sites we visit. Our freedom of speech and freedom of association are at risk when the government can tell who we communicate with.
But for many Americans, these potential threats pale with our collective need for public safety. Having a record sitting somewhere saying you called for a pizza on a Tuesday evening may not seem much of a price to pay if it helps derail a terrorist plot.
It's an important debate, but one we're not likely to have at any length. Secret government programs don't lend themselves to public hearings, and journalists are hard-pressed to uncover any misuse of data. We don't know what we don't know.
Still, the Bill of Rights was ratified to keep our government at bay, ensuring that our most fundamental freedoms would remain secure. Americans deserve to know much more about the processes in place to "fiercely" protect the privacy of all citizens, as President Bush promised seven years ago.
Or perhaps we'll just wait until 2020.
Ken Paulson is the president of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.













I love this guy sometimes.

Monday 24 June 2013

Hastings: We Now Have Means, Motive and Opportunity

You can see what made Broadwell so psychotically jealous.

She's clearly totally into him, big time.







Ah - now, this is VERY interesting.... He was researching Jilly Kelley.



And as I have been pointing out since Petreaus' failed October Surprise coup at Benghazi, Jilly Kelley doesn't exist.



Or at least she didn't prior to around April of 2012.



She was a journalist and a "socialite" no one has ever heard of.



Because she's undercover FBI - she's part of the anti-coup and sedition task force of the FBI that Obama ordered Robert Meuller to put in place to police the CIA, Pentagon brass and the disloyal, right-wing elements within the intelligence community in the wake of the Abumutalleb debacle over Flight 258, Christmas 2009.



Obama has known for certain there is an active, ongoing effort to detablise and overthrow his administration via domestic covert operations and cannily opted to capitalize on the well-known inter-agency rivalries to play them off against one another - this may explain why in the last few years, the power and abuses of power at the Bureau as opposed to CIA have been once again in the ascendant as they were in the early 1990s and much of Clintons two terms.

Which means the FBI probably offed Hastings on Meuller's say-so.

They have gone notably and openly homicidally fascist of late, even to the extent of turning on their own.

Or engaging in the kinds of behavior that we know (thanks to FOIA) that Eric Holder has in the past tactlessly referred to in DoJ emails as:

"Trentadon'ts"

That's a fairly obscure and meandering reference, but if it leaves you somewhat cold, trust when I tell you - it's dark, let's say that.
When appearing before a judge, is seems that there are Trentadus and 
Trentadon'ts.

Long story, and rather sad.






Friday 21 June 2013

It Got Them Killed: Michael Hastings

Michael Hastings
1980 - 2013

Cause of Death: 
Petraeus

Likely Suspects: 

Every Single one of Petraeus' Friends


General David Petreaus DID NOT Speak Truth to Power;



He Told LIES to Power...


See Also:
It Got Them Killed: Mae Brussell
It Got Them Killed: John Belushi
It Got Them Killed: Paul Foot







Before his death Michael Hastings [ALLEGEDLY] wrote the following article called 

“Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans”.

Michael Hastings (January 28, 1980 – June 18, 2013)
By Micahel Hastings
Buzzfeed
June 20, 2013

For most bigwig Democrats in Washington, D.C., the last 48 hours has delivered news of the worst kind — a flood of new information that has washed away any lingering doubts about where President Obama and his party stand on civil liberties, full stop.

Glenn Greenwald’s exposure of the NSA’s massive domestic spy program has revealed the entire caste of current Democratic leaders as a gang of civil liberty opportunists, whose true passion, it seems, was in trolling George W. Bush for eight years on matters of national security.

“Everyone should just calm down,” Senator Harry Reid said yesterday, inhaling slowly.

That’s right: don’t panic.

The very topic of Democratic two-facedness on civil liberties is one of the most important issues that Greenwald has covered. Many of those Dems — including the sitting President Barack Obama, Senator Carl Levin, and Sec. State John Kerry — have now become the stewards and enhancers of programs that appear to dwarf any of the spying scandals that broke during the Bush years, the very same scandals they used as wedge issues to win elections in the Congressional elections 2006 and the presidential primary of 2007-2008.

