4 ms·

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and full disclosure, I doubt that it is from what I've read) it is surprising to me how something with tenuous eviden

Regardless of whether or not that is true (and full disclosure, I doubt that it is from what I've read) it is surprising to me how something with tenuous evidence can be presumptively believed to be true in certain circles. His own wife says it was a "tragic accident", and his brother says he believed Hastings to be in a "manic episode" at the time. Why is it that random people on the internet have so much more suspicion and rage than his loved ones who were closest to him? This isn't really meant to be directed at you, so much as expressing my frustration with a sort of casual canonization of a dubious event as a conspiracy.

downer83 13y ago
Because the motive and the modus operandi make a good fit for the scenario. The family is not interested in the emotional baggage of foul play, or the hassle of an arduous investigation, which would, hypothetically, probably be fruitless, even if suspicions were accurate. It's much, much easier for loved ones to swallow an official story of a tragic accident. For total strangers, not burdened by emotions, the scenario is objectively disturbing.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Because conspiracies make for a good story to fill your hunger for curiosity, and when you are only loosely versed in the circumstances it is easy to find reasons to believe it was a conspiracy.
beagle3 13y ago
I haven't been following the Hastings case, so I can only reply in general: Following the recent Snowden disclosures, you should question yourself at disbelieving conspiracy so easily. You might be right (probably are, for all I know), but you have no reason to believe so other than pure faith. Ask yourself this (and answer truthfully): A year ago - did you believe that the NSA is actively sabotaging standards, intercepting shipments in order to modify the software to be under their control, etc? If you didn't (and I'm sure you've had the conspiracies mentioned), then why on earth would you believe "the official word" on anything like remote control of a car? You might have a lot of faith in the official status-quo for no reason at all.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Ask yourself this (and answer truthfully): A year ago - did you believe that the NSA is actively sabotaging standards, intercepting shipments in order to modify the software to be under their control, etc? If you didn't (and I'm sure you've had the conspiracies mentioned), then why on earth would you believe "the official word" on anything like remote control of a car? I am fucking sick of people being surprised by the NSA revelations. NSA malpractice has been documented all the way back to 1975 by the Church Committee's papers: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol5.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_c... Then later on we had Clipper chips, ECHELON, Presidential Surveillance Program, TEMPEST, Total Information Awareness, DCSNet, Room 641A and plenty of other surveillance disclosures. This whole stigmatization of conspiracy theorists as loons is wholly unfair, misguided and shows the speaker's ignorance of how intelligence agencies operate. Conspiracy theories aren't just idiotic pop culture ravings about Illuminati, reptilian men and ZOG.

downer83 13y ago

Because the motive and the modus operandi make a good fit for the scenario. The family is not interested in the emotional baggage of foul play, or the hassle of an arduous investigation, which would, hypothetically, probably be fruitless, even if suspicions were accurate. It's much, much easier for loved ones to swallow an official story of a tragic accident. For total strangers, not burdened by emotions, the scenario is objectively disturbing.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Because conspiracies make for a good story to fill your hunger for curiosity, and when you are only loosely versed in the circumstances it is easy to find reasons to believe it was a conspiracy.

beagle3 13y ago

I haven't been following the Hastings case, so I can only reply in general: Following the recent Snowden disclosures, you should question yourself at disbelieving conspiracy so easily. You might be right (probably are, for all I know), but you have no reason to believe so other than pure faith. Ask yourself this (and answer truthfully): A year ago - did you believe that the NSA is actively sabotaging standards, intercepting shipments in order to modify the software to be under their control, etc? If you didn't (and I'm sure you've had the conspiracies mentioned), then why on earth would you believe "the official word" on anything like remote control of a car? You might have a lot of faith in the official status-quo for no reason at all.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Ask yourself this (and answer truthfully): A year ago - did you believe that the NSA is actively sabotaging standards, intercepting shipments in order to modify the software to be under their control, etc? If you didn't (and I'm sure you've had the conspiracies mentioned), then why on earth would you believe "the official word" on anything like remote control of a car? I am fucking sick of people being surprised by the NSA revelations. NSA malpractice has been documented all the way back to 1975 by the Church Committee's papers: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol5.htm http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_c... Then later on we had Clipper chips, ECHELON, Presidential Surveillance Program, TEMPEST, Total Information Awareness, DCSNet, Room 641A and plenty of other surveillance disclosures. This whole stigmatization of conspiracy theorists as loons is wholly unfair, misguided and shows the speaker's ignorance of how intelligence agencies operate. Conspiracy theories aren't just idiotic pop culture ravings about Illuminati, reptilian men and ZOG.