Geneva Hine

[Mitch Todd]

Agreed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mooney said the power had been cut.

Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut. He also said that the elevator was working when he first entered the building some time after 12:40 PM.

Why would any of this make John's question invalid?

Because John's question is built around the assumption that there would be a constant stream of incoming calls.

[Martin Weidmann]

Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination (and the Hertz sign was clearly working at that moment), her testimony is clear in context.  Her job was to answer the phone.  She is explaining why she could leave her desk for the moment to look out the window (no one was calling).  If there were any doubt about the phones working, she walks down the hall but can't get the attention of a co-worker because - wait for it - she is talking on the phone!  Rightly or wrongly Hine attributes no calls to be answered to the fact that motorcade was in town.  Presuming most are out watching.  Obviously, no one would attribute a phone and power outage to the motorcade.  Good grief.

Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.

Putting aside that there would be absolutely no conspiracy related purpose to turn the power and phones off for a few moments at the time of the assassination

Agreed

Rightly or wrongly Hine attributes no calls to be answered to the fact that motorcade was in town.  Presuming most are out watching.  Obviously, no one would attribute a phone and power outage to the motorcade.  Good grief.

Stop overthinking everything. Mooney said in his testimony that the power was cut, which is exactly what John Iacoletti said. It was factual.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious, Weidmann doesn't even realize that his observation just further supports the official WC version. 

JohnM

Care to explain this stupid comment?

[Martin Weidmann]

This was after Hine's statement about the lights and phone.  The fact that Mooney could take the elevator means that the power either never went out or it went out around 12:30, came back on for Mooney to ride the elevator, and then went out again.  Mooney's elevator operates just fine until the people who work in the building exited.  Then he couldn't get it to work.  Likely because he did not understand how it operated.  This was a freight elevator.   He concludes this was caused by a power outage because he didn't know what he didn't know about operating it.

So, what John Iacoletti said was a fair and correct representation of what Mooney said during his testimony?

[Martin Weidmann]

Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut. He also said that the elevator was working when he first entered the building some time after 12:40 PM.

Mooney said the power to the elevator had been cut, not power to the building. Nor did he say that power to the phones had been cut.

And nobody argued that he did say that.

Because John's question is built around the assumption that there would be a constant stream of incoming calls.

And why would such an assumption be incorrect when you have a phone system with multiple lines, with calls coming in all the time?

But even if there wasn't a constant stream of incoming calls, does that make it a normal occurrence that the phones went dead at exactly the moment the motorcade was passing by?

[John Mytton]

Once again, "Richard's" mind-reading skills underwhelm.  She said nothing about lights ON THE PHONE.  And why would people wanting to order school books from across the state of Texas stop calling because a motorcade was coming near her building?

Besides that, Deputy Mooney also mentioned that the power had been cut.

This is the Iacoletti post that Weidmann is so desperate to defend.

Hine tells us that the lights went out as the motorcade approached.
Iacoletti tells us "besides that'(Hines recollection), "Mooney also mentioned the power had been cut", but this is deceitfully conflating two unique separate events that are isolated in their own individual time zones and as I stated Iacoletti's only intention was to deceive.

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

So, what John Iacoletti said was a fair and correct representation of what Mooney said during his testimony?

Not in the context he presented.  First, John I. has misconstrued what Hine said.  She did not say that the power went out.  She was referring to the fact that there were no incoming calls which allowed her to leave her desk to look out the window.  She said "no one was calling."  She attributed - rightly or wrongly - no one calling to the motorcade meaning that she believed most folks were out watching it and not placing calls to the TSBD.  What else would she mean by referencing the motorcade as the reason why no one was calling?  As far as I know, motorcades don't cause phone and power outages.  Do you think she believed the motorcade was causing power and phone outages in Dallas?  How exactly would that work?

Second, Hine's statement relates to events that occur around 12:30.  John falsely implies that Hine's statement about the lights and phones being interpreted as an outage is somehow supported by Mooney's reference to the elevator.  But Mooney's elevator ride occurs AFTER the assassination.  If the power/phones are out around 12:30 per Hine's statement, then the power has to be back on for Mooney to take his elevator ride from the first to second floor.  This would be a different power cut to the elevator.  It could not be the same one referenced by Hine (which didn't occur anyway).  Mooney attributed his difficulties in the elevator to a power outage but that doesn't mean, as John suggested, that there actually was any power outage to the elevator or that this was related and supported by an interpretation of Hine's statement to mean that a power outage had occurred in the building.  They would have to be separate outages when the events are viewed in chronological order: 1) Hine "outage" around 12:30; 2) Mooney elevator working (along with Truly and Baker elevator); 3) Mooney elevator outage.

Lastly, there is no apparent reason for anyone to intentionally cut the phones and power to all or some parts of the building for a short duration.  This is where you claim no one is suggesting that conspirators cut the power and phones.  If that is the case, and all that is being suggested is that the phone and power outages were coincidental having nothing to do with the assassination, then who really cares?  Knock yourself out if that is what you want to believe.  It would be like arguing about whether John Wilkes Booth's horse was brown or black.

[John Mytton]

Not in the context he presented.

It's as simple as that and Weidmann's pathetic attempts to manipulate this argument to what Mooney said in his testimony instead of focussing on John's deception just proves Weidmann isn't here for the truth.

JohnM