Geneva Hine

[John Mytton]

Anything else is a pile of sour grapes wielded by a man who desperately wishes to be counted among the biggest dorks in history.

This is how Iacoletti gets his jolly's, he baits, isolates, then plays silly word games, with the overall aim to keep you engaged as long as possible and this goes on and on and builds to his Explosive Climax!



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Ah, now you want us to believe that you are the illegitimate love child of Socrates and Sgt Schultz. Now you can explain why you keep arguing over something that you consider unknowable.

Says the guy who keeps arguing over something that’s unknowable.

I'm sorry if you don't like the scientific method.

I’m sorry you think there’s anything scientific about your speculative arguments.

The rest of us will go on without you.

I don’t recall “the rest” appointing you their spokesperson.

I don't know about the omniscience part, but it seems like everyone else around here actually does accept with my position.

So now you’re adding on an ad-populum fallacy. How scientific.

  Even the usual nay-sayer's choir isn't stepping up to defend your position. All I can say is that you've picked one heck of a molehill to die on.

I think it’s much more likely that nobody else cares enough to go on and on about Hine’s lights other than LN evangelists who have to try to explain away every anomaly with speculation.

Like I said, I know what multiline phones were like back in those days. You don't, but it doesn't seem to bother you as you lash out in gross ignorance.

What gave you the silly idea that I don’t know what multiline phones were like back in those days? That doesn’t give you any special insight on what Hine meant when she said the lights all went out.

To continue your car analogy, this would like if Hine said that the wheel fell off her car and you insisted that she must have been referring to the steering wheel because cars had steering wheels back in the day.

I'm saying is that my interpretation is the best explanation of the available evidence, no pretense necessary.

Of course you think so — otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing it. Everybody thinks their own subjective interpretations are the correct ones.

I don’t tend to make up explanations that I can’t prove are actually true. It’s more rational to just say you don’t know what you don’t know.

And namecalling people who disagree with your subjective opinions isn’t scientific either. It’s what desperate people do when they are called out on bad arguments.

[Dan O'meara]

And the interpretation you have chosen is not supported by any other witness testimony. So here we are.

The master logician strikes again.
I'm supposed to find witness testimony where people noticed the lights didn't go out?
I'm supposed to produce testimonial evidence for something that didn't happen?
Have a word with yourself.
I think you'll find the onus is on you to provide testimonial evidence for something that did happen (according to you)
And there is none.
So here we are.

Bull. It was speculation about what the images depicted at times unknown to be equivalent to when Hine said the lights all went out, as well as at different locations from where Hine was sitting.

So, now the only lights that went out were the ones near Hine?
Wow, that must be a really specific fuse.

[John Iacoletti]

The master logician strikes again.
I'm supposed to find witness testimony where people noticed the lights didn't go out?
I'm supposed to produce testimonial evidence for something that didn't happen?

Nope. What orifice did you pull that out of? If you’re so damn convinced she was talking about lights on her phone (even though she didn’t say that) then find some evidence that she was talking about lights on her phone. Other than “makes sense to me!”.

Wow, that must be a really specific fuse.

You don’t know how the electrical circuits in the building were wired any more than you know what Hine’s phone looked like.

[Dan O'meara]

Nope. What orifice did you pull that out of? If you’re so damn convinced she was talking about lights on her phone (even though she didn’t say that) then find some evidence that she was talking about lights on her phone. Other than “makes sense to me!”.

You posted:

"And the interpretation you have chosen is not supported by any other witness testimony. So here we are."

You know Hine was in the room on her own, yet you still ask for witness testimony that she was talking about the telephone lights.
You say such stupid things to hide the fact that your  nonsense about the lights in the building going out is not supported by a single person.
When photographic evidence is posted of the lights still being on, you then insist it was only the lights near Hine that went out and that it could've happened like that because nobody knows how the building was wired.
And if a plan of the wiring in the TSBD was found you'd cry "fake".
Do you know how you come across?
You clearly have your own theory about the assassination but won't put it forward. Why not?

You don’t know how the electrical circuits in the building were wired any more than you know what Hine’s phone looked like.

 

[Charles Collins]

It is typical in an investigation to make a list of the possibilities and then see if any of the possibilities can be eliminated by evidence, circumstances, etc. In the case of Geneva Hine and the question of which lights she was referring to, we have so far listed only two possibilities. The phone lights and the building lights. I haven’t seen any evidence of a Christmas tree set up (in the photos of the offices), and it was still a bit too early in the season for a Christmas tree. So, I don’t think that Christmas tree lights need to be included in the list. Are there any other possibilities that anyone thinks we should list?

Here are some items listed to help in deciding if any possibilities can be eliminated.

Items for phone lights:

• Each button on the multi-line phone lights up when that particular line is in use and goes out when idle. An incoming call is identified by a blinking (or winking) button light.
• Monitoring the phones is the activity that Geneva Hine was performing at the time in question.
• Monitoring the phones requires looking at the buttons to see which ones are lit up or blinking.
• Geneva Hine was discussing what she was doing (monitoring the phones) when she said that the lights all went out.
• The other people who worked in Geneva Hine’s office were outside watching the motorcade. Therefore there was reduced phone activity.
• It was the lunch hour for businesses and schools all over Texas. Therefore there was reduced phone activity.

Items against phone lights:

Items for building lights:

Items against building lights:

• Photographic evidence (several photos) showing that the lights were on in the building at the time of the assassination.
• No witnesses indicated that the building lights went out at the time of the assassination.
• Several witnesses said that the clock on the roof of the TSBD was showing the time of day at the time of the assassination. This is an indication that the power to the TSBD was on.
• Photographic evidence showing the limo just after passing under the overpass shows the clock on the roof of the TSBD displaying 12:30. This is an indication that the power to the TSBD was on.
• Someone was heard by Geneva Hine to be talking on the phone in another locked office on her floor just after the shots were fired. This is an indication that phone service to the TSBD was operating.
• No one was seen manipulating the electrical or phone circuits within the TSBD building at the time of the assassination.

Please feel free to suggest any additions to the above list. I will add them as necessary. When the list is complete, each one of you can be the judge as to which lights Geneva Hine was referring to.

[Richard Smith]

Always a good idea to read and understand the question before answering, Richard.

Watching traffic back up (caused by himself) as Oswald moved East on Elm and entering the wrong bus are not random events.

So let me repeat my question: How does entering the wrong bus headed into backed up traffic advance Oswald's objective to get to the Beckley rooming house?

You have regressed to 4-3=0.  You have also introduced a false premise.  In addition, Oswald is in flight from the assassination of the president.  He has no access to a car or other means of transportation.  What is he going to do?  He gets on the bus.  His objective is not advanced because in the real world events like traffic jams occur that he can't control and intervene in the narrative.  Such random and uncontrollable events are not a function of a contrived narrative.  Imagine the meeting where the conspirators are planning this event.  They are gathered in a room discussing what should happen after the assassination and someone raises their hand and says "How about Oswald gets on a bus with a load of unknown people that takes him nowhere and it gets stuck in a traffic jam and takes him nowhere before he gets off."   HA HA HA.   No one can possibly believe that was part of a plan.  Well maybe someone who thinks 4-3=0 but no one else.