Power cut important clarification required

[John Iacoletti]

Anyway here's some more frameshots of the back of the building and the 6th floor.

And this gif should put any guessing to bed, through the sniper's nest window in the TVmovie we see the same 3 buildings beyond that actually exist there.

Credit where due.  I think you nailed it here.  Well done.

I watched Ruby and Oswald last night.  It was a pretty decently done telling of the official narrative, with only a couple of minor discrepancies (like where Frazier parked) and some very contrived dialogue ("here's your officially timestamped receipt, Mr. Ruby").  But they had more attention to detail than any other movie I've seen.

[Martin Weidmann]

Tom doesn't "merely express his opinion" without backing it up with enormous amounts of data.  You on the other hand take your "mere opinions" and state them as facts.  For example that the Hertz sign being illuminated at 12:30 "proves" that there was never a power outage inside the building, or that Luke Mooney didn't know how to work an elevator.

You just can't help yourself can you, Mr. Strawman?  Yeah, I desperately want Walt to be right, that's why I keep a list of his fabrications.  Yet, you're the one who claimed that it was connected to the TSBD power with no evidence whatsoever and then demanded that I do research to prove you wrong.  Which is how you argue every aspect of this case.  Oswald did it unless you can prove he didn't.  Oswald did it unless you can prove there was a cadre of fantasy conspirators.  Blah blah blah insult insult blah blah blah.

No, but you're sure running away from the claim that you made, aren't you?  I'm not crying -- I'm laughing at your ridiculous pompousness.

One of the articles says that the Ford sign required more power than an average city block would use in one day. Another article says that the sign was powered by sixty-five transformers....

And Richard thinks they just connected it to the electricity supply of the TSBD.... Go figure!

[Richard Smith]

One of the articles says that the Ford sign required more power than an average city block would use in one day. Another article says that the sign was powered by sixty-five transformers....

And Richard thinks they just connected it to the electricity supply of the TSBD.... Go figure!

Again, the power used by the Ford sign that was in place in 1953 is not particularly relevant to the Hertz sign.  But do you think it worked on batteries?  If not, then there was electrical power that came through the TSBD.  Walt and John disputed that point with no evidence whatsoever.  The sign was atop the TSBD.  How do you think the electricity got there? 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, the power used by the Ford sign that was in place in 1953 is not particularly relevant to the Hertz sign.  But do you think it worked on batteries?  If not, then there was electrical power that came through the TSBD.  Walt and John disputed that point with no evidence whatsoever.  The sign was atop the TSBD.  How do you think the electricity got there?

Again, the power used by the Ford sign that was in place in 1953 is not particularly relevant to the Hertz sign.

Really? For the Ford required a seperate power supply and got one, but for the even larger Hertz sign they just plugged in a cable in one of TSBD's sockets... is that what you are trying to say?

Amazing....


The sign was atop the TSBD.  How do you think the electricity got there?

Is that a serious question?

[Richard Smith]

Here is a response from Stephen Fagin who replaced Gary Mack:

Hello Mr. Smith,


Thank you for contacting The Sixth Floor Museum with a surprisingly challenging question. I did some research, reviewing about twenty years of newspaper articles that mentioned the sign, oral histories recorded by the Museum, and photographs of the building taken from every angle? and I am afraid I do not have a definitive answer for you. The Museum does have the metal faceplate of the sign, separated into about 128 individual pieces, and most of these components have loose wires on the reverse ? but with no indication of their original power source. The sign was installed in December 1959 and removed in May 1979, and as you know, the time and temperature function was discontinued in 1973.

