JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on March 05, 2022, 10:29:15 PM
-
Geneva Hine gives her testimony to the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964. If one reads her testimony and relates it to the second floor plan of the TSBD, it is apparent that she is looking out the east window of their office (overlooking Houston Street) as JFK’s limo is traveling north on Houston Street and turning west on Elm Street. She would not be able to follow it any further than when it disappears behind the southeast corner of the TSBD from her point of view.
Here is a relevant part of Geneva Hine’s testimony:
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
Mr. BALL. Did you go to the window?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you look out?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you see?
Miss HINE. I saw the escort car come first up the middle of Houston Street.
Mr. BALL. Going north on Houston Street?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; going north on Houston Street. I saw it turn left and I saw the President's car coming and I saw the President and saw him waving his hand in greeting up in the air and I saw his wife and I saw him turn the corner and after he turned the corner I looked and I saw the next car coming Just at the instant I saw the next car coming up was when I heard the shots.
Mr. BALL. How many did you hear?
Miss HINE. Three.
Mr. BALL Could you tell where the shots were coming from?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they came from inside the building.
Mr. BALL. How do you know that?
Miss HINE. Because the building vibrated from the result of the explosion coming in.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL. That is when you were at the window, is that right?
Miss HINE Yes, sir; that is when I was at the window, because the next car, you see, was coming up and turning and I looked.
Geneva Hine doesn’t specify which car is the next one. I therefore have to speculate that it would either be literally the next vehicle (the presidential follow-up car) or possibly the Vice Presidential vehicle. The presidential follow-up car was only a few feet behind the limo at this point. And there was a significant gap between it and the vice presidential car. So, I suspect that she is describing the vice presidential car. Either way, Geneva Hine’s testimony is that the shots began very soon after the presidential limo disappeared from her point of view behind the southeast corner of the TSBD.
Looking at an animation that shows an overhead view of Dealey Plaza and the locations of the motorcade vehicles as they progress through the plaza area, it appears to me that at the time frame around Z133 the vehicles that Geneva Hine describes would be about where she says they were when the shots began. I will post an image of this here shortly from another computer.
(https://i.vgy.me/x0Qj5H.jpg)
It appears to me that Geneva Hine can be added to the list of witnesses who’s accounts support a first shot around the Z133 time frame.
-
Here is a relevant part of Geneva Hine’s testimony:
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone *until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
Geneva Hine gives her testimony to the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964. If one reads her testimony and relates it to the second floor plan of the TSBD, it is apparent that she is looking out the east window of their office (overlooking Houston Street) as JFK’s limo is traveling north on Houston Street and turning west on Elm Street. She would not be able to follow it any further than when it disappears behind the southeast corner of the TSBD from her point of view.
You quite misunderstood this Mr Collins.
Reading further....
Mr. BALL. That is when you were at the window, is that right?
Miss HINE Yes, sir; that is when I was at the window, because the next car, you see, was coming up and turning and I looked. Of course I looked when I heard the shots. I just stood there and saw people running to the east up Elm Street. I saw people running; I saw people falling down, you know,
lying down on the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. That was on Houston Street?
Miss HINE. No, sir; Elm.
Mr. BALL. You could see could you see any part of Elm?
Miss HINE. East, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You could see east on Elm?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I could see east on Elm.
Ms Hine could only see people 'falling down...lying on the sidewalk' looking west. She was obviously looking out from the easterly window south across Elm and misstated the direction that Elm goes. She knew which way the motorcade was going and of course would not be looking across at the Dal-Tex building.
That's all.
Except..."*until the lights all went out and the phones became dead" ----
Why did this happen don't we wonder? ::)
-
Geneva Hine gives her testimony to the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964. If one reads her testimony and relates it to the second floor plan of the TSBD, it is apparent that she is looking out the east window of their office (overlooking Houston Street) as JFK’s limo is traveling north on Houston Street and turning west on Elm Street. She would not be able to follow it any further than when it disappears behind the southeast corner of the TSBD from her point of view.
You quite misunderstood this Mr Collins.
Reading further....Ms Hine could only see people 'falling down...lying on the sidewalk' looking west. She was obviously looking out from the easterly window south across Elm and misstated the direction that Elm goes. She knew which way the motorcade was going and of course would not be looking across at the Dal-Tex building.
That's all.
Except..."*until the lights all went out and the phones became dead" ----
Why did this happen don't we wonder? ::)
Here is the second floor plan:
(https://i.vgy.me/xsEKor.png)
This image was taken from the spot numbered 28 and the direction arrow pointing east:
(https://i.vgy.me/NX3VtX.png)
There is a total of 5 sets of double windows in the office. Two of the five sets of windows are in Mr. Campbell's office, and two sets are in Mr. Cason’s office. They all face east. Geneva Hine was looking out the window which was between Mr. Campbell's office and the closet that backs up to the elevator shaft. It is the window furthest to the right in the photograph posted above. After the shots were fired, Geneva Hine tried to get into two different office spaces which have south facing windows. But both of those offices were locked and she never was able to look out any south facing windows. Geneva Hine then went back in the back door to her office and started answering the phones which had started ringing by then.
If you read her entire testimony, all of this becomes quite clear.
-
Except..."*until the lights all went out and the phones became dead" ----
Why did this happen don't we wonder? ::)
She was referring to the lights on the phone if you read her entire comment in context. She is explaining why she could leave her desk (her job was to answer the phones) and look out the window (i.e. there were no incoming calls because the "motorcade was coming").
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
-
She was referring to the lights on the phone if you read her entire comment in context. She is explaining why she could leave her desk (her job was to answer the phones) and look out the window (i.e. there were no incoming calls because the "motorcade was coming").
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
You explain nothing as usual " The lights went out because the motorcade was near"? --"The phones became dead "?
That was very specific and you never are.
After the shots were fired, Geneva Hine tried to get into two different office spaces which have south facing windows. But both of those offices were locked and she never was able to look out any south facing windows. Geneva Hine then went back in the back door to her office and started answering the phones which had started ringing by then.
If you read her entire testimony, all of this becomes quite clear.
Where did Hine state 'south window' or 'south' anything ::)
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
Mr. BALL. Did they come in rapidly?
Miss HINE They did come in rapidly.
Why did all of a sudden- the calls came in "rapidly"? You ignore the statement-------
Mr. BALL. That is when you were at the window, is that right?
Miss HINE Yes, sir; that is when I was at the window, because the next car, you see, was coming up and turning and I looked. Of course I looked when I heard the shots. I just stood there and saw people running to the east up Elm Street. I saw people running; I saw people falling down, you know,
lying down on the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. That was on Houston Street?
Miss HINE. No, sir; Elm.
If you re-read the testimony it becomes quite clear.
-
You explain nothing as usual " The lights went out because the motorcade was near"? --"The phones became dead "?
Huh? It is a quote from Hine. What do you think she is saying? That the motorcade caused the power and phones to go out? LOL. We know that isn't the case because she immediately walks down the hall and encounters someone talking on the phone! Lastly, there is no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off in the TSBD for a few seconds. Here is where the contrarians interject that no one has suggested this was the result of a conspiracy. But if the claim simply is that the power and phones went off and it had nothing to do with a conspiracy, then knock yourself out if you want to believe that. It doesn't matter. And, of course, the Hertz sign didn't go out since we can it is displaying the time at almost the same instant Hine is describing.
-
What do you think she is saying?That the motorcade caused the power and phones to go out? That the motorcade caused the power and phones to go out? LOL. We know that isn't the case because she immediately walks down the hall and encounters someone talking on the phone!
So she just made it up? And I saw no word 'immediately' in that testimony. You are just inventing stuff again.
Lastly, there is no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off in the TSBD for a few seconds.
Sez you ... how would you know? And "lastly"? I would hope so but doubt it.
Also Hine did not state "for a few seconds" another Smith invention. Truly and the cop was waiting for the elevators...they weren't moving. And, of course, the Hertz sign didn't go out since we can it is displaying the time at almost the same instant Hine is describing.
It has been reported long ago that the Hertz sign was on a separate breaker in a different area. Try and catch up.
-
You explain nothing as usual " The lights went out because the motorcade was near"? --"The phones became dead "?
That was very specific and you never are.
Where did Hine state 'south window' or 'south' anything ::)Why did all of a sudden- the calls came in "rapidly"? You ignore the statement-------If you re-read the testimony it becomes quite clear.
Where did Hine state 'south window' or 'south' anything ::)
I didn't say that Hine used the word south. That was my wording.
Look at the floor plan for the second floor. It is the south windows that face out on to Elm Street.
Why did all of a sudden- the calls came in "rapidly"?
I would only be able to guess. Are you trying to insinuate that there just had to have been be a sinister reason for it. ::)
You ignore the statement-------
Mr. BALL. That is when you were at the window, is that right?
Miss HINE Yes, sir; that is when I was at the window, because the next car, you see, was coming up and turning and I looked. Of course I looked when I heard the shots. I just stood there and saw people running to the east up Elm Street. I saw people running; I saw people falling down, you know,
lying down on the sidewalk.
Mr. BALL. That was on Houston Street?
Miss HINE. No, sir; Elm.
What are you trying to insinuate? That the only people who ran and got down on Elm Street were west of the southeast corner of the TSBD? And that none of the people on Elm Street that were in her view from the east window of her office ran or got down on the sidewalks? ???
Here's the continuation of Hine's testimony (which you conveniently left out):
Mr. BALL. You could see could you see any part of Elm?
Miss HINE. East, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You could see east on Elm?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I could see east on Elm. I saw them run across east on Elm away from where his car had gone and my first thought was if I could only see what happened, so I went out our front door into the foyer.
Mr. BALL. You mean the front door to the office?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That opens on---
Miss HINE. The foyer, little hall, and---
Mr. BALL. Steps lead down?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; but there is a door before the steps and the elevator is to my left and I went past the hall that goes to my right and I knocked on the door of Lyons and Carnahan; that's a publishing company.
Mr. BALL. What did you do then?
Miss HINE. I tried the door, sir, and it was locked and I couldn't get in and I called, "Me, please let me in," because she's the girl that had that office, Mrs. Lee Watley, and she didn't answer. I don't know if she was there or not, then I left her door. I retraced my steps back to where the hall turns to my left and went down it to Southwestern Publishing Co.'s door and I tried their door and the reason for this was because those windows face out.
Mr. BALL. On to Elm?
Miss HINE. Yes; and on to the triple underpass.
Read Hine's description of where she went (after the shots) trying to get to windows which overlook Elm Street [you should also be looking at the floor plan and locating the places she describes]. The first thing she does is go out their front door to the foyer, little hall, and.... [Locate this on the floor plan]. She is talking about the door which has "Room 200" written above it. This tells us that (in order to go out that door) she had just been inside her office looking out the nearby east facing window when the shots were fired. Once outside her office door she goes to and knocks on the door of Lyons and Carnahan. Lyons and Carnahan offices had windows which overlook Elm Street [face south]. Why would she want to go inside that office? Because she wanted to see what had happened but couldn't see the area where the presidential car had gone (this just happens to be the part of Elm Street west of the southeast corner of the TSBD). A second effort was made by going to the offices of Southwestern Publishing Co., which was just down the hall and also has windows overlooking Elm Street [facing south]. Hine had no luck getting in that office either. Then Hine continued down the hall and went back through the back door (near the camera location #28) to her office.
-
What are you trying to insinuate? That the only people who ran and got down on Elm Street were west of the southeast corner of the TSBD? And that none of the people on Elm Street that were in her view from the east window of her office ran or got down on the sidewalks?
I am not insinuating anything. No one fell down or lay on the sidewalk at the intersection.
I didn't say that Hine used the word south. That was my wording.
Right. In order for Ms Hine to have viewed that intersection from that east... facing Houston window ...she would have to have leaned as far out of that window as she possibly could...a silly as hell notion. Was she incapable of walking around a desk to view the motorcade going down Elm?
Ms Hine: I just stood there and saw people running to the east up Elm Street. I saw people running; I saw people falling down, you know,
You assume that she had an accurate grasp of direction. Joe Ball failed to correct this.