Recall what Senator Levin told CNN in 2005, demanding to “urgently hold an inquiry” into what was supposedly President Bush’s domestic wiretap program.

Levin continued, at length: “It means that there’s some growing concern on Capitol Hill about a program which seems to be so totally unauthorized and unexplained…The president wraps himself in the law, saying that it is totally legal, but he doesn’t give what the legal basis is for this. He avoided using the law, which we provided to the president, where even when there is an emergency and there’s a need for urgent action can first tap the wire and then go to a court.”

There are two notable exception to this rule are Senator Ron Wyden, from Oregon, and Sen. Mark Udall from Colorado, who had seemed to be fighting a largely lonely, frustrating battle against Obama’s national security state.

As Mark Udall told the Denver Post yesterday: “[I] did everything short of leaking classified information” to stop it.

His ally in Oregon, Ron Wyden, was one of the first to seize on the Guardian’s news break: “I will tell you from a policy standpoint, when a law-abiding citizen makes a call, they expect that who they call, when they call and where they call from will be kept private,” Wyden said to Politico, noting “there’s going to be a big debate about this.” The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, admitted he’d mislead Senator Wyden at a hearing earlier this year, revising his statement yesterday to state that the NSA didn’t do “voyerustic” surveillance.

The state of affairs, in other words, is so grave that two sitting Senators went as close as they could to violating their unconstitutional security oaths in order to warn the country of information that otherwise would not have been declassified until April of 2038, according to the Verizon court order obtained by Greenwald.


Now, we’re about to see if the Obama administration’s version of the national security state will begin to eat itself.

Unsurprisingly, the White House has dug in, calling their North Korea-esque tools “essential” to stop terrorism, and loathe to give up the political edge they’ve seized for Democrats on national security issues under Obama’s leadership. The AP spying scandal — which the administration attempted to downplay at the time, even appointing Eric Holder to lead his own investigation into himself —was one of the unexpected consequences of one of two leak investigations that Obama ordered during the 2012 campaign.

It’s unclear where a possible third leak investigation would lead. However, judging by the DOJ’s and FBI’s recent history, it would seem that any new leak case would involve obtaining the phone records of reporters at the Guardian, the Washington Post, employees at various agencies who would have had access to the leaked material, as well as politicians and staffers in Congress—records, we now can safely posit, they already have unchecked and full access to.

In short: any so-called credible DOJ/FBI leak investigation, by its very nature, would have to involve the Obama administration invasively using the very surveillance and data techniques it is attempting to hide in order to snoop on a few Democratic Senators and more media outlets, including one based overseas.

Outside of Washington, D.C., the frustration that Wyden and Udall have felt has been exponentially magnified. Transparency supporters, whistleblowers, and investigative reporters, especially those writers who have aggressively pursued the connections between the corporate defense industry and federal and local authorities involved in domestic surveillance, have been viciously attacked by the Obama administration and its allies in the FBI and DOJ.

Jacob Appplebaum, a transparency activist and computer savant, has been repeatedly harassed at American borders, having his laptop seized. Barrett Brown, another investigative journalist who has written for Vanity Fair, among others publications, exposed the connections between the private contracting firm HB Gary (a government contracting firm that, incidentally, proposed a plan to spy on and ruin the reputation of the Guardian’s Greenwald) and who is currently sitting in a Texas prison on trumped up FBI charges regarding his legitimate reportorial inquiry into the political collective known sometimes as Anonymous.

That’s not to mention former NSA official Thomas Drake (the Feds tried to destroys his life because he blew the whistle ); Fox News reporter James Rosen (named a “co-conspirator” by Holder’s DOJ); John Kirakou, formerly in the CIA, who raised concerns about the agency’s torture program, is also in prison for leaking “harmful” (read: embarrassing) classified info; and of course Wikileaks (under U.S. financial embargo); WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (locked up in Ecuador’s London embassy) and, of course, Bradley Manning, the young, idealistic, soldier who provided the public with perhaps the most critical trove of government documents ever released.

