Geneva Hine

[John Mytton]

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.



The bus transfer was folded and not pristine.



JohnM

[Charles Collins]

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…     

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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). 

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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. 

[Bill Chapman]

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".

[John Iacoletti]

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.