The Dallas sign was one of only three Hertz billboard advertisements in the U.S. that had the electronic time and temperature apparatus, and despite numerous mentions in the news media, I was not able to determine ? from any news sources or Museum oral history ? where the power came from. I suspect it was not a battery, as it would have been virtually impossible in the late 1950s/early 1960s to power some 800 light bulbs on the sign with a battery without having to recharge or replace the unit every day or so. It may have had its own generator of some sort, though I have not seen any indication of this in any photograph and, from what I can gather, there was no generator on the roof when Dallas County engineers assessed the structural integrity of the building in 1978. It is possible a generator or independent power source was removed after the discontinuing the sign?s illumination in 1973, but it is equally possible that the sign drew its electricity from the building. I wish I had a definitive answer for you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here is a response from Stephen Fagin who replaced Gary Mack:

Hello Mr. Smith,


Thank you for contacting The Sixth Floor Museum with a surprisingly challenging question. I did some research, reviewing about twenty years of newspaper articles that mentioned the sign, oral histories recorded by the Museum, and photographs of the building taken from every angle? and I am afraid I do not have a definitive answer for you. The Museum does have the metal faceplate of the sign, separated into about 128 individual pieces, and most of these components have loose wires on the reverse ? but with no indication of their original power source. The sign was installed in December 1959 and removed in May 1979, and as you know, the time and temperature function was discontinued in 1973.

The Dallas sign was one of only three Hertz billboard advertisements in the U.S. that had the electronic time and temperature apparatus, and despite numerous mentions in the news media, I was not able to determine ? from any news sources or Museum oral history ? where the power came from. I suspect it was not a battery, as it would have been virtually impossible in the late 1950s/early 1960s to power some 800 light bulbs on the sign with a battery without having to recharge or replace the unit every day or so. It may have had its own generator of some sort, though I have not seen any indication of this in any photograph and, from what I can gather, there was no generator on the roof when Dallas County engineers assessed the structural integrity of the building in 1978. It is possible a generator or independent power source was removed after the discontinuing the sign?s illumination in 1973, but it is equally possible that the sign drew its electricity from the building. I wish I had a definitive answer for you.

So Mr. Fagin couldn't help you. What's next?

[Tim Nickerson]

One of the articles says that the Ford sign required more power than an average city block would use in one day. Another article says that the sign was powered by sixty-five transformers....

And Richard thinks they just connected it to the electricity supply of the TSBD.... Go figure!

Transformers do not power anything. They merely increase or decrease voltage. It is very plausible, and probable, that the sign was fed off of the electrical supply to the TSBD.

[Martin Weidmann]

Transformers do not power anything. They merely increase or decrease voltage. It is very plausible, and probable, that the sign was fed off of the electrical supply to the TSBD.

Really Tim,

When a similar sign by Ford used so much power that it could light up an entire city block?

You think that's plausible? Did you read what Tom Scully wrote in another thread?

(Hey Tim, as a side note, I am not ignoring your question in the other thread. I withdrew, at least for the time being.
I learned in the money order debate that what I believe is overwhelming evidence supporting a conclusion is far from
convincing to some others. IOW, if one believes John Sexton wholesale grocers would consent to their electric service metering being co-mingled (power consumption metering for billing to Sexton by electric utility) with DH Byrd's roof billboard lease arrangements with first the Ford animated neon display (described as consuming daily power equivalent of a city block) and then the 6,000 bulb Hertz time/temp sign, what could I add that would be of any influence? BTW, I checked and from at least 1950 Dallas performed vigorous building permit inspection of construction, plumbing, and electrical work. If you have owned or managed an intensely dependent gas or electric utility powered business operation, experience dictates it could be assumed an building code mandated permit and inspection would be required for the 1953 installation of the electrical power supply enhancements designed to power the new animated neon sign atop the Sexton building. Sexton attempted frozen food storage and distribution (freezer storage is a high electrical demand business line) in 1940 in Chicago but the war curtailed that in 1941 and the frozen food lines were not added again while Sexton occupied the future TSBD building until departing to a new modern one story building in 1960. IOW, in 1953 the power distribution system in that building was likely as it was when the plow company vacated it by the 1930s
and could not support the power requirements to the roof for the 1953 neon sign without major improvement which preseented the opportunity and very, very, likely required the installation of a unique utility meter and associated shut off for the roof sign power supply.)
.........

I'm not sure why Tom posted it in another thread, but what he says makes a lot more sense than the notion that the sign would simply be plugged into the regular power supply of the TSBD. But no doubt, you'll disagree, right?