The attitude the Obama administration has toward Manning is revealing. What do they think of him? “Fuck Bradely Manning,” as one White House official put it to me last year during the campaign.

Screw Manning? Lol, screw us.

Perhaps more information will soon be forthcoming.



I personally have severe doubts that Hastings (a professional journalist investigating National Security matters) actually wrote this piece;

For one thing, the piece never provided the answer promised in the title: Why do  Democrats love to spy on Americans, exactly...?

For another thing, he must know, if he's writing this piece, that the NSA program did NOT examine content.

Just Metadata. And Metadata is fair game.


Hence James Clapper's statement clarification, quoted in the piece that the NSA does not monitor "voyueristically".

Which is true.

Second, he makes aboslutely no mention of Snowden by name - and yet he HAS to know (or at least realise) that Snowden is an obvious and transparent fraud.

Third: John Kerry is Secretary of State - what on earth has his job got to do with any question of domestic wiretapping, other than a blanket partisan smear?

Fourth: He's interviewed Assange - again, he must realise that the guy is a complete fraud and an agency of Modified Limited Hangout;

Fifth: The Article appears to be datelined on BuzzFeed AFTER his death. Some forensic hacking may be in order, on this one.

Sixth: I know exactly why Michael Rosen of FoxNews was made the target of leak enquiry; it wasn't because he was leaking or in receipt of classified material from inside the National Security establishment.

It's because he was in receipt of INCORRECT Classified National Security Information, specifically related to the Yemeni Printer Cartridge plot in 2011 - someone with the CIA or other agency was briefing Rosen that this was a barely avoided Al-Quaeda bomb plot, that it was a serious threat and the Obama White House was trying to hush it up because it was 
"embarrassing"

This is the same crap, the same Right Wing talking points that characterised the Benghazi Media Blitz - that the White House was "denying" a link to "terrorism" because it was "embarrassing".

I didn't and still don't see how being the victim of, or perhaps rather subject to a terrorist attack is to be thought of as "embarrassing";

Obama is living proof of one thing - if they're trying to destroy you, you must be doing something right...

Rosen was a disinformation conduit for political Black Propaganda and someone, plenty of someones within CIA were helping him and feeding him false leads and fraudulent scoops to undermine the Administration's authority.

That is legitimately to be considered treasonous and responded to as such.

If an intelligence service is briefing against their Commander in Chief and lying about it, that needs to prompt a full-on, gloves-off, no-holds-barred response.

Hastings would have known that.

He was no rookie, and he was connected.



Original Article:
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/questions-about-the-death-of-michael-hastings/48069


Questions about the Death of Michael Hastings



According to the following article from the Los Angeles Times, Buzzfeed and Rolling Stone announced Hastings’ death on Tuesday:
Yet, as the very URL of that article makes clear, the coroner had yet to identify the body. Absent a positive identification, how were Buzzfeed and Rolling Stone confident enough to make that official announcement?  
The rest of this article will focus on a single newscast, which yields enough incoherent information to indicate that Hastings’ death was not the result of an accident. All subsequent still shots are taken from it, except for those from Google Maps.

