Full remote control of ALL modern U.S. market cars PROVEN

Jim Stone, June 21 2013

Permalink

A team of hackers from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Washington conducted a study in 2010 which concluded that all cars equipped with antilock brakes sold in the U.S. can be hacked via remote control and have their brakes entirely disabled with the car in motion, throttle revved, and remain fully operational with the key removed and the car in park with all driver input entirely ignored. That this was done all the way back in 2010 only goes to show that this has been possible for a long time, and proves Larry Dever could have been killed the same way Hastings was, that is IF Hastings was not simply murdered beforehand blown up and burned mafia style as I think he was.

I am going to introduce here an entirely new possibility that could have happened. That this University of Washington study proved beyond all doubt that Hastings 2013 Mercedes could have instead been hijacked via remote control, run to full throttle with all driver input disabled, and rammed into a tree./p> Many people know about GM's Onstar which maintains an always on cellular internet connection to the heart of the engine control system and has been that way since the 90's. But few people know about the Federal mandate which in 2005 forced manufacturers to include a similar always on internet connection via the cell network in EVERY car sold in America, Onstar or not. And this team of hackers has proven that a remote connection can indeed allow commandeering of these cars (in their case they used a remote controlled laptop plugged into the OBD port rather than the cell connection) that could be used to turn the car into a murder weapon.
The issue is with all cars that use networked control modules which use the CAN (Controller Area Network) Protocol, which functions in a manner similar to a wired computer network which connects PC's. Each module in the car, be it the ABS controller, throttle controller, spark controller or even the modern radios, communicate via this network which also integrates with the main engine control unit. If any one of the devices on this network can be hacked (and the team proved that ALL can) it can be used as an insertion point through which total vehicle control can be taken away from the driver and the car operated at the whim of a remote attacker. And the Federally mandated always on cellular internet connection in all cars 2005 and later provides a remote access point through which ANY car can be hacked, provided you are high enough in the government to be priviledged with the ability to use this connection.
There is little doubt Hastings Mercedes had a camera in it somewhere (cameras are super common on high end cars) which would have allowed an attacker to know exactly where Hasting's car was going, to give a visual of their attack and allow them to see what they were doing when they hijacked his car from a comfy drone desk a thousand miles away and drive it to a perfect crash. I don't personally think this is how they did it, but the capability is definitely there. WHAT IF?/p>
The CIA favors car accident deaths above all other assassination methods because the plausible deniability factor is so high, and even if all evidence seems to make the driver appear innocent, it's easy to stop such a defense by blaming drugs or alcohol.
I am sure many readers are tired of people making claims and then producing a lengthy document which only spuriously supports what has been stated in an article. That is NOT the case with this one, it's ALL IN THERE, Read it and weep. Your car, provided it is new enough, has the potential to be a bona fide murder weapon via the always on internet cell connection.

Here is the original link to the document, and if that mysteriously stops working, I have uploaded it to my own server HERE.

You will discover that particular document to NOT be a waste of time. If whatever you get does not include them taking the car out on an aircraft runway and creating a situation that could have killed the driver, you did not get the real thing. _____________________________________________________

Hastings definitely murdered by bomb on gas tank

Permalink

"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 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. In contrast with the mangled car photos shown by loudlabs, the passenger door is perfectly straight and the tire is perfectly straight, with a perfectly straight fender above it. Why is it all straight in even the first LoudLabs shots, and all bent up when they want to make the image of carnage? THAT was a serious continuity error.
5. There is no damage to the front of the car, it has no frontal impact damage AT ALL, it is damaged in the back and not crunched in from the front. HOW ON EARTH DID THAT DAMAGED BACK END HAPPEN FROM A FRONT IMPACT WHEN THE DOOR IS STILL ALIGNED PERFECTLY IN THE INITIAL SHOTS? The answer is obvious - they took footage of a different burning wreck, and copied it into this "newscast". It is, after all, Hollywood.
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 are the trees not the same as in the original photo above? Where is the damaged 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.
.

UPDATE: The original newscast videos have been entirely expunged from the web, and entirely replaced with the LoudLabs video.