Sure-- shots could have been fired right after the limo turn.
I have considered that the president was shot in the back...in the throat....and twice in the head...there was a missed shot and the governor was shot possibly twice. That is just far too much shooting for 1 lone assassin and 3 bullets.
-
I am not insinuating anything. No one fell down or lay on the sidewalk at the intersection.Right. In order for Ms Hine to have viewed that intersection from that east... facing Houston window ...she would have to have leaned as far out of that window as she possibly could...a silly as hell notion. Was she incapable of walking around a desk to view the motorcade going down Elm?You assume that she had an accurate grasp of direction. Joe Ball failed to correct this.
Sure-- shots could have been fired right after the limo turn.
I have considered that the president was shot in the back...in the throat....and twice in the head...there was a missed shot and the governor was shot possibly twice. That is just far too much shooting for 1 lone assassin and 3 bullets.
I am not insinuating anything. No one fell down or lay on the sidewalk at the intersection.
Tina Towner on page 8 of her book: "I heard three gunshots, and sometime between the first and last, an unknown man grabbed my arm and pulled me to the ground. He held onto my arm until he thought it was safe to get up."
Amos Euins said he got down behind a concrete structure near his position.
I am reasonably sure that there were many others who either got down or ran or both.
In order for Ms Hine to have viewed that intersection from that east... facing Houston window ...she would have to have leaned as far out of that window as she possibly could...a silly as hell notion.
Actually, she could view most of the intersection without leaning out the window at all. And if she had just heard shots and wanted to see as far west as the corner of the building would allow, sticking her head out the window wouldn't have been silly at all.
Was she incapable of walking around a desk to view the motorcade going down Elm?
There were no windows in her office that overlooked Elm Street to the west of the southeast corner of the building. All five of the sets of 2 windows faced east. She tried to get in the offices of two other companies who had windows overlooking Elm Street. But was not able to get into either one of those offices.
You assume that she had an accurate grasp of direction. Joe Ball failed to correct this.
She had an accurate grasp of direction. And she demonstrated it by telling us she went to one of the east facing windows and had a view of Houston Street and Elm Street going east. It is you who assumed (wrongly) that she didn't have an accurate grasp of direction. Joe Ball didn't need to correct this.
Sure-- shots could have been fired right after the limo turn.
I have considered that the president was shot in the back...in the throat....and twice in the head...there was a missed shot and the governor was shot possibly twice. That is just far too much shooting for 1 lone assassin and 3 bullets.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with all of that. So I won't try to respond.
-
The concrete wall that Euins hid behind. Impossible to see from a 2nd fl. window on the east side of the TSBD.
This shot is from the 'snipers nest' 6th fl. southeast side---
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GGuvL4j1laM/UocfoTfAXQI/AAAAAAAAw0A/XchH92DhCSw/s800/View-From-Sixth-Floor-Of-TSBD-11-22-63.jpg)
If someone had been out on the fire escape they could see the intersection but that is it.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQdnjK6QLk0/XHq-EG3cegI/AAAAAAABQ6k/AlzFlO9pMB4Ug3XJB0vIuza1D1SK6JWVgCLcBGAs/s800/TSBD-11-23-63.jpg)
No one could see a car from the east side after turning from Houston to Elm .....
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s123XW4F7oA/XJHkd75FohI/AAAAAAABRC4/0lg1v8NpxSgzcZg4mxjasTuixKFn8CUPwCLcBGAs/s800/Dealey-Plaza-Dallas-Texas.png)
The cop is standing in the middle of the intersection..photo taken from the opposite corner----
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lxEKbJCE_LE/VMG2YI8klUI/AAAAAAABC50/M9gbhOnqmnc/s1600/A-Fire-At-The-Book-Depository-July-20-1972.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VxSzC6IWz5k/Vi8oa_BrosI/AAAAAAABHvg/kZcQlPbXNbs/s800/JFK-Motorcade-Reenactment-October-8-2015.png)
A view actually looking east on Elm that would have shown nothing eventful---
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/oswald-bus.jpg)
quote Freeman
I have considered that the president was shot in the back...in the throat....and twice in the head...there was a missed shot and the governor was shot possibly twice. That is just far too much shooting for 1 lone assassin and 3 bullets.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with all of that. So I won't try to respond.
You know what I am saying.
-
The concrete wall that Euins hid behind. Impossible to see from a 2nd fl. window on the east side of the TSBD.
This shot is from the 'snipers nest' 6th fl. southeast side---
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GGuvL4j1laM/UocfoTfAXQI/AAAAAAAAw0A/XchH92DhCSw/s800/View-From-Sixth-Floor-Of-TSBD-11-22-63.jpg)
If someone had been out on the fire escape they could see the intersection but that is it.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQdnjK6QLk0/XHq-EG3cegI/AAAAAAABQ6k/AlzFlO9pMB4Ug3XJB0vIuza1D1SK6JWVgCLcBGAs/s800/TSBD-11-23-63.jpg)
No one could see a car from the east side after turning from Houston to Elm .....
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s123XW4F7oA/XJHkd75FohI/AAAAAAABRC4/0lg1v8NpxSgzcZg4mxjasTuixKFn8CUPwCLcBGAs/s800/Dealey-Plaza-Dallas-Texas.png)
The cop is standing in the middle of the intersection..photo taken from the opposite corner----
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lxEKbJCE_LE/VMG2YI8klUI/AAAAAAABC50/M9gbhOnqmnc/s1600/A-Fire-At-The-Book-Depository-July-20-1972.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VxSzC6IWz5k/Vi8oa_BrosI/AAAAAAABHvg/kZcQlPbXNbs/s800/JFK-Motorcade-Reenactment-October-8-2015.png)
A view actually looking east on Elm that would have shown nothing eventful---
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/oswald-bus.jpg)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with all of that. So I won't try to respond.
You know what I am saying.
The concrete wall that Euins hid behind. Impossible to see from a 2nd fl. window on the east side of the TSBD.
The examples I used were in response to your claim that no one at that intersection fell or ran. And they could have been seen if Hine had her head out the window. Some people ran away, and some people ran towards the grassy knoll. There is no doubt that Hine could have seen what she said she saw from the east facing window that she said she saw it from.
This shot is from the 'snipers nest' 6th fl. southeast side---
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GGuvL4j1laM/UocfoTfAXQI/AAAAAAAAw0A/XchH92DhCSw/s800/View-From-Sixth-Floor-Of-TSBD-11-22-63.jpg)
Yes, and if Hine had her head out the east window, she could have seen everything in that photo which is east of the reflecting pool (about 44%). Just looking from inside the window, it would be well over half the intersection. Here are a couple of images from my 3-D computer model for demonstration:
This is from inside the window. The figure is standing at the centerline of Houston Street between the southwestern and southeastern corners of the intersection.
(https://i.vgy.me/0BAPn8.png)
This image is from a position just outside the window (as her head would be if she stuck it out the window). The figure half hidden by the window frame/wall is in the position where Tina Towner was filming. There is a figure in the far distance just to camera left of Tina's position, that is Hughes' filming position at the Main Street intersection. I didn't yet have a figure on the centerline of Houston Street in this image. But there are two more fitures across Houston Street. One of them is actually on the south side of Elm Street as it goes east from the intersection. The other figure closer to the Tina Towner position is where another photographer took a photo. The shadows look odd because the actual ground is at the level where the limo was at Z313. This is one of the limitations of the free program I am using.
(https://i.vgy.me/Dokosf.png)
No one could see a car from the east side after turning from Houston to Elm .....
Once it got to a point that is west of the southeast corner of the TSBD, that would be the case.
The cop is standing in the middle of the intersection..photo taken from the opposite corner----
Yes, and both the cop and the camera can see the east window that Hine said she looked out of. So, she could also see them.
A view actually looking east on Elm that would have shown nothing eventful---
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/oswald-bus.jpg)
Sorry, that is looking west. They even point out the TSBD for you.
-
So she just made it up? And I saw no word 'immediately' in that testimony. You are just inventing stuff again.
Sez you ... how would you know? And "lastly"? I would hope so but doubt it.
Also Hine did not state "for a few seconds" another Smith invention. Truly and the cop was waiting for the elevators...they weren't moving. It has been reported long ago that the Hertz sign was on a separate breaker in a different area. Try and catch up.
What are you babbling about? No one suggested she made anything up. You misconstrued what she is saying. It's not that the power and phones were out but that no incoming calls were coming in which allowed her to go to the window to view the motorcade ("no one was calling"). Where is your proof that the sign was on a "separate breaker in a "different area"? And the elevators were operational because Truly and Baker take them from the 5th floor to the 7th floor. LOL. And Hine walks down the hall where she encounters someone on the phone! But spin us a tale and give us the conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off just for a moment at the time of the motorcade. What would that achieve? It's laughable.
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
Mr. BALL. What did you do then?
Miss HINE. I tried the door, sir, and it was locked and I couldn't get in and I called, "Me, please let me in," because she's the girl that had that office, Mrs. Lee Watley, and she didn't answer. I don't know if she was there or not, then I left her door. I retraced my steps back to where the hall turns to my left and went down it to Southwestern Publishing Co.'s door and I tried their door and the reason for this was because those windows face out.
Mr. BALL. On to Elm?
Miss HINE. Yes; and on to the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL. I See.
Miss HINE. And there was a girl in there talking on the telephone and I could hear her but she didn't answer the door.
-
I made a frame stack of the limo’s turn onto Elm. An enhancement of that stack shows pretty clear to me that no head was sticking out the window at that time.
(https://i.imgur.com/eSOepjr.jpg)
The frame from the Secret Service’s reenactment film does show the beginning of the turn would be visible from her 2’nd floor window, just south of the fire escape.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rwf6l7s.jpg)
-
I made a frame stack of the limo’s turn onto Elm. An enhancement of that stack shows pretty clear to me that no head was sticking out the window at that time.
(https://i.imgur.com/eSOepjr.jpg)
The frame from the Secret Service’s reenactment film does show the beginning of the turn would be visible from her 2’nd floor window, just south of the fire escape.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rwf6l7s.jpg)
Great work (as usual) James, thanks! We all know that sometimes our imaginations can influence what we think we see in some of the photos. But I do see a dark area right where Geneva Hines would need to be if she were looking out the bottom half of the window with her head stuck out. Those windows are so low that she would need to be squatted down or on her knees. I am going to place a figure there and view it from Hughes’ viewpoint on my model to see what it should look like in proportion to everything else.
-
Okay, the figure in my model does appear to be only slightly larger than the dark spot in the Hughes film enhancement that James created. But there just isn’t enough detail in the enhancement to make a conclusive statement one way or another.
James, is that the limo making the turn that we see blurred in your enhancement?
-
OK a typing mistake...
A view actually looking east on Elm FROM THE TSBD that would have shown nothing eventful---
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/oswald-bus.jpg)
Why are you...an obviously staunch lone assassin believer along with Smith...spending so much time and effort micro-analyzing what frame in a film the shots started and so on? When no matter what... Oswald did it and you will not yield or capitulate any argument because you...are always right.....Right?
You misconstrued what she is saying.
You misconscrew everything.
-
You misconscrew everything.
So you can't even proffer any explanation as to why your fantasy conspirators would turn the power and phones off for a brief moment while the motorcade was passing. It is just so and this somehow proves a conspiracy for some unspecified reason. Got it.
-
OK a typing mistake...
A view actually looking east on Elm FROM THE TSBD that would have shown nothing eventful---
(https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/oswald-bus.jpg)
Why are you...an obviously staunch lone assassin believer along with Smith...spending so much time and effort micro-analyzing what frame in a film the shots started and so on? When no matter what... Oswald did it and you will not yield or capitulate any argument because you...are always right.....Right?
You misconscrew everything.
A view actually looking east on Elm FROM THE TSBD that would have shown nothing eventful---
I think you must still be looking at that photo wrong. The red arrow near the upper left corner is pointing at the southeast corner of the TSBD at the sixth floor level. The street sign just below that reads Market St. (I think). The view is from the south side of Elm Street looking westerly.