First, according to all accounts, the car was a brand-new Mercedes.
No car will blow up from getting run into a tree, least of all a Mercedes. And yet:
rochellefran51
An eyewitness claims the blast was so intense that it shook her house and rattled her windows.
Those L.A. palm trees must be made of something more than wood. Hell, everything in Hollywood is fake anyway. Maybe those palm trees are made of some kind of plastic. Like C4.
Moving on, our next eyewitness is Hollywood producer Gary Grossman, whom we can thank for America’s Funniest Home Videos (1989):
grossman107 garygrossman109 engine113
He says the engine flew 50 or 60 yards and landed near a telephone pole. Other accounts say 100 feet. Who’s counting? How does any car, much less a Mercedes, hit a palm tree and explode with enough force to throw the engine ANYWHERE???
Vin Diesel would blush at a script like that. Not even a hack like Gary Grossman could conceive of writing it. What does that tell you?
For the record, here is Grossman’s address from the Hollywood White Pages:
grossmanaddress
546 North Highland Avenue. I decided to plop myself down there on Google Maps. Here is the scene of the “accident”, from left to right.
highland1 highland2 highland3
Do you see how SPACIOUS it is? LOOK at all that SPACE! And yet they say Hastings, in the darkness at 4:30 a.m., smashed his Mercedes into one of those toothpick palm trees with enough force to cause an explosion that sent the engine flying some distance, any distance at all. Impossible. Even in Hollyweird.
Even if a collision took place, was he blind drunk? If so, what are the odds he’d hit one of those trees? If he wasn’t blind drunk, then he was suicidal. Why would a suicidal man pick a palm tree in the middle of a residential neighborhood?
After Grossman’s testimony, we get this chilling eulogy from the talking head:
hastingsencomium130
Hastings will, likelypartially be remembered? That is very deliberately worded. Whoever had the bomb put in Hastings’ car hated him with the passion of a billion white-hot suns, and wanted to crap all over his accomplishments by delivering that insult unto his legacy.
And who has the power to make sure that the slight is worded just so, via the mainstream news?
I’ll give you a hint: the answer rhymes with “news”.
Still stumped? Oh well, take a look at who was first on the scene, except for Grossman:
jewishgroup
Here’s the first responders’ website:
Make sure to turn your speakers down before you click, or they will offend your eardrums as well as every other atom of your being.
For more on how cars do not turn into bombs upon impact with trees:
_____________
Tinfoil Hat Addendum:
They waited until Hastings was 33.



http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/michael-hastings-obviously-murdered-by-bomb-on-gas-tank/48071

Michael Hastings OBVIOUSLY murdered by bomb on gas tank



“For all 3 of those normal reasons, which account for virtually all car fires in modern cars, the fire would have started in the engine compartment, progressed slowly, and scorched the hell out of the paint before ever reaching the gas tank. That clean paint is the be all tell all, Michael Hastings was murdered, and the rest is detail.”  
UPDATE: Accident scenes switched. They swapped cars and locations to hide explosive damage, PROOF IS BELOW
UPDATE: It seems to me that Hastings may have been dead, his car parked there, and then blown up with him in it. This is because the flames are way too fresh for the car to have been there long, there is no impact damage where the car “struck the tree” to cause a gas tank explosion, and there are no flames on the road behind the car to indicate it was blown up while it was moving.
This appears to be a classic mafia hit, where you are killed and then burned in a car to hide the evidence. In this case, they obviously used a bomb to blow the gas tank as evidenced by the fact that the rear portion of the car is blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact, read the initial analysis below. And obviously, there was no high speed crash as reported by the lie factory. I will be working on this throughout the day.
It was perfect to have this happen on a late late Tuesday night, the quietest night of the week, one so quiet that many restaurants will not open. This would have helped ensure a proper setup with few witnesses.
Take a look at the following screen capture of this “crash” and observe a few things:
1. There is no impact damage to this car. The only damage there is BLOWN OUT in the back, not smashed in the front and it obviously missed the tree as it rolled to a stop. The front bumper is obscured by the tree, all the way to the tire, OOPS! .
2. This was a Mercedes, not a Pinto, which means it did not burst into flames on its own. One (seldom quoted) eyewitness said the car “exploded”. Interesting stuff.
3. Here is where it starts to get REALLY damning – LOOK AT THE FRONT PASSENGER DOOR. The paint is PERFECT yet the entire car is ablaze. This means that whoever photographed this was on scene right away, with a camera ready to film this in the wee hours of the morning, and nail it before the fire scorched the paint. HMMMMMM . . . . . .
4. Unlike what the so called single “eyewitness” report says about a high speed crash, the car did not impact a tree. The car did not impact ANYTHING. Look at where the car stopped. The car went off the road at a few miles an hour and missed the tree as it rolled to a stop.
5. There is no damage to the front of the car, it has no frontal impact damage AT ALL, it is blown out in the back and not crunched in from the front. HOW ON EARTH DID THAT BLOWN OUT BACK END HAPPEN?
AND FINALLY, THE MOST DAMNING THING OF ALL -
Here we have a car FULLY, and I mean FULLY in flames, from front to back, with NO SCORCHED PAINT because the flame is too new, which means the flame went from the back of the car to the front of the car instantaneously, at the same time it breached the floor and engulfed the passenger compartment before it had a chance to scorch anything, which means ONE THING – A BOMB ON THE GAS TANK, and a PHOTOGRAPHER READY TO SNAP THE PHOTO VERY EARLY ON. Even rapid car fires take time to progress through the car, and totally scorch the paint as they progress. Only a bomb could have blown gas through the floor to the inside of the passenger compartment and under the car all the way to the front of the engine compartment and lit the whole thing up at once. That’s the only explanation for the shiny paint while it sits completely engulfed in flames. That flame did not progress through that car, it was blown through it with force and the photographer was on the scene the moment it happened and bagged a perfect shot. I’d like to know how that happened – early morning walk?
I’d like to also mention something here – Sheriff Larry Dever was most likely killed by an ECM hack, because he was driving something big and needed a serious high speed accident. With me, when they tried, the incident was with a semi because I was driving a Geo Metro. And in the case of Michael Hastings, his car was such a safe one that you could not guarantee a death in an incident with a semi, and also could not guarantee a death in a high speed crash. I’d bet Hastings wore his seat belt all the time, and Dever did not, and the murderers would know these details before doing it. So to have Hastings definitely dead, kill him first, put him in his car, and blow the gas tank. It may have been possible to remote control the car to where it is with the engine computer via an ECU hack with the oh so convenient Federally mandated always on 3g cell connection to the heart of the car’s control computer with Hastings dead the entire time, and just blow the bomb when the car was where they wanted it. Mercedes are extremely advanced, and it is possible Hasting’s car was full drive by wire.