The Loudlabs video STILL intersperses two car wrecks, but they try to explain it away by repeatedly showing different angles of the crash, to make you think you did not see it right at first. But look at the FIRST SHOT in the Loudlabs video, you can see the entire intact car that is not crunched AT ALL, with the front of the car obviously missing the tree and obscured behind the tree. The Mexican guy the police talk to said the car was on fire before it arrived at the tree, and in the LoudLabs video they do a close up, and you can see bullet holes shot in the car, two in the drivers door and several just behind the drivers door. Something is really strange here. Remember, this happened in Hollywood. Who knows what is real? Bullet holes in the drivers door followed by a high speed crash are just as damning as no crash and a gas tank bomb. If Loudlabs faked this, what good did it do? Farganne keeps asking why I think the crunched car is fake. Here is my answer:
In the first shot, even in the loudlabs video, that car is intact, with no parts thrown from the front of the car anywhere in sight. It's a clean scene, except for debris surrounding the back of the car as would be if a bomb went off back there. It is in normal condition with the door seams matching as if there was no crash, sitting there burning, with the frame straight and the front passenger tire straight.
Then later, loudlabs intersperses another wreck, where you can clearly see the passenger door is badly crumpled, the front passenger side wheel is bent, and the front of the car is totally obliterated with shredded metal high in the air, and the car totally rammed into a tree.
Those two images DO NOT MATCH AT ALL.
Photo 1. No passenger side impact, no mangled front end, perfectly straight door and fender, and no debris from the front end:

Photo 2. SEVERE PASSENGER SIDE IMPACT and extreme carnage, with lots of debris

That means that ONE of them is special effects. Guess which one? And if there are ANY special effects, LoudLabs is BUNK.
And what about this tree? Why is the bottom not burnt at all? Why did they scrape off the char at the bottom? To provide an "impact mark"? Furthermore, if this was a 100 mph crash as fronted, that tree would have a lot more than just surface damage that could be scraped off.
___________________________

The Facebook page which I had nothing to do with creating, quickly became one of the best news pages on the web.

I am blown away by what Farganne and others made it. It was anything but a "faceplant". Take a look, and if you like what you see, bookmark it and share it. This appears to be uncensored so far.

Landingnewly posted the following to the forum

My comments are interspersed

Whether by CoreVPro or Windows, they are opening THE BACK DOOR

Sharyl Attkisson Shares Update On Computer Hacking Investigation Just days after CBS News confirmed that reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computer had indeed been hacked, Attkisson spoke to Dom Giordano about the investigation.
“This suspicious activity has been going on for quite some time – both on my CBS computer and my personal computer,” Attkisson said. “CBS then hired its own independent cyber security firm, which has been conducting a thorough forensic exam… they were able to rule out malware, phishing programs, that sort of thing.”
Attkisson described some of the bizarre things that were happening with her Computer. “There were just signs of unusual happenings for many months, odd behavior like the computers just turning themselves on at night and then turning themselves back off again. I was basically able to verify and obtain information from my sources on the suspicious activity, and I reported it to CBS News in January because of course it included CBS equipment and systems.”
My comment:
The computers turning themselves on at night happened compliments of your new Intel CoreVpro processors. Watch that video, and FROM NOW ON, BUY AMD. My two year old AMD quad core laptop keeps pace with the current CoreVpro I5. You get what you pay for. Don't get the cheapest AMD.
Attkisson could not speak about whether the hacking was related to her questions about Benghazi because of “legal counsel”, but she did say her work at that time was primarily on the occurrence.
My comment - With the NSA hacking everyone all the time, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT AS A REPORTER?
“Whoever was in my work computer, the only thing I was working on were work-related things with CBS, were big stories I guess during the time period in question, were I guess Benghazi and ‘Fast and Furious’. The intruders did have access to personal information, including passwords to my financial accounts and so on, but didn’t tamper with those; so they weren’t interested in stealing my identity or doing things to my finances. So people can decide on their own what they might have been trying to do in there.”

My comment - Here is MY report on "Fast and Furious". Did CBS allow yours to nail it like THAT?

When asked how she felt about being hacked, Attkisson had this to say:
“Even apart from this specific incident with my computers… I operate as though someone is looking at what I do, just because that’s the safest thing,” Attkisson said. “While it’s upsetting to have that sort of intrusion done, it’s also not that unexpected.”
My comment - Operating as if "someone is looking" is NOT what you do in a free country. Any reports about the police state from you? Happy to EXPECT being watched?