JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Uninterrupted TSBD rooftop Hertz sign time display = no power failure
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on March 01, 2018, 07:08:08 PM ---LOL. Where in the article does it say that the sign had "separate electric utility meter and power supply" from the building and would continue to function even if the power went out to the building?
--- End quote ---
Are you for real?
--- Quote from: Tom Scully on March 01, 2018, 02:08:22 AM ---From 1953, the infrastructure was in place on the TSBD roof for a devoted high voltage power line on its own independent circuit and utility meter
--- End quote ---
--- Quote --- At least you are backing off the claim that this sign was battery powered.
--- End quote ---
I never claimed that. That was Walt. I asked you how you knew it wasn't. You didn't know -- you just assumed it. Tom to his credit bailed you out.
--- Quote --- The article cited also does not address the Hertz sign but a sign placed there a decade earlier. Simply saying it had a separate meter does not mean the power would have been on to the sign if the power source were cut to the entire building.
--- End quote ---
Sure, but not only are you convinced for no good reason that the power to the sign was dependent on the power to the building, but you also somehow convinced yourself that somebody argued that power was cut to the entire building.
--- Quote --- It does not mean it was "completely independent of any power inside the building".
--- End quote ---
Do you know how electric meters work? For them to be metered separately, they have to be isolated.
--- Quote --- Coming from Mr. Everything is an Assumption that it a very humorous highlighting both your dishonesty and stupidity.
--- End quote ---
Like clockwork. If all else fails, start flinging insults.
Richard Smith:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2018, 07:30:30 PM ---Are you for real?
--- End quote ---
LOL. You are citing Tom's interpretation of the article. His opinion. It is not contained in the article itself. Try actually reading the article posted and distinguishing that from Tom's commentary.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Richard Smith on March 01, 2018, 07:39:03 PM ---LOL. You are citing Tom's interpretation of the article. His opinion. It is not contained in the article itself. Try actually reading the article posted and distinguishing that from Tom's commentary.
--- End quote ---
Tom saves your lazy ass from having to do your own research and this is how you repay him.
Richard Smith:
--- Quote from: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2018, 07:51:49 PM ---Tom saves your lazy ass from having to do your own research and this is how you repay him.
--- End quote ---
Tut-tut with the language Johnny. I'm simply pointing out that you erroneously conflated the information in the article with Tom's commentary. Either out of pure stupidity or intentional dishonesty. It does not say what you claimed. Tom did nothing wrong. He simply expressed his interpretation of the information contained in article. A substantive opinion that may or may not be true. You, however, stated that information as being a fact when it is not. Perhaps in your childish desire to be right about something after being wrong about everything in this discussion so far.
John Iacoletti:
I'm sure Tom will be along shortly to set you straight. Tom has a track record of honest and thorough research. You have a track record of making unsupported claims, strawman arguments, and insulting people. Figuring out who is more reliable is not a difficult proposition. But anything to distract from your silly argument about the Hertz sign, right?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version