No matter how you slice this particular pie, a Mercedes is not just going to explode into flames without a little assistance. Car fires in new cars happen for three main reasons – running the engine out of oil, or running the engine out of coolant, or after an absolutely huge car mangling accident, having the hot side of the battery short out against the frame before it reaches the fuse panel. And for all 3 of those normal reasons, which account for virtually all car fires in modern cars, the fire would have started in the engine compartment, progressed slowly, and scorched the hell out of the paint before ever reaching the gas tank. That clean paint is the be all tell all, Michael Hastings was murdered, and the rest is detail.

Update: LOCATIONS CHANGED AND PHONY WRECK USED TO HIDE EXPLOSIVE DAMAGE FOR DAY TIME PHOTO OP

Here is what they want you to believe

But that is not consistent with this: And notice the trees.

All of these photos are from the same news video. One question – Why is there a sheet on the front of the car in the photo below? Why are the trees not the same as in the original photo above? Where is the blown out section at the rear of the car, which is CLEARLY visible in the original photo above?

The answer is obvious. THEY SWITCHED CARS AND LOCATIONS FOR THE DAY TIME PHOTO OP. Look at both of these pictures, you can clearly see the car is not the same. The location is not the same. On top of that, why is the car still there the NEXT DAY, 10 hours after the crash, when wrecks always get towed away within a couple hours, as soon as the flames are out? Why is the front end not mangled in the original photo, or even the tree for that matter?

For the day time photo op which should not have been possible anyway (it would have been towed long before) they used a different location with different trees, and interspersed the night time fire photos and the daytime shots with those of a different wreck to show pictures of a car that was not destroyed by a bomb. Just look and think, it is OBVIOUS.

This is so far out there that I had to double and triple confirm I did not screw this up, and indeed I did not, ALL of the photos are frame captures from the exact same news video. They TOTALLY blew it with this one.
This is as messed up as Woolwich.
A note to the setup crew: When you produce your garbage, it is going to be analyzed by a LOT of brilliant people, and if you are not careful your efforts won’t cut it. I am ashamed of you, surely the old world Russia or maybe East Berlin would have done this A LOT BETTER.
A note to the world: Take a look at what is here, and remember this the next time you see a bunch of hype about what a great free country America is. They do this to journalists and whistleblowers here.
For those of you who do not know, Michael Hastings was the Rolling Stone reporter who interviewed Assange, brought down General McChrystal, and did several other high level exposures of government corruption.