Uninterrupted TSBD rooftop Hertz sign time display = no power failure

[Richard Smith]

I didn't dishonestly do anything.  I quoted Tom's post in a reply.  He's more credible than you because he does actual research.  All you do is insult people and make up strawman arguments.

Another lie.  You quoted language Tom wrote but indicated it came from the newspaper article that he posted and was therefore conclusive in resolving the issue of the power source of the sign.  When I asked specifically about the language you placed quotation marks around in relation to the article you doubled down.  It wasn't until after I pointed out to you that Tom's commentary about the "separate power" source was his own assessment and not a fact noted in the article that you started running away.   How exactly is Tom's research more "credible" in this respect?  He offered his opinion about the sign's power source.  It was not confirmed by any facts in the article.  He may or may not be right but I don't see how his opinion is more credible than other plausible alternatives except that his opinion is one that you hope is correct.

[Richard Smith]

And yet you can't seem to quote even a single example.  Much like your "mountain of evidence" against Oswald that you never seem to be able to give a single example of either.

I've made my position very clear.  You arrogantly claimed that there was never a power outage because the Hertz sign worked at
12:30.  I said that Mooney and Adams both reported power outages to elevators, and Hine reported lights going out.  Period.  You're the one who has to weave fantasy conspirators into every conversation.

I'll ask again.  Do you rule out any nexus between the alleged power outage and a conspiracy or not?  It's a simple question.  You have suggested multiple times now that no one has made the claim that the alleged outage was the result of a conspiracy despite numerous examples of other posters doing exactly that.  But you won't clarify for us even whether you yourself are ruling out a conspiracy as the cause of the outage?  By indicating I'm the one weaving "fantasy" conspirators into this scenario this seems to suggest you believe the power outage was not the product of or evidences a conspiracy.  Why not just say that then? We would then be in agreement on the fundamental issue that this does not evidence or support a conspiracy either because (as I believe) there was no outage or (as you may believe) there could have been some type of outage but it is not related to a conspiracy.

[John Iacoletti]

I'll ask again.  Do you rule out any nexus between the alleged power outage and a conspiracy or not?  It's a simple question.  You have suggested multiple times now that no one has made the claim that the alleged outage was the result of a conspiracy despite numerous examples of other posters doing exactly that.

How the hell should I know why there was a power outage?  I was responding to your initial argument that the Hertz sign being on at 12:30 somehow demonstrated that there was never a power outage inside the building and therefore Mooney and Adams must have been confused about how elevators work and Hine was only talking about lights on her phone.

[John Iacoletti]

John has asked multiple times now who has alleged the power outage is evidence of a conspiracy.  Implying no one has done so despite numerous examples to the contrary.  So just want to highlight yet another example should anyone be taken in by yet another of his dishonest claims.

"Yet another".  LOL.   The one example you actually quoted was a post made after you claimed that there were "numerous examples in these threads".

[John Iacoletti]

Another lie.  You quoted language Tom wrote but indicated it came from the newspaper article that he posted and was therefore conclusive in resolving the issue of the power source of the sign.

You're delusional.  How exactly did I "indicate it came from the newspaper article".

Tom had some reason to come to that conclusion.  He hasn't said he was mistaken.

It was not confirmed by any facts in the article.  He may or may not be right but I don't see how his opinion is more credible than other plausible alternatives except that his opinion is one that you hope is correct.

I've already explained that.  Tom has a history of well documented research.  You have a history of making unsupported claims, inventing strawmen to argue against, and using insults as rebuttals.

[John Iacoletti]

So here is Tom apparently NOT suggesting or implying that the indicator light was out when Adams pushed the button.  He apparently is just sharing his elevator experiences with us without meaning to imply that the indicator light being out was the basis for Adams to conclude the elevator had no power rather than being busy.  Thanks for sharing Tom.

So when you come up with your "plausible scenario", you just report it as a fact.  But when somebody else suggests a plausible scenario, all of a sudden it's all about the evidence.  Sheer hypocrisy.