6 ms·

People: don't speculate, don't buy into conspiracies, rely on hard evidence. The more you veer into conspiracy territory the more anything else you say will fai

People: don't speculate, don't buy into conspiracies, rely on hard evidence. The more you veer into conspiracy territory the more anything else you say will fail to be taken seriously. Remember that.

adventured 13y ago
His life was repeatedly threatened. What conspiracy? If a dozen people threaten to kill you over five years, and you die in an even remotely suspicious manner, where's the conspiracy in that? There's a line of people that apparently would have liked to kill Hastings.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Even being pedantic, that would be a conspiracy... now, does that mean it's the kind of conspiracy theory that belongs on David Icke forums or InfoWars? Maybe not, but right now there is no logical consistency behind the theory that he was killed in a hit given the time, place and manner it occurred.
  - adventured 13y ago
    His death should be treated as suspicious because he was under regular threat by people that apparently wanted him dead, some of which were very powerful people. What it shouldn't be treated as, is an open and shut case. Skepticism given the circumstances, is in my opinion valuable here. There's very little to be lost from making absolutely sure that this wasn't foul play.
    - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
      Sure, I agree, it's important to be skeptical. But, one wonders why they would choose to kill him in such an open manner, after he sent an email saying that he was being investigated by the FBI to Wikileaks' lawyers among other folks. Surely he could be dealt with in a much quieter fashion that isn't so open to being discovered. We can also confirm that he was indeed traveling very fast, certainly fast enough for things to go as wrong as they did very quickly.
      - adventured 13y ago
        Well, if we're looking at hits, a few things stand out historically. Sometimes murders are done as an open warning. The mafia has used that approach forever. Why did the Russians use polonium to kill Alexander Litvinenko? Surely there were better ways to kill him that wouldn't leave behind a radiated dying body. Were they trying to make a statement? Seems plausible. What could be better than to publicly kill the target in a manner that can't be provably traced back, but stands as an open and dramatic point for everybody else to 'learn' from?
        j2d3 13y ago
        EXACTLY. He was a JOURNALIST. The point is to kill someone who might be about to disclose something you don't want disclosed, and create a chilling effect preventing others who might consider disclosing, whistleblowing, leaking, or simply reporting such things from doing so for fear they too would be murdered. This WORKS. Killing someone in secret only performs the first function. This is the essence of the idiom "killing two birds with one stone." In this case, it's killing 1,000 (or more) journalists with one rigged car.
        knowaveragejoe 13y ago
        > This WORKS. Quoth the person who is apparently oblivious to the media shit-storm occurring right now.
        j2d3 13y ago
        There is really no media shitstorm about Michael Hastings. It's practically over now. What stays long afterwards is the chilling effect sensed by journalists and would-be-whistleblowers - the fear that by disclosing or reporting on the wrong story, they too might find themselves up in smoke.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  If people threaten to kill you for years and you die in a suspicious matter that is far from proof that the two are even remotely related. Let the evidence guide us to an understanding of what has happened, let us not put an interpretation on the events merely because we "feel" it must have happened a certain way.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Who was arguing that suspicion is proof? I haven't claimed at any point that there is proof Hastings was murdered. When someone gets an ample number of death threats, and they die in an even remotely suspicious manner, it is not a conspiracy to consider that one of those threats may have become actual. It's that simple. McChrystal's staffer told Hastings directly: if you write something we don't like, we will kill you. Where's the conspiracy in suspecting that staffer of murder, given he threatened to murder Hastings?