Why are you...an obviously staunch lone assassin believer along with Smith...spending so much time and effort micro-analyzing what frame in a film the shots started and so on? When no matter what... Oswald did it and you will not yield or capitulate any argument because you...are always right.....Right?
The reason I am interested in evidence of when the first shot was fired is because it has been somewhat of a mystery for over 58-years as of now. There are people who argue about the timing and sequence of the shots constantly. I happen to believe there is significant evidence of the first shot occurring around the Z133 time frame. So, when I discover new (to me) evidence that suggests the Z133 time frame is correct, I try to make sure that evidence is correct. Thanks for responding and putting us through these excercises. And, heck no, I am not always right. :)
-
I think you must still be looking at that photo wrong.
And I think you know what I mean.
-
Okay, the figure in my model does appear to be only slightly larger than the dark spot in the Hughes film enhancement that James created. But there just isn’t enough detail in the enhancement to make a conclusive statement one way or another.
James, is that the limo making the turn that we see blurred in your enhancement?
Yes Charles. This frame stack used 66 consecutive frames (which included at about half duplicate frames) that were registered to the fixed TSBD. Any objects that moved in these frames would be blurred – just like a time exposure. My goal was to try and bring out details in the shadowed east face which I did to some extent.
-
Yes Charles. This frame stack used 66 consecutive frames (which included at about half duplicate frames) that were registered to the fixed TSBD. Any objects that moved in these frames would be blurred – just like a time exposure. My goal was to try and bring out details in the shadowed east face which I did to some extent.
Thanks, if my head calculations are correct, that would cover some where around 1-1/2 seconds of real time. Just before and during the actual turning of the limo around the corner.
-
Thanks, if my head calculations are correct, that would cover some where around 1-1/2 seconds of real time. Just before and during the actual turning of the limo around the corner.
Okay, I deleted the duplicate frames and was left with 40 unique frames, so maybe a little over 2 seconds.
First frame
(https://i.imgur.com/rL0muhI.jpg)
Last frame
(https://i.imgur.com/1Y5LKc4.jpg)
-
Okay, I deleted the duplicate frames and was left with 40 unique frames, so maybe a little over 2 seconds.
First frame
(https://i.imgur.com/rL0muhI.jpg)
Last frame
(https://i.imgur.com/1Y5LKc4.jpg)
Thanks James, it appears that the presidential limo can be seen making the turn in the first frame. And that the follow-up car is essentially in that same spot in the last frame. That helps to define the what Hine would have been able to see during that time period. Also, over two seconds to travel that distance indicates that they were slowed down significantly to make the turn. I believe that the follow-up car was only a few feet behind the limo. So the distance traveled isn’t very far.
-
Just in case there are any doubts about people falling, etc around the intersection of Elm and Houston:
Miss. MITCHELL - I went out the Elm Street entrance of the building and I was on the corner of Elm and Record - I'm sorry, Elm and Houston.
Mr. BALL - Which corner?
Miss. MITCHELL - I knew you were going to ask that and I decided it's probably the northwest corner. I am not good at directions.
Mr. BALL - Let's put it this way-
Miss. MITCHELL - It's the corner diagonally across the intersection from the Texas School Book Depository.
Mr. BALL - The Texas School Book Depository is on the northwest corner; that would put you on the southeast corner.
Miss. MITCHELL - Yes, sir; I was thinking about which corner of the building.
Mr. BALL - The northwest corner of the building and the southwest corner of the intersection, is that right?
Miss. MITCHELL - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Were you near the curb when you were standing?
Miss. MITCHELL - Yes; I was on the curb.
.
.
.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that, if anything?
Miss. MITCHELL - Well, looked back around at the crowd, I'm sure, because I expected to see the Secret Service men and police escorts just start pouring everywhere when we decided what the shots were and then looking at the people that were falling on the ground and started milling around and then I went back to the office.
-
Here is my interpretation of the Geneva Hine view of the motorcade as it begins the turn to Elm, along with the Hughes view of the same time. Her head is essentially touching the window glass. The pilaster bricks (yellow in the sim) limit her westward view.
(https://i.imgur.com/a7qtLV5.gif)
-
Perhaps Geneva Hines was related to Eddie Piper in that they both picked the worst ways to view the motorcade.
-
Here is my interpretation of the Geneva Hine view of the motorcade as it begins the turn to Elm, along with the Hughes view of the same time. Her head is essentially touching the window glass. The pilaster bricks (yellow in the sim) limit her westward view.
(https://i.imgur.com/a7qtLV5.gif)
Nice work, as usual James, thanks! There is a set of two windows at that location. Did you choose the southern window or the northern window for your animation? The reason I ask is that I think the outside surface of the post between the windows is inset several inches from the outer surface of the bricks. And I think that this should make a slight difference (improvement) in the view (if you used the northernmost window versus the southernmost window). At any rate, this suggests to me that the window was probably open and that Geneva Hine could have improved her view by sticking her head out only slightly. I haven't found any photographic evidence that conclusively shows one way or another. But, regardless, I think that sticking her head out just a small amount isn't going to be very obvious from the angles of the images that we do have. The Weaver polaroid photo is another one that might show us something. But the detail on it isn't very good either.
(https://i.vgy.me/OqfNTB.jpg)
If the Powell photo showed only one more floor below its lowest, we could tell if the window was open or not.
(https://i.vgy.me/mNALpG.jpg)
-
Nice work, as usual James, thanks! There is a set of two windows at that location. Did you choose the southern window or the northern window for your animation? The reason I ask is that I think the outside surface of the post between the windows is inset several inches from the outer surface of the bricks. And I think that this should make a slight difference (improvement) in the view (if you used the northernmost window versus the southernmost window). At any rate, this suggests to me that the window was probably open and that Geneva Hine could have improved her view by sticking her head out only slightly. I haven't found any photographic evidence that conclusively shows one way or another. But, regardless, I think that sticking her head out just a small amount isn't going to be very obvious from the angles of the images that we do have. The Weaver polaroid photo is another one that might show us something. But the detail on it isn't very good either.
Thanks Charles, you are right about the northern window. My animation was from the south window. I initially used the north window but did not optimize the location and, at the time, felt the south window gave a better view. Your comment prompted me to maximize her view from the north window and found the best view when she would have her head as close as possible to the north window jamb, with her head at the glass. The view from north window is much improved over the southern window.
I then opened the window and moved her 12” eastward in half inch per frame increments. Her eyes would then be around 6” east of the plane of the window.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z26md1B.gif)
-
Thanks Charles, you are right about the northern window. My animation was from the south window. I initially used the north window but did not optimize the location and, at the time, felt the south window gave a better view. Your comment prompted me to maximize her view from the north window and found the best view when she would have her head as close as possible to the north window jamb, with her head at the glass. The view from north window is much improved over the southern window.
I then opened the window and moved her 12” eastward in half inch per frame increments. Her eyes would then be around 6” east of the plane of the window.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z26md1B.gif)
Thumb1:
That’s awesome James. Thanks again!
Yes, we can only guess what the actual circumstances were. But Geneva said that she volunteered to answer the phones so that the others in the office could go outside to see the motorcade. I imagine that as the time grew nearer, and the noise from the crowd increased, that someone in that office might have opened the only window that was accessible to them. After all, it was a nice day, weather wise, for doing just that. Either way, thanks to your graphics, we now have a much better idea of what she could actually see. :)
-
She was referring to the lights on the phone if you read her entire comment in context. She is explaining why she could leave her desk (her job was to answer the phones) and look out the window (i.e. there were no incoming calls because the "motorcade was coming").
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
Once again, "Richard's" mind-reading skills underwhelm. She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE. And why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building?
Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.
-
Once again, "Richard's" mind-reading skills underwhelm. She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE. And why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building?
Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.
This is Mooney from his 11/23/1963 DCSD report:
"As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off"
His WC testimony follows along the same lines:
"It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator."
So, there was power until Mooney got on the elevator and had ascended from the ground floor to the second. And he said that power cut only for the elevator. He didn't say it was building-wide.
BTW, it should be noted that Mooney didn't enter the building until after 12:40. In sum, there is nothing whatsoever in Mooney's testimony that supports your interpretation of Hines' testimony.
As for "She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE," it's worth pointing out that she also said nothing about THE BUILDING LIGHTING going out, or about ELECTRICAL POWER BEING CUT OFF, or any number of other things expressed in ALL CAPS. Nor is there any good reason to think that she wasn't referring to lights on the phone. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but most businesses used multi-line phones with a row of lighted buttons along the bottom. Each lighted button represented one line. When the line was being used, the light corresponding to that line would illuminate. When the call ended, the little light would go out. So there's nothing odd, wrong, or illogical about the interpretation that Hine was referring to the line active lights on the multiline phone right in front of her.
-
I'd imagine the power was cut off after the police entered the building in order to make it easier to search the building. You can't search a building if the assassin or assassin's are moving through the building using the elevators.
-
This is Mooney from his 11/23/1963 DCSD report:
"As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off"
His WC testimony follows along the same lines:
"It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator."
So, there was power until Mooney got on the elevator and had ascended from the ground floor to the second. And he said that power cut only for the elevator. He didn't say it was building-wide.
BTW, it should be noted that Mooney didn't enter the building until after 12:40. In sum, there is nothing whatsoever in Mooney's testimony that supports your interpretation of Hines' testimony.
As for "She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE," it's worth pointing out that she also said nothing about THE BUILDING LIGHTING going out, or about ELECTRICAL POWER BEING CUT OFF, or any number of other things expressed in ALL CAPS. Nor is there any good reason to think that she wasn't referring to lights on the phone. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but most businesses used multi-line phones with a row of lighted buttons along the bottom. Each lighted button represented one line. When the line was being used, the light corresponding to that line would illuminate. When the call ended, the little light would go out. So there's nothing odd, wrong, or illogical about the interpretation that Hine was referring to the line active lights on the multiline phone right in front of her.
Thanks Mitch, so Iacoletti was once again caught out trying to pull a swifty. What a naughty boy!
JohnM
-
Thanks Mitch, so Iacoletti was once again caught out trying to pull a swifty. What a naughty boy!
JohnM
Everything that John Iacoletti said was factual.
-
Everything that John Iacoletti said was factual.
No, Iacoletti said "Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut", please point out when and where Hine says the power had been cut?
JohnM
-
Everything that John Iacoletti said was factual.
No, Iacoletti said "Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut", please point out when and where Hine says the power had been cut?
JohnM
What Hine said had nothing to do with what Mooney said, and Mooney did in fact say that the power had been cut.
John's comment was factual.
-
Once again, "Richard's" mind-reading skills underwhelm. She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE. And why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building?
It's actually quite simple Iacoletti, Hine goes on to say that after she went to the foyer she "went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink" which reinforces her earlier statement that the lights went out.
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
Mr. BALL. Did they come in rapidly?
Miss HINE They did come in rapidly.
JohnM
-
It's actually quite simple Iacoletti, Hine goes on to say that after she went to the foyer she "went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink" which reinforces her earlier statement that the lights went out.
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
Mr. BALL. Did they come in rapidly?
Miss HINE They did come in rapidly.
JohnM
the telephones were beginning to wink
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
John's question is solid;
"why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building? "
You are not making any sense....
-
What Hine said had nothing to do with what Mooney said,...
Finally, thanks for agreeing that "Iacoletti's" post of linking two disparate events was intentionally misleading.
JohnM
-
the telephones were beginning to wink
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
John's question is solid;
"why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building? "
You are not making any sense....
the telephones were beginning to wink
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
Why, yes. Yes it does. That is the point. BTW, I wonder if you considered that the old analog phones were powered from the phone company's end office via the phone line. They weren't powered by building power. Therefore, the lack phonalicious winkie winke has no bearing as to the state of building power.
John's question is solid;
"why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building? "
Who said that all of the calls would have been incoming? For that matter, who said that any of the calls would by necessity have been incoming? And who said that the TSBD would have been constantly peppered by incoming calls?
