Geneva Hine

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

“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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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”.

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[John Mytton]

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

[John Iacoletti]

What “ample evidence?


Evidence of what?

Evidence that Hine was referring to “all the lights” on her telephone.