  - teamgb 13y ago
    San Diego 6 news report that Hastings was cremated even though his family did not request it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21WnsubYFps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21WnsubYFps Given it's a high profile case, surely something like this shouldn't happen? Or is it quite common that the coroner or whoever with authority can dispose of the body however they wish?
    - InclinedPlane 13y ago
      Certainly odd, and I very much want as much investigation as possible, but it's not necessarily such a crazy thing to happen, in my opinion. A burn victim is most likely to be cremated, I'd imagine. And it's possible that Hastings had a desire for cremation in his will or living will. Let's wait and see what the evidence shows.
    - commandar 13y ago
      This is posted up thread, but the original "source" for the cremation story says it's bunk. https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/357352728499978240 https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/357352728499978240
legutierr 13y ago
Your language is rather imprecise. "Conspiracy theory" and "evidence" are not opposites. "Speculation" and "conspiracy" are not synonyms. Conspiracy is a particular act for which there may or may not be evidence. In fact, there are a variety of federal and state laws that criminalize different types of conspiracies--in order for individuals to be prosecuted under those laws, evidence of conspiracy is by definition required to be presented. Excuse me for being pedantic, but I think that the tendency of people to equate "conspiracy theory" and "wild speculation" is too often taken advantage of by public relations types to discredit whistleblowers and critics of the status quo. Don't forget how many things we know for certain today that only five months ago would have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories". It is good advice for people here to avoid speculation, but it's worth pointing out that if foul play were involved at all in this man's death, it most certainly would involve a criminal conspiracy. That's a very big if, though, in my opinion.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  I say "conspiracy theory" because that's the category of thought that falls into a particular kind of rationality anti-pattern. Here's a general formula for most "conspiracy theory" thinking: Step 1: Characterize the "official theory" of some event or phenomenon, often in an overly simplistic manner. Step 2: Identify some sort of inconsistency or counterintuitive result in the relationship between the "official theory" and the purported evidence. Step 3: Use that inconsistency to leap to the conclusion that an alternate theory must necessarily be correct. I've seen this pattern played out a million times in as many different scenarios. For example, look at the moon landing denialists. They point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH. Or, look at the JFK conspiracy theorists. They point out that if you position JFK and Governor Connally in the seemingly most normal riding positions in the presidential limousine then the bullet alleged to have passed through JFK's neck and also to have injured Connally would have had to travel a very unlikely route. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND IN REALITY JFK WAS ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA. Or, look at the 9/11 truthers. They point out that the temperature that structural steel melts at is higher than the temperature that jet fuel burns at. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS AN ELABORATE RUSE BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED USING PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. And so on. Here we have a perfect example of the beginnings of another conspiracy theory in progress. Hastings' car didn't appear to leave much damage on the palm tree he allegedly collided with. Logically the only conclusion is that a vast government conspiracy remote controlled his car to veer off the road and trigger the explosion of a fire bomb in order to prevent him from revealing secrets that they didn't want revealed. It's just simple logic right?