-
Finally, thanks for agreeing that "Iacoletti's" post of linking two disparate events was intentionally misleading.
JohnM
No, the only one who is trying to be intentionally misleading is you.
John said;
Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.
Mooney testified;
Mr. MOONEY - It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator.
John Iacoletti's comment was factual
-
You are not making any sense....
What's it got to do with me?
What Hine said was quite simple, she said the lights went out because the President was approaching and when the President went away the telephones started to wink.
JohnM
-
the telephones were beginning to wink
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
Why, yes. Yes it does. That is the point. BTW, I wonder if you considered that the old analog phones were powered from the phone company's end office via the phone line. They weren't powered by building power. Therefore, the lack phonalicious winkie winke has no bearing as to the state of building power.
Agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mooney said the power had been cut.
John's question is solid;
"why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building? "
Who said that all of the calls would have been incoming? For that matter, who said that any of the calls would by necessity have been incoming? And who said that the TSBD would have been constantly peppered by incoming calls?
Why would any of this make John's question invalid?
-
Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination (and the Hertz sign was clearly working at that moment), her testimony is clear in context. Her job was to answer the phone. She is explaining why she could leave her desk for the moment to look out the window (no one was calling). If there were any doubt about the phones working, she walks down the hall but can't get the attention of a co-worker because - wait for it - she is talking on the phone! Rightly or wrongly Hine attributes no calls to be answered to the fact that motorcade was in town. Presuming most are out watching. Obviously, no one would attribute a phone and power outage to the motorcade. Good grief.
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
-
the telephones were beginning to wink
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
Why, yes. Yes it does. That is the point. BTW, I wonder if you considered that the old analog phones were powered from the phone company's end office via the phone line. They weren't powered by building power. Therefore, the lack phonalicious winkie winke has no bearing as to the state of building power.
John's question is solid;
"why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building? "
Who said that all of the calls would have been incoming? For that matter, who said that any of the calls would by necessity have been incoming? And who said that the TSBD would have been constantly peppered by incoming calls?
Doesn't that imply that they were not winking prior to that?
Why, yes. Yes it does. That is the point.
Hilarious, Weidmann doesn't even realize that his observation just further supports the official WC version. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mooney said the power had been cut.
Why would any of this make John's question invalid?
This was after Hine's statement about the lights and phone. The fact that Mooney could take the elevator means that the power either never went out or it went out around 12:30, came back on for Mooney to ride the elevator, and then went out again. Mooney's elevator operates just fine until the people who work in the building exited. Then he couldn't get it to work. Likely because he did not understand how it operated. This was a freight elevator. He concludes this was caused by a power outage because he didn't know what he didn't know about operating it.
-
You are not making any sense....
What's it got to do with me?
What Hine said was quite simple, she said the lights went out because the President was approaching and when the President went away the telephones started to wink.
JohnM
And none of that had anything to do with what Mooney testified. It also justified John's question.
-
Agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mooney said the power had been cut.
Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut. He also said that the elevator was working when he first entered the building some time after 12:40 PM.
Why would any of this make John's question invalid?
Because John's question is built around the assumption that there would be a constant stream of incoming calls.
-
Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination (and the Hertz sign was clearly working at that moment), her testimony is clear in context. Her job was to answer the phone. She is explaining why she could leave her desk for the moment to look out the window (no one was calling). If there were any doubt about the phones working, she walks down the hall but can't get the attention of a co-worker because - wait for it - she is talking on the phone! Rightly or wrongly Hine attributes no calls to be answered to the fact that motorcade was in town. Presuming most are out watching. Obviously, no one would attribute a phone and power outage to the motorcade. Good grief.
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination
Agreed
Rightly or wrongly Hine attributes no calls to be answered to the fact that motorcade was in town. Presuming most are out watching. Obviously, no one would attribute a phone and power outage to the motorcade. Good grief.
Stop overthinking everything. Mooney said in his testimony that the power was cut, which is exactly what John Iacoletti said. It was factual.
-
Hilarious, Weidmann doesn't even realize that his observation just further supports the official WC version. Thumb1:
JohnM
Care to explain this stupid comment?
-
This was after Hine's statement about the lights and phone. The fact that Mooney could take the elevator means that the power either never went out or it went out around 12:30, came back on for Mooney to ride the elevator, and then went out again. Mooney's elevator operates just fine until the people who work in the building exited. Then he couldn't get it to work. Likely because he did not understand how it operated. This was a freight elevator. He concludes this was caused by a power outage because he didn't know what he didn't know about operating it.
So, what John Iacoletti said was a fair and correct representation of what Mooney said during his testimony?
-
Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut. He also said that the elevator was working when he first entered the building some time after 12:40 PM.
Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut.
And nobody argued that he did say that.
Because John's question is built around the assumption that there would be a constant stream of incoming calls.
And why would such an assumption be incorrect when you have a phone system with multiple lines, with calls coming in all the time?
But even if there wasn't a constant stream of incoming calls, does that make it a normal occurrence that the phones went dead at exactly the moment the motorcade was passing by?
-
Once again, "Richard's" mind-reading skills underwhelm. She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE. And why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building?
Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.
This is the Iacoletti post that Weidmann is so desperate to defend.
Hine tells us that the lights went out as the motorcade approached.
Iacoletti tells us "besides that'(Hines recollection), "Mooney also mentioned the power had been cut", but this is deceitfully conflating two unique separate events that are isolated in their own individual time zones and as I stated Iacoletti's only intention was to deceive.
JohnM
-
So, what John Iacoletti said was a fair and correct representation of what Mooney said during his testimony?
Not in the context he presented. First, John I. has misconstrued what Hine said. She did not say that the power went out. She was referring to the fact that there were no incoming calls which allowed her to leave her desk to look out the window. She said "no one was calling." She attributed - rightly or wrongly - no one calling to the motorcade meaning that she believed most folks were out watching it and not placing calls to the TSBD. What else would she mean by referencing the motorcade as the reason why no one was calling? As far as I know, motorcades don't cause phone and power outages. Do you think she believed the motorcade was causing power and phone outages in Dallas? How exactly would that work?
Second, Hine's statement relates to events that occur around 12:30. John falsely implies that Hine's statement about the lights and phones being interpreted as an outage is somehow supported by Mooney's reference to the elevator. But Mooney's elevator ride occurs AFTER the assassination. If the power/phones are out around 12:30 per Hine's statement, then the power has to be back on for Mooney to take his elevator ride from the first to second floor. This would be a different power cut to the elevator. It could not be the same one referenced by Hine (which didn't occur anyway). Mooney attributed his difficulties in the elevator to a power outage but that doesn't mean, as John suggested, that there actually was any power outage to the elevator or that this was related and supported by an interpretation of Hine's statement to mean that a power outage had occurred in the building. They would have to be separate outages when the events are viewed in chronological order: 1) Hine "outage" around 12:30; 2) Mooney elevator working (along with Truly and Baker elevator); 3) Mooney elevator outage.
Lastly, there is no apparent reason for anyone to intentionally cut the phones and power to all or some parts of the building for a short duration. This is where you claim no one is suggesting that conspirators cut the power and phones. If that is the case, and all that is being suggested is that the phone and power outages were coincidental having nothing to do with the assassination, then who really cares? Knock yourself out if that is what you want to believe. It would be like arguing about whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black.
-
Not in the context he presented.
It's as simple as that and Weidmann's pathetic attempts to manipulate this argument to what Mooney said in his testimony instead of focussing on John's deception just proves Weidmann isn't here for the truth.
JohnM
-
Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut.
And nobody argued that he did say that.
That is exactly what Iacoletti tried to imply by including the reference to Mooney's testimony. Otherwise, why would he have brought it up?
And why would such an assumption be incorrect when you have a phone system with multiple lines, with calls coming in all the time?
Who said that calls were coming in "all the time?" For that matter, what is meant by "all the time" in the first place?
But even if there wasn't a constant stream of incoming calls, does that make it a normal occurrence that the phones went dead at exactly the moment the motorcade was passing by?
Who said the phones "went dead at exactly the moment the motorcade was passing by?" Hine didn't. She's not specific about how rapidly calls dropped of, or exactly when they did (10 seconds before the motorcade arrived? One minute? Five minutes? Even 10? All of those can be contained in her description. Same with the amount of time it took for the calls to start coming back in, or the rate that they did.
-
It's as simple as that and Weidmann's pathetic attempts to manipulate this argument to what Mooney said in his testimony instead of focussing on John's deception just proves Weidmann isn't here for the truth.
For many years, I've seen people argue that Mooney testified that power had been cut to the building. It's not a new claim. I figure that Iacoletti wasn't trying to pull a fast one, but simply cribbed off of some book or article he read.
-
One aspect, that no one has mentioned, is that a significant number of calls incoming to the phone system that Hine was monitoring probably came from within the TSBD itself. Keep in mind that there was several companies (plus the TSBD company) all housed within that building. Each company would have had its own separate phone system. So a call coming in to Hine’s phone system need not be from outside the building. And guess what: Practically all the people who worked in the TSBD were busy watching the motorcade. This is one potential reason that the incoming calls had stopped when the motorcade was approaching. Another reason is that it was the noon hour all across the state of Texas, and most people were out to lunch.
For me, all of this argument is rather insignificant compared to Hine’s description of when she said she heard the first shot. It does appear to me to support an early missed shot.
-
So, there was power until Mooney got on the elevator and had ascended from the ground floor to the second. And he said that power cut only for the elevator. He didn't say it was building-wide.
He didn't say it wasn't either.
As for "She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE," it's worth pointing out that she also said nothing about THE BUILDING LIGHTING going out, or about ELECTRICAL POWER BEING CUT OFF, or any number of other things expressed in ALL CAPS. Nor is there any good reason to think that she wasn't referring to lights on the phone.
There's no good reason to think that she was.
-
Finally, thanks for agreeing that "Iacoletti's" post of linking two disparate events was intentionally misleading.
There's nothing "misleading" about it. You just want to believe that Hine was talking about lights on the phone.
-
No, the only one who is trying to be intentionally misleading is you.
John said;
Mooney testified;
Mr. MOONEY - It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator.
John Iacoletti's comment was factual
I believe that the elevators operated on DC voltage....The lighting and power circuits in the building were AC voltage.... IOW... Someone could have opened the DC circuit breakers for the elevators, to prevent the elevators from being used.
-
Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination (and the Hertz sign was clearly working at that moment), her testimony is clear in context.
And by "context", you mean wild-ass guesses from LN evangelists.
It's a constant source of amusement to me that "Richard" knows exactly what a conspiracy that he doesn't believe in would do at any given moment.
-
This was after Hine's statement about the lights and phone. The fact that Mooney could take the elevator means that the power either never went out or it went out around 12:30, came back on for Mooney to ride the elevator, and then went out again.
So maybe it did. Why would there have to be only one power outage?
Mooney's elevator operates just fine until the people who work in the building exited. Then he couldn't get it to work. Likely because he did not understand how it operated.
What makes that "likely"?
-
Because John's question is built around the assumption that there would be a constant stream of incoming calls.
If your assumption about the "lights going out" are the lights on the telephone buttons then it would require that the motorcade somehow caused the telephone calls to stop at that moment.
-
No one can honestly suggest that Hine believed that the motorcade itself was causing power and phone outages in Dallas. What basis would anyone have to believe that the approach of a motorcade down the street would cause the power and lights to go out in the TSBD? That is a ridiculous interpretation of her statement. The reasonable interpretation is that she is making reference to the motorcade in relation to "no one calling" because it caused many people to not be using the phone because they were watching the motorcade.
Does her assessment of the situation mean that no one in the world might choose that exact moment to call the TSBD? Maybe not but that is not what she said and it is reasonable to assume that many calls to the TSBD came from the Dallas area and therefore would be fewer calls. In other words, it is perfectly reasonable for her to suggest that no incoming calls at that moment was influenced by the motorcade activities in the local area. That is exactly what she said. She is not saying that no one could call as a result of the motorcade, but only that "no one was calling" and the motorcade was a factor. The phrase "no one was calling" relates to the activities of the caller. Not the recipient of the call. How would Hine know "no one was calling" if her phones were not working? She would only know that no calls were coming through.
Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.
-
So, there was power until Mooney got on the elevator and had ascended from the ground floor to the second. And he said that power cut only for the elevator. He didn't say it was building-wide.
He didn't say it wasn't either.
He just mentioned the elevator. He doesn't mention the lights going out, which would have been an obvious sign that the electrical failure extended beyond the elevator's lack of enthusiasm for elevating. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't have said that the power had generally failed, only focusing on the elevator power.
By that time there were many people in the building. Many of the employees who worked in the building. Supervisors, like Shelley and Truly. Police and Sherriffs officers who had entered the building after the assassination. How many of them reported the building power going out?
As for "She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE," it's worth pointing out that she also said nothing about THE BUILDING LIGHTING going out, or about ELECTRICAL POWER BEING CUT OFF, or any number of other things expressed in ALL CAPS. Nor is there any good reason to think that she wasn't referring to lights on the phone.
There's no good reason to think that she was.
Oh yes there is. She directly associates the "lights going out" with "the phones going dead" because "no one was calling." And the same sentence implies that the lights going out was expected. You lost the ability to read, kid?
By the way, there were a number of others within the Depository at the time of the assassination: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Eddie Piper, the Scott-Foresman girls on the fourth floor, etc. How many of them reported experiencing the building power being cut or lights in the building going out?
-
If your assumption about the "lights going out" are the lights on the telephone buttons then it would require that the motorcade somehow caused the telephone calls to stop at that moment.
That's exactly what Hine said: "the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling." And when the calls trailed off and disconnected, the line busy indicator on the phones would go out.
-
That's exactly what Hine said: "the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling." And when the calls trailed off and disconnected, the line busy indicator on the phones would go out.
And then she goes on to say that the telephones were beginning to wink, which puts the whole debate to bed.
Mr. BALL. Of your office, the second floor office?
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
Now I believe it's fairly obvious she meant calls going out of the building and as the last employees in the building heard the cheers getting louder they either went outside or to the windows. But what stopped the external incoming calls, because customers who weren't in the area have no way of knowing where the Motorcade was at any given minute and probably wouldn't care? Maybe being lunchtime was a factor or perhaps she did what the receptionist used to do at a place I worked and when she wanted a quick smoko she opened the lines, so incoming calls all got the engaged signal. She also would answer a phone by picking it about an inch and put it down again, we lost so much business. -sigh-
JohnM
-
And then she goes on to say that the telephones were beginning to wink, which puts the whole debate to bed.
Mr. BALL. Of your office, the second floor office?
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
Now I believe it's fairly obvious she meant calls going out of the building and as the last employees in the building heard the cheers getting louder they either went outside or to the windows. But what stopped the external incoming calls, because customers who weren't in the area have no way of knowing where the Motorcade was at any given minute and probably wouldn't care? Maybe being lunchtime was a factor or perhaps she did what the receptionist used to do at a place I worked and when she wanted a quick smoko she opened the lines, so incoming calls all got the engaged signal. She also would answer a phone by picking it about an inch and put it down again, we lost so much business. -sigh-
JohnM
In the context of her WC testimony, I think she is explaining why she could walk away from the phone to look out the window. Her job at that moment was to answer the phone. As a result, I believe she is referencing incoming calls (even though it would certainly impact outgoing calls as you suggest). Outgoing calls, however, would not have made any difference to her ability to leave her desk. Hine attribute the fact that "no one was calling" to the motorcade. That can mean either: 1) she thought the motorcade was causing power and phone outages for some inexplicable reason; or 2) that she believed the motorcade was affecting the behavior of callers (i.e. people who might normally be calling the TSBD were out watching the motorcade). Many incoming calls likely came from the local area. The fact that she says that "no one was calling" supports the latter as she would have no idea if "no one was calling" if her phone wasn't working.
Miss HINE. Yes: I knew it and the girls were discussing it in the office that
morning. Many of them, probably six, had not seen the President close. You
see, I had seen him on two different occasions and I had been very close to him
and so they were lamenting thst they couldn’t go out so I spoke up and said
“I will he glad to answer the telephone so you girls may go out and see the
motorcade” and I had previously answered the telephone when we were in the
other building before we moved in this building, so they were delighted and I
thought nothing about it.
-
Oh yes there is. She directly associates the "lights going out" with "the phones going dead" because "no one was calling." And the same sentence implies that the lights going out was expected. You lost the ability to read, kid?
The "association" is all in your mind. "The lights went out AND the phones became dead". Two different clauses.
By the way, there were a number of others within the Depository at the time of the assassination: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Eddie Piper, the Scott-Foresman girls on the fourth floor, etc. How many of them reported experiencing the building power being cut or lights in the building going out?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
That's exactly what Hine said: "the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling." And when the calls trailed off and disconnected, the line busy indicator on the phones would go out.
How do you even know there was a "line busy indicator" on Hine's phone?
-
The "association" is all in your mind. "The lights went out AND the phones became dead". Two different clauses.
Did any other eyewitnesses say the lights went out?
JohnM
-
How do you even know there was a "line busy indicator" on Hine's phone?
Because I remember what multi-line phones were like back in the day.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1810/9697/products/ModernicaEL00291_6X5.5X9_c3d6dbe0-d58b-435e-aec8-01756247a767_1024x1024.jpg?v=1574225347)
She noted that at some point after the motorcade roared away "the telephones were beginning to wink." You think they had eyes and were getting fresh or something?
-
Because I remember what multi-line phones were like back in the day.
So you saw Geneva Hine's phone "back in the day"?
-
Did any other eyewitnesses say the lights went out?
Did any other witness claim that Oswald was in the 6th floor window aiming a rifle?
-
So you saw Geneva Hine's phone "back in the day"?
Like I said, I remember what multi-line phones were like then. In 1963, the phone you used was still the one that Ma Bell gave you. The multi-line ones every business had were like the one in the photo, unless you were a really big company that had it's own private branch.
BTW, I'll ask again, since you not only declined the first time but deleted the question:
Hine noted that at some point after the motorcade roared away "the telephones were beginning to wink." You think they had eyes and were getting fresh or something?
-
Did any other witness claim that Oswald was in the 6th floor window aiming a rifle?
Trying to change the subject just makes you look even more foolish and out of your depth.
Did anyone else in the TSBD during the assassination say the lights went out?
-
Did any other witness claim that Oswald was in the 6th floor window aiming a rifle?
Wow, you get asked a simple question and go off topic?
Just admit that as far as you know nobody else said the lights went out and let's just leave it at that, eh?
JohnM
-
The "association" is all in your mind. "The lights went out AND the phones became dead". Two different clauses.
The word "AND," which you so helpfully capitalized, is precisely what creates the association between "the lights went out" and "the phones became dead." By definition. If you don't like it blame Miriam Webster, not me. And there are more than two clauses in the sentence. The important ones are "the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling".
Later on, she makes the same association between the lights coming on and phone calls coming in: "the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
An old saw that simply isn't true. Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence. After, if something is absent in the first place then there will be no evidence of it being there. I think you mean that absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, since there may be some unknown factor that bears on the situation under examination. Even then, this is only true if there are unknown factors.
-
Geneva Hine gives her testimony to the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964. If one reads her testimony and relates it to the second floor plan of the TSBD, it is apparent that she is looking out the east window of their office (overlooking Houston Street) as JFK’s limo is traveling north on Houston Street and turning west on Elm Street. She would not be able to follow it any further than when it disappears behind the southeast corner of the TSBD from her point of view.
You quite misunderstood this Mr Collins.
Reading further....Ms Hine could only see people 'falling down...lying on the sidewalk' looking west. She was obviously looking out from the easterly window south across Elm and misstated the direction that Elm goes. She knew which way the motorcade was going and of course would not be looking across at the Dal-Tex building.
That's all.
Except..."*until the lights all went out and the phones became dead" ----
Why did this happen don't we wonder? ::)
Ms Hine could only see people 'falling down...lying on the sidewalk' looking west.
This is simply not true. Mrs. Hine could have been looking out the window facing east and saw people duck for cover on the sidewalk along Elm, east of the Elm/Houston intersection; unless of course you think that the only people who could have possibly dropped to the ground were those seen in films and photos of the area down closer to the knoll/pergola.
"*until the lights all went out and the phones became dead" ----
Why did this happen don't we wonder?
Richard Smith already adequately explained this to you.
The phones were not ringing and therefore they were not lighting up. Why is this so difficult? What are you implying? Conspirators completely shut down power inside the building?
C'mon Man.
-
I was going to jump in on this thread and try to correct some of the absurdity here, but no need. It is clear that Charles Collins, Richard Smith, John Mytton and Mitch Todd have already dealt with it.
Honestly, I can't believe I'm actually reading these lame ass arguments made by the others in this thread. Just Wow.
-
I was going to jump in on this thread and try to correct some of the absurdity here, but no need. It is clear that Charles Collins, Richard Smith, John Mytton and Mitch Todd have already dealt with it.
Honestly, I can't believe I'm actually reading these lame ass arguments made by the others in this thread. Just Wow.
What is even more difficult to believe is that these others actually believe that they have a legitimate argument. Some of them will even try to claim victory. To quote Pete Seeger’s song: when will you ever learn, when will you ever learn?
-
Trying to change the subject just makes you look even more foolish and out of your depth.
Did anyone else in the TSBD during the assassination say the lights went out?
It’s not a change of subject. The “did any other witness say..” counterargument is fallacious. We’re talking about what Hine said. You act like you not only can read her mind retroactively, but you also know what her phone looked like.
-
The word "AND," which you so helpfully capitalized, is precisely what creates the association between "the lights went out" and "the phones became dead." By definition. If you don't like it blame Miriam Webster, not me. And there are more than two clauses in the sentence. The important ones are "the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling".
Only because you’re parsing it that way.
(The lights went out) AND (the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near).
Merriam-Webster has nothing to do with it.
My mother called me this morning and I went out to the store because I was out of milk.
That doesn’t mean my mother’s call had anything to do with my trip to the store.
-
The “did any other witness say..” counterargument is fallacious.
Stop running Iacoletti, was there any other people who were in the Depository at the time who corroborate that the lights went out?
JohnM
-
Stop running Iacoletti, was there any other people who were in the Depository at the time who corroborate that the lights went out?
I don’t care. That doesn’t change the fact that Hine said the lights went out. There weren’t very many people in the building at the time, anyway.
-
There weren’t very many people in the building at the time, anyway.
Exactly and what are the odds that one out of "not very many people" was Lee Harvey Oswald;
the same guy who defected to the enemy,
the same guy who shot himself in the elbow while in the marines
the same guy who slashed his wrists when denied entry to the enemy.
the same guy who attempted to kill General Walker,
the same guy who purchased the same rifle found on the 6th floor.
the same guy who was described reasonably accurately by Brennan.
the same gut who had a shirt which contained 3 different types of fibers which matched the fibers found on the rifle.
the same guy who left prints on the box which was a seat and the recently moved rifle rest box. Btw the fingerprints Latona says "undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did." Latona WC Testimony.
the same guy who is in immediate flight and leaves the building within a few minutes.
the same guy who get's on and off a bus then catches a cab.
the same guy who gets out past his rooming house.
the same guy who hurry's into his room and tells Police he grabbed his gun.
the same guy seen zipping up a jacket as he leaves the rooming house.
the same guy who is seen killing Tippit.
the same guy who was positively identified by a plethora of eyewitnesses at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene
the same guy is identified wearing a light coloured jacket.
the same guy is identified emptying shells as he was moving away.
the same guy whose revolver exclusively matched the shells at the seen.
the same guy who discards his jacket.
the same guy who suspiciously enters a dark theater.
the same guy who pops a cop on the nose when approached.
the same guy who pulls out the same revolver and tries to kill even more cops.
the same guy who lies about the backyard photo.
the same guy who lied about living at Neeley street
the same guy who lied about the rifle ownership.
the same guy who told different stories about the rifle bag contents
the same guy who told different stories about where he placed the rifle bag.
the same guy who left his wedding ring symbolically in Marina's family heirloom.
the same guy who left nearly all his money with Marina.
etc etc
JohnM
-
I don’t care. That doesn’t change the fact that Hine said the lights went out. There weren’t very many people in the building at the time, anyway.
