Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Geneva Hine  (Read 21486 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #136 on: April 21, 2022, 12:43:03 AM »
Advertisement
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.

Quote
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #136 on: April 21, 2022, 12:43:03 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #137 on: April 21, 2022, 01:04:47 AM »
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.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #138 on: April 21, 2022, 01:13:50 AM »
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #138 on: April 21, 2022, 01:13:50 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3792
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #139 on: April 21, 2022, 01:19:12 AM »
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?

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #140 on: April 21, 2022, 01:21:43 AM »
Anything else is a pile of sour grapes wielded by a man who desperately wishes to be counted among the biggest dorks in history.

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



JohnM
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 01:25:14 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #140 on: April 21, 2022, 01:21:43 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #141 on: April 21, 2022, 01:30:55 AM »
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.

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

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

Quote
The rest of us will go on without you.

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

Quote
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.

Quote
  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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #142 on: April 21, 2022, 02:43:16 AM »
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.

Quote
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.






Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #143 on: April 21, 2022, 03:32:44 AM »
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!”.

Quote
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Geneva Hine
« Reply #143 on: April 21, 2022, 03:32:44 AM »