People: don't speculate, don't buy into conspiracies, rely on hard evidence. The more you veer into conspiracy territory the more anything else you say will fail to be taken seriously. Remember that.

adventured 13y ago

His life was repeatedly threatened. What conspiracy? If a dozen people threaten to kill you over five years, and you die in an even remotely suspicious manner, where's the conspiracy in that? There's a line of people that apparently would have liked to kill Hastings.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
Even being pedantic, that would be a conspiracy... now, does that mean it's the kind of conspiracy theory that belongs on David Icke forums or InfoWars? Maybe not, but right now there is no logical consistency behind the theory that he was killed in a hit given the time, place and manner it occurred.
- adventured 13y ago
  His death should be treated as suspicious because he was under regular threat by people that apparently wanted him dead, some of which were very powerful people. What it shouldn't be treated as, is an open and shut case. Skepticism given the circumstances, is in my opinion valuable here. There's very little to be lost from making absolutely sure that this wasn't foul play.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    Sure, I agree, it's important to be skeptical. But, one wonders why they would choose to kill him in such an open manner, after he sent an email saying that he was being investigated by the FBI to Wikileaks' lawyers among other folks. Surely he could be dealt with in a much quieter fashion that isn't so open to being discovered. We can also confirm that he was indeed traveling very fast, certainly fast enough for things to go as wrong as they did very quickly.
    - adventured 13y ago
      Well, if we're looking at hits, a few things stand out historically. Sometimes murders are done as an open warning. The mafia has used that approach forever. Why did the Russians use polonium to kill Alexander Litvinenko? Surely there were better ways to kill him that wouldn't leave behind a radiated dying body. Were they trying to make a statement? Seems plausible. What could be better than to publicly kill the target in a manner that can't be provably traced back, but stands as an open and dramatic point for everybody else to 'learn' from?
      - j2d3 13y ago
        EXACTLY. He was a JOURNALIST. The point is to kill someone who might be about to disclose something you don't want disclosed, and create a chilling effect preventing others who might consider disclosing, whistleblowing, leaking, or simply reporting such things from doing so for fear they too would be murdered. This WORKS. Killing someone in secret only performs the first function. This is the essence of the idiom "killing two birds with one stone." In this case, it's killing 1,000 (or more) journalists with one rigged car.
        knowaveragejoe 13y ago
        > This WORKS. Quoth the person who is apparently oblivious to the media shit-storm occurring right now.
        j2d3 13y ago
        There is really no media shitstorm about Michael Hastings. It's practically over now. What stays long afterwards is the chilling effect sensed by journalists and would-be-whistleblowers - the fear that by disclosing or reporting on the wrong story, they too might find themselves up in smoke.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
If people threaten to kill you for years and you die in a suspicious matter that is far from proof that the two are even remotely related. Let the evidence guide us to an understanding of what has happened, let us not put an interpretation on the events merely because we "feel" it must have happened a certain way.
- adventured 13y ago
  Who was arguing that suspicion is proof? I haven't claimed at any point that there is proof Hastings was murdered. When someone gets an ample number of death threats, and they die in an even remotely suspicious manner, it is not a conspiracy to consider that one of those threats may have become actual. It's that simple. McChrystal's staffer told Hastings directly: if you write something we don't like, we will kill you. Where's the conspiracy in suspecting that staffer of murder, given he threatened to murder Hastings?
- teamgb 13y ago
  San Diego 6 news report that Hastings was cremated even though his family did not request it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21WnsubYFps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21WnsubYFps Given it's a high profile case, surely something like this shouldn't happen? Or is it quite common that the coroner or whoever with authority can dispose of the body however they wish?
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    Certainly odd, and I very much want as much investigation as possible, but it's not necessarily such a crazy thing to happen, in my opinion. A burn victim is most likely to be cremated, I'd imagine. And it's possible that Hastings had a desire for cremation in his will or living will. Let's wait and see what the evidence shows.
  - commandar 13y ago
    This is posted up thread, but the original "source" for the cremation story says it's bunk. https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/357352728499978240 https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/357352728499978240

legutierr 13y ago

Your language is rather imprecise. "Conspiracy theory" and "evidence" are not opposites. "Speculation" and "conspiracy" are not synonyms. Conspiracy is a particular act for which there may or may not be evidence. In fact, there are a variety of federal and state laws that criminalize different types of conspiracies--in order for individuals to be prosecuted under those laws, evidence of conspiracy is by definition required to be presented. Excuse me for being pedantic, but I think that the tendency of people to equate "conspiracy theory" and "wild speculation" is too often taken advantage of by public relations types to discredit whistleblowers and critics of the status quo. Don't forget how many things we know for certain today that only five months ago would have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories". It is good advice for people here to avoid speculation, but it's worth pointing out that if foul play were involved at all in this man's death, it most certainly would involve a criminal conspiracy. That's a very big if, though, in my opinion.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
I say "conspiracy theory" because that's the category of thought that falls into a particular kind of rationality anti-pattern. Here's a general formula for most "conspiracy theory" thinking: Step 1: Characterize the "official theory" of some event or phenomenon, often in an overly simplistic manner. Step 2: Identify some sort of inconsistency or counterintuitive result in the relationship between the "official theory" and the purported evidence. Step 3: Use that inconsistency to leap to the conclusion that an alternate theory must necessarily be correct. I've seen this pattern played out a million times in as many different scenarios. For example, look at the moon landing denialists. They point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH. Or, look at the JFK conspiracy theorists. They point out that if you position JFK and Governor Connally in the seemingly most normal riding positions in the presidential limousine then the bullet alleged to have passed through JFK's neck and also to have injured Connally would have had to travel a very unlikely route. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND IN REALITY JFK WAS ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA. Or, look at the 9/11 truthers. They point out that the temperature that structural steel melts at is higher than the temperature that jet fuel burns at. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS AN ELABORATE RUSE BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED USING PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. And so on. Here we have a perfect example of the beginnings of another conspiracy theory in progress. Hastings' car didn't appear to leave much damage on the palm tree he allegedly collided with. Logically the only conclusion is that a vast government conspiracy remote controlled his car to veer off the road and trigger the explosion of a fire bomb in order to prevent him from revealing secrets that they didn't want revealed. It's just simple logic right?