There weren’t very many people in the building at the time, anyway.
Really?
Are you sure about that?
Hine says:
"I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling..."
She seems to be relating the lights going out and the phones going dead to no-one calling.
-
Exactly and what are the odds that one out of "not very many people" was Lee Harvey Oswald;
the same guy who defected to the enemy,
the same guy who shot himself in the elbow while in the marines
the same guy who slashed his wrists when denied entry to the enemy.
the same guy who attempted to kill General Walker,
the same guy who purchased the same rifle found on the 6th floor.
the same guy who was described reasonably accurately by Brennan.
the same gut who had a shirt which contained 3 different types of fibers which matched the fibers found on the rifle.
the same guy who left prints on the box which was a seat and the recently moved rifle rest box. Btw the fingerprints Latona says "undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did." Latona WC Testimony.
the same guy who is in immediate flight and leaves the building within a few minutes.
the same guy who get's on and off a bus then catches a cab.
the same guy who gets out past his rooming house.
the same guy who hurry's into his room and tells Police he grabbed his gun.
the same guy seen zipping up a jacket as he leaves the rooming house.
the same guy who is seen killing Tippit.
the same guy who was positively identified by a plethora of eyewitnesses at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene
the same guy is identified wearing a light coloured jacket.
the same guy is identified emptying shells as he was moving away.
the same guy whose revolver exclusively matched the shells at the seen.
the same guy who discards his jacket.
the same guy who suspiciously enters a dark theater.
the same guy who pops a cop on the nose when approached.
the same guy who pulls out the same revolver and tries to kill even more cops.
the same guy who lies about the backyard photo.
the same guy who lied about living at Neeley street
the same guy who lied about the rifle ownership.
the same guy who told different stories about the rifle bag contents
the same guy who told different stories about where he placed the rifle bag.
the same guy who left his wedding ring symbolically in Marina's family heirloom.
the same guy who left nearly all his money with Marina.
etc etc
JohnM
The same guy who messed up Kennedy's luncheon plans and ate Tippit's lunch
-
I don’t care.
You cared enough to mention Mooney in a previous post. LOL!
Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.
JohnM
-
Exactly and what are the odds that one out of "not very many people" was Lee Harvey Oswald;
the same guy who defected to the enemy,
the same guy who shot himself in the elbow while in the marines
the same guy who slashed his wrists when denied entry to the enemy.
the same guy who attempted to kill General Walker,
the same guy who purchased the same rifle found on the 6th floor.
the same guy who was described reasonably accurately by Brennan.
the same gut who had a shirt which contained 3 different types of fibers which matched the fibers found on the rifle.
the same guy who left prints on the box which was a seat and the recently moved rifle rest box. Btw the fingerprints Latona says "undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did." Latona WC Testimony.
the same guy who is in immediate flight and leaves the building within a few minutes.
the same guy who get's on and off a bus then catches a cab.
the same guy who gets out past his rooming house.
the same guy who hurry's into his room and tells Police he grabbed his gun.
the same guy seen zipping up a jacket as he leaves the rooming house.
the same guy who is seen killing Tippit.
the same guy who was positively identified by a plethora of eyewitnesses at or moving away from the Tippit crime scene
the same guy is identified wearing a light coloured jacket.
the same guy is identified emptying shells as he was moving away.
the same guy whose revolver exclusively matched the shells at the seen.
the same guy who discards his jacket.
the same guy who suspiciously enters a dark theater.
the same guy who pops a cop on the nose when approached.
the same guy who pulls out the same revolver and tries to kill even more cops.
the same guy who lies about the backyard photo.
the same guy who lied about living at Neeley street
the same guy who lied about the rifle ownership.
the same guy who told different stories about the rifle bag contents
the same guy who told different stories about where he placed the rifle bag.
the same guy who left his wedding ring symbolically in Marina's family heirloom.
the same guy who left nearly all his money with Marina.
etc etc
Cool story, bro. Too bad you can’t prove any of this fantasy.
-
You cared enough to mention Mooney in a previous post. LOL!
Yep, and LN evangelists twist themselves into pretzels try to “explain” that away too.
-
Yep, and LN evangelists twist themselves into pretzels try to “explain” that away too.
Yes Iacoletti, some guy for absolutely no reason at all was mysteriously plugging in and unplugging the power to the lights.
(https://c.tenor.com/GpNZ-D16f9MAAAAC/airplane-plug.gif)
JohnM
-
Cool story, bro. Too bad you can’t prove any of this fantasy.
Cool story, bro.
It's not a story, it's history.
Too bad you can’t prove any of this fantasy.
LOL!
JohnM
-
Yes Iacoletti, some guy for absolutely no reason at all was mysteriously plugging in and unplugging the power to the lights.
Yes, “Mytton”. Your imaginary crystal ball is malfunctioning.
-
It's not a story, it's history.
“History”. LOL.
-
It’s not a change of subject. The “did any other witness say..” counterargument is fallacious.
Asserting that Hines meant that the building power went out creates a prediction, in a classic Karl Popper vein: everyone else in the building would have also seen the power go out. In turn, we should then expect at least one of these other unenlightened people to have spoken up about a the the remarkable coincidence of the lights mysteriously going out at a most interesting time. Dodging the issue trying to assert a non-existent fallacy isn't going to help you with anything other than looking like an ever bigger dork, kid.
We’re talking about what Hine said.
I'm talking about what happened, what Hines meant being the point of contention. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about at this point. Increasingly, your aim seems to be wasting everyone's time. Including your own.
You act like you not only can read her mind retroactively, but you also know what her phone looked like.
Again, I know what multi-line phones were like back in the analog Jurassic. You got what AT&T gave you and every business that had multiple lines, but didn't have it's own private branch/switchboard, had phones that looked like the earlier photo. Getting mad about this is like getting mad when I say that Geneva Hine's car had a steering wheel.
And I don't need to read her mind. I only need to read testimony. The sentence that associates the lights going out with calls falling off. The sentence that notes that the phones started "winking" when calls began to come back in. The lack of any expression of surprise of suspicion that the power would go out at that point. The lack of anyone else's testifying that they also experienced a power outage. The knowledge of 1960's multiline telephony.
-
Asserting that Hines meant that the building power went out creates a prediction, in a classic Karl Popper vein:
I don’t know what Hine meant, and neither do you. The difference is you like to pretend that you do.
everyone else in the building would have also seen the power go out. In turn, we should then expect at least one of these other unenlightened people to have spoken up about a the the remarkable coincidence of the lights mysteriously going out at a most interesting time.
You can “expect” what you like. That doesn’t prove anything.
I'm talking about what happened, what Hines meant being the point of contention. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about at this point. Increasingly, your aim seems to be wasting everyone's time. Including your own.
Yes, it would be so much more convenient if everybody would just accept your omniscience.
Again, I know what multi-line phones were like back in the analog Jurassic.
You don’t know what Hine’s phone looked like. Stop pretending you do.
Now you’re pretending to know that Hine had a car too.
And I don't need to read her mind. I only need to read testimony
You’re reading it and pretending that your interpretation of it is the correct one. She said the lights went out. She didn’t say the lights on the phone went out. Get over it.
-
How is this even being discussed, and why?
Hine went back to her desk because the "telephones were beginning to wink", therefore before the telephone begun to wink, the lights were not winking, they had stopped, they ceased to be on.
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
JohnM
-
Because I remember what multi-line phones were like back in the day.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1810/9697/products/ModernicaEL00291_6X5.5X9_c3d6dbe0-d58b-435e-aec8-01756247a767_1024x1024.jpg?v=1574225347)
She noted that at some point after the motorcade roared away "the telephones were beginning to wink." You think they had eyes and were getting fresh or something?
Mr. BALL. Was there a switchboard?
Miss HINE. No, sir; we have a telephone with three incoming lines, then we
have the warehouse line and we have an intercom system.
-
Hine never said that she was referring to the “winking” telephones when she said the lights went out.
-
John Iacoletti. Are you seriously arguing that the power in the building went out? Just curious.
-
John Iacoletti. Are you seriously arguing that the power in the building went out? Just curious.
And even if there had been a momentary power/phone outage, what conspiracy-related purpose would it have served? If the allegation is that the power/phone outage occurred, but was not related to any conspiracy, then why does it matter?
-
John Iacoletti. Are you seriously arguing that the power in the building went out? Just curious.
I'm seriously arguing that Geneva Hine said the lights all went out, and that Luke Mooney said the power cut off. Because they did.
-
And even if there had been a momentary power/phone outage, what conspiracy-related purpose would it have served? If the allegation is that the power/phone outage occurred, but was not related to any conspiracy, then why does it matter?
Maybe because not everybody who disagrees with your conclusions is promoting "conspiracy-related purposes" and just want to know what happened that day, Strawman "Smith".
-
I'm seriously arguing that Geneva Hine said the lights all went out, and that Luke Mooney said the power cut off. Because they did.
Btw have you found any witnesses to corroborate your interpretation of Hine's words?
JohnM
-
Btw have you found any witnesses to corroborate your interpretation of Hine's words?
Have you found any witnesses to corroborate yours?
-
Have you found any witnesses to corroborate yours?
Nobody says the light went out and now you, who corroborated your interpretation of Hine's words.
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkrS76CW/Darnell-4-arrow-to-light.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gtg2Kw3f/Skaggs2a-red-arrow-light.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Nobody says the light went out
BS:
Geneva Hine said “the lights all went out”.
-
BS:
Geneva Hine said “the lights all went out”.
John was asking who, other than Hine, stated the lights all went out.
And your response is Geneva Hine.
Top work.
-
Nobody says the light went out
BS:
Geneva Hine said “the lights all went out”.
I can't argue with that, but we are still left with the problem of nobody besides Hine saying the lights went out and if you had any witness whatsoever to support the lights going out, you would scream it from the rooftops but alas the best you could do was insert Mooney into a post about Hine and hoped nobody would notice that both events were separated by time and space.
JohnM
-
It's dishonest to suggest CTers are contending there was a power/phone outage simply because they "want to know what happened." A thirst for knowledge! That is laughable delusion. The clear implication is that a power/phone outage was a result of and demonstrates the involvement of conspirators. Like the bus ride to nowhere, these contrarians cannot articulate how this furthers any objective of their fantasy conspirators. It just does. However, if there is no claim being made that the alleged power/phone outage has any links to a conspiracy and was just coincidental, and it is just a "strawman" to suggest otherwise, then the issue of the alleged power/phone outages has no more importance than whether Oswald wore boxers or briefs that day.
-
John was asking who, other than Hine, stated the lights all went out.
And your response is Geneva Hine.
Top work.
Wrong. “Mytton” claimed that “nobody said the lights went out”. And my response was that Hine did. Try to keep up.
-
I can't argue with that, but we are still left with the problem of nobody besides Hine saying the lights went out
So what? Hine is enough.
-
It's dishonest to suggest CTers are contending there was a power/phone outage simply because they "want to know what happened."
I never suggested anything about CTers, Strawman “Smith”. And cite me ever claiming the “involvement of conspirators” or STFU.
-
And if all the lights going out and the power being cut to the elevator are of “no importance”, why is the LN propaganda brigade working so hard to “explain” it with “what they could have meant” arguments?
