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:,0,5825533.story

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:


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:


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:


Hastings will, likely, partially 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:


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.

Jim Stone’s take is here:

For more on how cars do not turn into bombs upon impact with trees:


Tinfoil Hat Addendum:

They waited until Hastings was 33.


6 thoughts on “Questions about the Death of Michael Hastings”

  1. EXCELLENT breakdown man, way to go! The engine trans getting thrown like that REALLY puts this over the top…..

  2. You are all looking at it wrong imo. Michael Hastings is most likely still alive – we never saw a body. The whole event was obviously staged: even a bomb could never eject an engine that far. The car looked like it was from a junkyard, with no front end, and its clean gas tank sitting behind it. Obviously (to me anyways) the gas tank was removed to drain it, so there wouldn’t be any dangerous explosion during the hoax video. Pyrotechnic powder (the kind Hollywood uses) was used to make the fire, which was VERY bright, but not very hot judging from how close the ‘fireman’ stood to the burning vehicle. The whole thing was a setup, and it fooled the entire alternative media, including Jim Stone!!

    1. Based on impact damage to the tree trunk visible in photos taken after June 18, as well as the orientation of the debris field, I think a better explanation is that the car exploded before colliding with the tree. My analysis:

      Here is proof the car was not intact when it hit the tree:

      What you see sitting behind it is not the gas tank but the catalytic converter.

      Thank you for reading.

      1. I read the analysis, which seemed accurate, but you may be right that it’s a catalytic converter and not a gas tank – I thought it seemed too small for a gas tank. The most important issue, however, is that the heavy engine could not have possibly been ejected from the mercedes to land 50-100 feet away from the car. At least to my mind it seems highly improbably to virtually impossible. If the engine was placed there, then the whole thing is a hoax. Hastings worked for Rolling Stone, which is a controlled matrix media source. Although Hastings did write the hit piece which brought down the general McCrystal, that may have been done on orders from big brother? IMO Hastings worked for big brother, and his writing demonstrates he is a programmed useful idiot at best, if not a deliberate traitor. He was embedded with the troops in a war zone, so he was likely vetted VERY carefully by big brother. I do not respect Hastings for his writing, and I doubt he is dead. I was wrong to assume that was a gas tank though, and will be more careful about trusting Mr. Jim Stone is usually right about most things, but he makes some mistakes too, sometimes not correcting them. He is now agreeing that the engine ejection scenario seems improbable to impossible, so I still have faith in him. I appreciate what farganne does too – thanks for correcting me!

      2. I don’t agree with you that the engine ejection scenario is unrealistic.

        A directional bomb could have blown the engine from its moorings and landed it at its final location with a single skip and subsequent tumble. It’s not that hard to imagine.

        To me, the idea that it was all a hoax, everything carefully placed and the pre-wrecked car set alight, is too elaborate and much harder to imagine. Very unconvincing to me.

        Thank you for continuing to read and offering input, I do appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s