-
Dillard snapped this photo shortly after the assassination,
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jF5nbbK/dillard-just-after-full.jpg)
The red arrows are pointing to lit fluro lights.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2sSMyb2/dillard-just-after-red-arrows-light.jpg)
The office spaces on this floor that were photographed show fluro lights.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/e/ed/Photo_wcd496_0033.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8b/Photo_wcd496_0034.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg)
Whereas the storage space on this floor were at least partially illuminated with some sort of lamp.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9a/Photo_wcd81-1_0151.jpg)
Fluro's seem to light the majority of the ground floor.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/28/Photo_wcd496_0011.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/57/Photo_wcd496_0006.jpg)
When the fluros were photographed here from outside they are clearly visible.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/af/Photo_wcd496_0009.jpg)
JohnM
-
Wrong. “Mytton” claimed that “nobody said the lights went out”. And my response was that Hine did. Try to keep up.
Wrong.
John asked:
"...have you found any witnesses to corroborate your interpretation of Hine's words?"
Instead of answering you ask your own question:
"Have you found any witnesses to corroborate yours?"
So John answers your question - "Nobody says the lights wents out" - meaning there is no witness who supports your interpretation of Hine's words, there is no other witness who says "all the lights went out". (and he's right, there isn't)
Then John turns it back to you - "and now you" - meaning he's answered your question, now it's your turn to answer his question.
He then restates his question - "who corroborated your interpretation of Hine's words."
"Who corroborated your interpretation of Hine's words?" - and your answer is Geneva Hine.
Brilliant stuff Thumb1:
-
Like the bus ride to nowhere, these contrarians cannot articulate how this furthers any objective of their fantasy conspirators.
Is this a clumsy way of saying you've worked out why Oswald took the Marsalis bus, headed into a traffic jam, to get to the Beckley rooming house?
Huh?
Oswald kills the President.
Oswald is confronted by a cop pointing a gun at him
Oswald gets out of the Depository as quick as he can.
His first option to get out of town was a bus.
The bus was moving, but too slowly and back towards the Depository. Doh!
Oswald gets out and gets a bus transfer.
This bus transfer hole punch is unique and matches McWatters punch.
Bledsoe who knows Oswald goes to the Police on Saturday and confirms Oswald on the same bus.
Oswald decides to get a cab
Oswald gets out past his rooming house.
Oswald hurry's in to his room and grabs his revolver and jacket
Oswald kills a cop
Oswald ditches the jacket
Oswald enters a dark theatre
Oswald punches a cop when approached
Oswald tries to kill more cops with the same gun
The rest is history.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZW4mD0d/lee-harvey-oswald-original-dallas-tx-1-3c27a531b20a8e448fce51fc9ef7bec7.jpg)
The bus transfer was folded and not pristine.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtgddJrk/back-of-oswald-bus-transfer.jpg)
JohnM
-
John Iacoletti. Are you seriously arguing that the power in the building went out? Just curious.
I'm seriously arguing that Geneva Hine said the lights all went out, and that Luke Mooney said the power cut off. Because they did.
In typical fashion, John Iacoletti avoids the real question. The real question is:
Are you arguing that Geneva Hine was referring to the building lights (not the phone lights) when she made her statement?
I seriously doubt that John Iacoletti will ever provide a straight answer to this question. So please, no one hold their breath… ;)
-
Like the bus ride to nowhere, these contrarians cannot articulate how this furthers any objective of their fantasy conspirators.
Is this a clumsy way of saying you've worked out why Oswald took the Marsalis bus, headed into a traffic jam, to get to the Beckley rooming house?
There is nothing to work out. That is the point. There would be no reason for any conspirator to fake Oswald's presence on a bus that takes him nowhere. Just like there would no reason for any conspirator to turn the power/phones off and on in the TSBD for a few moments. Pointless events like that are not part of any "plan" because they do not advance the objectives of the planners. In real life, however, random or pointless events often occur. Sometimes the power does go out. Sometimes people get stuck in traffic jams. Sometimes you encounter people who are not very bright and have to explain things to them. The world is an imperfect place.
-
In typical fashion, John Iacoletti avoids the real question. The real question is:
Are you arguing that Geneva Hine was referring to the building lights (not the phone lights) when she made her statement?
I seriously doubt that John Iacoletti will ever provide a straight answer to this question. So please, no one hold their breath… ;)
As I understand it, he has argued Hine's statement doesn't refer to the lights on the phone. So, by implication, that only leaves the lights in the building. He also dishonestly suggests no one has suggested the phone/power outage are the result of a conspiracy. Many CTers have done so. In addressing this issue, no one is limited to responding just to his fantasy narrative in which everything is suspect but he doesn't have the courage to own the implications of his claims. That is the laziest and most dishonest approach to this case. But if this alleged outage event is only coincidental, why doesn't he say so and then articulate why it has any relevance to the assassination? I've addressed it to rebut the claim (made directly or by implication) that the power/phone outage is evidence of a conspiracy. The issue has relevance in that context. I don't believe any such outage occurred but if it did it was not related to or prove a conspiracy. Thus, it has no relevance is shedding light (no pun intended) on whether there was a conspiracy even it happened (which it didn't).
-
As I understand it, he has argued Hine's statement doesn't refer to the lights on the phone. So, by implication, that only leaves the lights in the building. He also dishonestly suggests no one has suggested the phone/power outage are the result of a conspiracy. Many CTers have done so. In addressing this issue, no one is limited to responding just to his fantasy narrative in which everything is suspect but he doesn't have the courage to own the implications of his claims. That is the laziest and most dishonest approach to this case. But if this alleged outage event is only coincidental, why doesn't he say so and then articulate why it has any relevance to the assassination? I've addressed it to rebut the claim (made directly or by implication) that the power/phone outage is evidence of a conspiracy. The issue has relevance in that context. I don't believe any such outage occurred but if it did it was not related to or prove a conspiracy. Thus, it has no relevance is shedding light (no pun intended) on whether there was a conspiracy even it happened (which it didn't).
I could have missed something, but all I remember John Iacoletti saying is that Geneva Hine didn’t say that the lights on the phones went out. I don’t think that John Iacoletti has taken any kind of position whatsoever regarding which lights he thinks she was referring to. If we wanted to lower ourselves to the level of John Iacoletti’s playing field, we could simply say that Geneva Hine didn’t say that the building lights all went out either. Instead, we present ample evidence that the building lights didn’t go out. And John Iacoletti simply ignores all the evidence. In typical fashion, he only insists that no one can make any kind of assumption at all about anything whatsoever. It is surprising that anyone takes anything he says seriously.
-
How does jumping on the wrong bus doomed to be stuck in traffic, thereby creating a pointless event, advance Oswald's objective to get to the Beckley rooming house?
You are on the verge of enlightenment grasshopper! Who could have guessed? So in real life things sometimes don't go as planned. Like getting on a bus to take you home and it gets stuck in traffic. Your objective is not advanced. A random event occurs that is beyond your control. Such things do not happen as part of a fake narrative. For example, in a fictional book or movie where someone controls the plot they do not have characters perform actions that are entirely pointless to advance the story. Therefore, (or as you prefer thus) as part of a faked event your fantasy conspirators would not place Oswald on a bus that does not advance their objective. Think of the risk entailed in contriving a story that places Oswald on a bus. They have to identify which bus would be in the area, control the testimony of the passengers, and ensure Oswald was not in the presence of anyone else who could verify his whereabouts at that same moment. Adding multiple random citizens to the plot. They would have to do this on the fly. And for no apparent purpose. It is absurd. The fact that the bus goes nowhere means it is a random event of life and not a function of a conspiracy narrative.
-
No conspiracy needed:
Shots fired.
Oswald buggers off w/out permission
On an adrenalin high, having just slain the most powerful man in the world
"Oops, better get my arse off the street...too many eyeballs-on"
Sits there, thinking.. "fck this is nerve wracking... thats it, I'm outta here".
-
So John answers your question - "Nobody says the lights wents out" - meaning there is no witness who supports your interpretation of Hine's words, there is no other witness who says "all the lights went out". (and he's right, there isn't)
What a bizarre interpretation. “Nobody” means nobody. It doesn’t mean nobody besides Geneva Hine.
Then John turns it back to you - "and now you" - meaning he's answered your question, now it's your turn to answer his question.
It’s completely irrelevant to the question of what Hine meant when she said the lights all went out.
He then restates his question - "who corroborated your interpretation of Hine's words."
This is silly. Nobody can corroborate anybody’s interpretation of what Hine meant. Interpretations are completely subjective. Maybe if Ball was really interested in finding out what happened instead of leading witnesses, he would have just asked her what she meant.
-
In typical fashion, John Iacoletti avoids the real question. The real question is:
Are you arguing that Geneva Hine was referring to the building lights (not the phone lights) when she made her statement?
I seriously doubt that John Iacoletti will ever provide a straight answer to this question. So please, no one hold their breath… ;)
No. I’m not arguing a thing that I never said. How should I know if the power in the entire building went out? All I know is that Hines said “all the lights went out”. And nobody knows exactly what she meant by that because it’s ambiguous at best.
-
“Richard” wrote:
In real life, however, random or pointless events often occur. Sometimes the power does go out. Sometimes people get stuck in traffic jams. Sometimes you encounter people who are not very bright and have to explain things to them. The world is an imperfect place.
Sometimes people think that they can “explain” things that they have no way of knowing.
-
I could have missed something, but all I remember John Iacoletti saying is that Geneva Hine didn’t say that the lights on the phones went out. I don’t think that John Iacoletti has taken any kind of position whatsoever regarding which lights he thinks she was referring to. If we wanted to lower ourselves to the level of John Iacoletti’s playing field, we could simply say that Geneva Hine didn’t say that the building lights all went out either. Instead, we present ample evidence that the building lights didn’t go out.
What “ample evidence”? All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I do understand that LN evangelists often confuse the two.
Assume what you like, but at least admit that’s what you’re doing.
-
Isn’t it funny how “Richard” knows exactly what “conspirators” would or would not do in any possible situation, but when it comes to why Oswald would do this or that suddenly it’s “eh…random events happen”.
-
What “ample evidence”? All I see is a bunch of conjecture. I do understand that LN evangelists often confuse the two.
Assume what you like, but at least admit that’s what you’re doing.
What “ample evidence?
Evidence of what? If you aren’t arguing that Geneva Hine meant the building lights, we have nothing to discuss. You are simply wasting everyone’s time.
-
What a bizarre interpretation. “Nobody” means nobody. It doesn’t mean nobody besides Geneva Hine.
It does mean nobody besides Geneva Hines if the question is - "Who, besides Geneva Hines, says the lights in the building went out?"
The answer is - "nobody says the lights went out."
It’s completely irrelevant to the question of what Hine meant when she said the lights all went out.
Irrelevant waffle
This is silly. Nobody can corroborate anybody’s interpretation of what Hine meant. Interpretations are completely subjective. Maybe if Ball was really interested in finding out what happened instead of leading witnesses, he would have just asked her what she meant.
There are different possible interpretations of Hine's words.
The interpretation you have chosen is not supported by any other witness testimony.
Your interpretation of Hine's words is not corroborated by any other witness testimony.
In fact, it appears to have been refuted by images posted on this thread.
-
Bump.
How is this even being discussed, and why?
Hine went back to her desk because the "telephones were beginning to wink", therefore before the telephones begun to wink, the lights were not winking, they had stopped, they ceased to be on.
Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
JohnM
-
What “ample evidence?
Evidence of what?
Evidence that Hine was referring to “all the lights” on her telephone.
-
does mean
There are different possible interpretations of Hine's words.
The interpretation you have chosen is not supported by any other witness testimony.
And the interpretation you have chosen is not supported by any other witness testimony. So here we are.
Your interpretation of Hine's words is not corroborated by any other witness testimony.
In fact, it appears to have been refuted by images posted on this thread.
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.
-
I don’t know what Hine meant, and neither do you. The difference is you like to pretend that you do.
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.
Iacoletti: It’s not a change of subject. The “did any other witness say..” counterargument is fallacious.
MT: Asserting that Hines meant that the building power went out creates a prediction, in a classic Karl Popper vein: everyone else in the building would have also seen the power go out. In turn, we should then expect at least one of these other unenlightened people to have spoken up about a the the remarkable coincidence of the lights mysteriously going out at a most interesting time. Dodging the issue trying to assert a non-existent fallacy isn't going to help you with anything other than looking like an ever bigger dork, kid.
You can “expect” what you like. That doesn’t prove anything.
I'm sorry if you don't like the scientific method. The rest of us will go on without you. But we will think of you as we always have, Kid: as an ever bigger dork.
Yes, it would be so much more convenient if everybody would just accept your omniscience.
I don't know about the omniscience part, but it seems like everyone else around here actually does accept with my position. 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.
You don’t know what Hine’s phone looked like. Stop pretending you do.
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. I guess I don't know what color the thing was, but I know it had little lights that lit up to show which lines were in use and blinked on and off to indicate a line that was ringing an incoming call.
Now you’re pretending to know that Hine had a car too.
The car is rhetorical, which seems to have escaped you. The underlying point is real enough, though. If we want to talk about Hine's car (or anyone else's, since you want to object to her having one), we would normally assume that it had a steering wheel, since they all seem to be built with them nowadays. And yes, there are some exceptional cases where a car might not have a steering wheel. Maybe the driver is "special needs" (as we say now) and needs some novel, specialized alternative control device to steer the vehicle. Or, maybe the steering wheel was stolen, for some reason. Maybe it was faulty, fell off, and rolled down the 405 on it's own, last seen 10 miles out of Ventura, headed North. Shinola happens. But no one is going to look at a car and think, "gee, I wonder if there's a steering wheel inside? I mean, no one has ever proven that there is a steering wheel inside this particular car!" Steering wheels are ubiquitous enough in automobiles that any assertion that a car lacks a steering will will need at least some explanation, if not outright proof, of it's exceptional nature. If you want to assert that the phone system that Hine was [wo]manning, then you need to explain why you think it would have been an exception to the rule.
You’re reading it and pretending that your interpretation of it is the correct one. She said the lights went out. She didn’t say the lights on the phone went out. Get over it.
I'm saying is that my interpretation is the best explanation of the available evidence, no pretense necessary. In fact, it is far and away the best explanation of the evidence. If you think you have a better explanation, you are free to explicate. Anything else is a pile of sour grapes wielded by a man who desperately wishes to be counted among the biggest dorks in history.
-
Bump.
How is this even being discussed, and why?
Because people pretend to know things that they don’t actually know. Particularly when formulating a lame LN excuse.
-
Evidence that Hine was referring to “all the lights” on her telephone.
My statement:
“Instead, we present ample evidence that the building lights didn’t go out.”
Now you ask for evidence of something else. Get a grip, try to figure out what the fcuk you are arguing about. You are the one who brought this up. What is your position regarding what stinking lights Geneva Hine was referring to? Do you even have a position, or are you just saying that Geneva Hine didn’t clarify what lights she was referring to?
-
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!
(https://c.tenor.com/cen2XKBt-HcAAAAC/jack-faps.gif)
JohnM
-
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.
-
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.
:D
So, now the only lights that went out were the ones near Hine?
Wow, that must be a really specific fuse.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkrS76CW/Darnell-4-arrow-to-light.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gtg2Kw3f/Skaggs2a-red-arrow-light.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qq7nWrg/towner-light-on.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
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.
-
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 BS: 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.
::) ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
That's a great list. A limited outage within the building means that some person would have to be in the building turning the power and phones off at that moment, back on a few moments later, and then off again and on at some later point if Mooney's elevator issue is a result of another power outage. That person would have to be in the building for many minutes in the aftermath of the assassination. No such person was seen by any witness. Presumably if there was a conspiratorial purpose to this exercise, someone else in the building would need to be in real time communication with that individual telling them when to turn the power/phones off. The DPD would be searching the TSBD by this point. No such person is identified by any witness. And it is difficult to comprehend how these individuals stayed in communication in a time before cell phones to coordinate these activities.
-
That's a great list. A limited outage within the building means that some person would have to be in the building turning the power and phones off at that moment, back on a few moments later, and then off again and on at some later point if Mooney's elevator issue is a result of another power outage. That person would have to be in the building for many minutes in the aftermath of the assassination. No such person was seen by any witness. Presumably if there was a conspiratorial purpose to this exercise, someone else in the building would need to be in real time communication with that individual telling them when to turn the power/phones off. The DPD would be searching the TSBD by this point. No such person is identified by any witness. And it is difficult to comprehend how these individuals stayed in communication in a time before cell phones to coordinate these activities.
That’s a good point. I think we should add the fact that no one was seen manipulating any electrical or phone circuits within the TSBD to the list.
-
You have regressed to 4-3=0.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
You have also introduced a false premise.
Nope.
In addition, Oswald is in flight from the assassination of the president.
In addition to what?
He has no access to a car or other means of transportation.
You have no way of knowing if he had access to a car or other means of transportation.
What is he going to do?
Tell us.
He gets on the bus.
"the bus" -- LOL
His objective is not advanced
If the bus is the Marsalis bus his objective of going to 1026 N. Beckley is certainly not advanced.
because in the real world events like traffic jams occur that he can't control and intervene in the narrative.
There's no "beacuse" involved, the traffic jams was predictable as he walked east on Elm.
Such random and uncontrollable events are not a function of a contrived narrative.
BS, his choice of bus line is not an "uncontrollable event".
You made the same stupid mistake once again.
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.
Strawman. Nobody claimed a bus ride was preplanned, massive fail.
No one can possibly believe that was part of a plan. Well maybe someone who thinks 4-3=0 but no one else.
Well, you just made it up!
You have evidence that Oswald had access to a car after the assassination? That is more 4-3=0 nonsense. It is a false premise to suggest that the Marsalis bus doesn't advance Oswald's objectives had it not become stuck in traffic which were: 1) to get out of the area; and 2) get to his boardinghouse. As I recall, the Marsalis bus gets him to within seven blocks of his boardinghouse. He got out of the cab five blocks away. Within easy walking distance. He certainly doesn't want to get out right in front of the place until he is sure the cops are not there. You don't believe that Oswald was on this bus (even though he has a transfer issued by the driver of that bus) but you are not suggesting his presence was not part of a plan. Did magic fairies descended from the heavens to place this in his pocket? Silly even by your bizarre standards.
-
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.
Forget witness testimony. You have no evidence — period — that she was talking about her telephone lights. It’s pure speculation.
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.
I didn’t “insist” anything of the kind. And BS:. Posting a photo with an arrow pointing to a light fixture and just declaring that it is on is hardly conclusive. And besides that, we don’t know where or for how long the lights all went out. So even if the front porch light was on sometime after the assassination, it is completely irrelevant to what Hine said.
You clearly have your own theory about the assassination but won't put it forward.
Really? What makes you think so?
-
You have evidence that Oswald had access to a car after the assassination?
Yes. He was seen getting into a car described as a Nash Rambler.
-
You have evidence that Oswald did not have access to a car after the assassination?
Not compared to the Beckley bus which also left 12:36 from the same checkpoint on Elm.
No, it was totally predictable it would become stuck in traffic.
On a bus that took him back to the crime scene?
For less that one dollar, immediately locating a taxi cab would have taken him out of the area and to the doorstep of the rooming house.
Vs. to the doorstep.
No, not that cab.
That passenger continued south on Beckley.
How does getting out five blocks away achieve that?
No one on the bus remembered him except for Bledsoe, allegedly, who showed up for the interview with prefab answers.
And it would have made him miss Whaley's cab.
And it violates the principle you put forward yourself so why would you believe it?
No, would anyone suggest that?!
Remove those double negations and rephrase whatever point you're trying to make.
You mean including the five live rounds?
You've provided nothing to support the idea that Oswald would have put himself at a disadvantage by jumping on a Marsalis bus that was about to get stuck in traffic.
What do you think happened here? You don't believe he was on the McWatters bus (even though a witness that knew him confirmed this and he had a bus transfer from that bus in his pocket). But you entertain the baseless claim that Oswald had access to a car on 11.22 even though we know he never owned a car. Wouldn't there be an equal risk that a cab or car might get stuck in the same traffic? Why is the risk only that a bus would get stuck? He got on the Marsalis bus because it was there at the time. The first one he comes across. He doesn't even get on at a bus stop. It would have taken him to within a few blocks of where he wanted to go. But of all the evidence and strange behavior Oswald is exhibiting, including fleeing his place of employment midday to get a gun, you are hung up on why he didn't catch another bus? Maybe he already missed it. He was fleeing the assassination of the president. Not a normal commuter who could afford to read the paper waiting for his typical bus. Unreal. But lay out what you think happened here to explain all this.
-
Yes. He was seen getting into a car described as a Nash Rambler.
Who saw Oswald get in a Nash Rambler and did they positively identify him in an "unfair line-up"?
JohnM
-
Who saw Oswald get in a Nash Rambler and did they positively identify him in an "unfair line-up"?
JohnM
The answer is that nobody who saw the Rambler or the man getting in to it was ever invited to the line up. Hence the unfair line-up.
-
What do you think happened here? You don't believe he was on the McWatters bus (even though a witness that knew him confirmed this and he had a bus transfer from that bus in his pocket).
What was Bledsoe’s evidence that she actually knew him?
“fleeing his place of employment midday to get a gun”. LOL.
-
What do you think happened here?
Don't know, quite a mystery.
You don't believe he was on the McWatters bus (even though a witness that knew him confirmed this and he had a bus transfer from that bus in his pocket).
Bledsoe handled by Iacoletti.
Are you 100% he had it in his pocket, didn't he swap shirts?
But you entertain the baseless claim that Oswald had access to a car on 11.22 even though we know he never owned a car.
I didn't claim he had access to a car. Not owning a car wouldn't preclude him from having access to a car. Michael Paine had a spare car sitting in case you didn't know.
Wouldn't there be an equal risk that a cab or car might get stuck in the same traffic?
No, he would have told the driver to stay away from the plaza.
Why is the risk only that a bus would get stuck?
Covered above and we know Whaley didn't have any such problem even without guidance from his passenger although we're discussing the risk of such a thing happening.
He got on the Marsalis bus because it was there at the time. The first one he comes across.
The Beckley bus would have been right behind, based on experience.
He doesn't even get on at a bus stop.
So he already knew the bus was caught up in traffic, right?
It would have taken him to within a few blocks of where he wanted to go.
Stupid choice as the Beckley bus would have taken him right to where he wanted to go.
But of all the evidence and strange behavior Oswald is exhibiting, including fleeing his place of employment midday to get a gun, you are hung up on why he didn't catch another bus?
No I'm pointing out your false claim that conspirators wouldn't make bad choices and Oswald would make blatantly stupid choices because of random events that weren't random.
Maybe he already missed it.
You mean the Beckley bus? If it wasn't in front of McW is would have been right behind him.
He was fleeing the assassination of the president.
So you claim.
Not a normal commuter who could afford to read the paper waiting for his typical bus.
Both buses left their checkpoint at 12:36, according to McW, so there was no need to read any paper.
Unreal. But lay out what you think happened here to explain all this.
Not knowing what actually happened doesn't prevent me from pointing out your endless fallacies.
So you have no idea or theory what happened. You just reject the evidence but proffer no explanation for how Oswald ended up with a bus transfer in his pocket. Where have I heard that line of "reasoning" before? Changing his shirt would not explain how the bus transfer ends up in his shirt pocket. He was not a magician who could make a bus transfer appear by putting on a new shirt. The transfer was issued by McWatters. It was in Oswald's shirt pocket when arrested. Whether Oswald's choice of bus was "stupid" in your subjective opinion does not rebut the evidence that he was on that bus. That bus would take him within a few blocks of his destination. It is likely the first bus he encounters. There is no reason to fake his presence on this bus.
-
So you have no idea or theory what happened.
Any bozo can make up a story. Proving that it’s actually true - not so much.
Changing his shirt would not explain how the bus transfer ends up in his shirt pocket. He was not a magician who could make a bus transfer appear by putting on a new shirt.
No, but cops have been known to make things appear like magic.
It was in Oswald's shirt pocket when arrested.
Correction: it was “in Oswald’s shirt pocket” hours after he was arrested and already searched.