David Von Pein

15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

How did she know they were Dead just because the lights on them were out?  If everyone just suddenly quit calling she would have to pick up a receiver and punch a line to know they were Dead, no dial tone.

Already explained two days ago....in this post.

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

...and the phones went Dead (no dial tone either?)...

When did Geneva Hine say there was no dial tone?

Answer: She didn't.

(At least you had the courtesy to put a question mark in there. Because you obviously have no idea whether there was a dial tone or not. You're merely assuming there wasn't.)

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DVP--

I probably should start a new thread, but since we are here....do you know if the publisher's office in the TSBD, which I think were on both the second and fourth floors, were searched on 11/22? 

Offhand, I don't know the answer to that question. Sorry.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Now, try to explain how JBC was struck at Z-295 and JFK at Z-312 by a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle....

John Connally wasn't struck at Z295. That's yet another incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

Connally & Kennedy are reacting to external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time when they each jerk their right arms skyward at Z226. And the sum total of evidence (including JBC's own statements) indicates that Mr. Connally was struck by just ONE single bullet on 11/22. And CTers cannot possibly prove otherwise:

Plus....

We can also see in the Z-Film that JFK's arms/hands are NOT moving upward toward his throat just one frame earlier (between Z224 and Z225), which IMO negates the idea that JFK was already reacting prior to emerging from behind the Stemmons sign. A good argument can be made for JFK lowering his hands between Z224 & 225:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I'm about 99.9% convinced that "the lights went out" is one more rabbit hole that does nothing to determine the truth of what happened on 11/22/1963.

And I'll ask once again....

Are there any other TSBD employees who reported a power outage or a phone outage at about 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63?

Or are CTers relying only on Geneva Hine's WC testimony to arrive at what I think is an incorrect conclusion?

Someone earlier said the Dal-Tex Building also suffered some sort of power outage on 11/22. Where does that info originate?

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If MacNeil used a public pay phone, the power would have been on for his phone call. 

According to Robert MacNeil himself in this November 18, 2000, interview (fast forward to 13:30), the telephone call he made from the Book Depository on 11/22/63 was made from one of the TSBD offices using "one of those old black phones with four clear Lucite buttons" :

"I went into an office. There was one of those old black phones with four clear Lucite buttons, and two of them were lit up and two of them weren't, and I dropped one down and I got through to NBC in about ten seconds." --Robert MacNeil; 11/18/2000

On 10/29/2022 at 10:18 PM, David Von Pein said:

We can be pretty sure the phones in the Book Depository did not go "dead" right around the time of the assassination, because we have this additional Warren Commission testimony from Miss Geneva Hine, which is testimony at 6 H 396 which certainly implies that the TSBD telephones were working within a very very short time of when the shooting occurred:

"And there was a girl in there [the office of Southwestern Publishing Co.] talking on the telephone and I could hear her but she didn't answer the door. .... I called and called and shook the door and she didn't answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing."

In Addition To The Above Information....

We also know that the telephones inside the Depository were working just a few minutes after the assassination took place, because Robert MacNeil of NBC News used one of the TSBD phones to call the NBC Radio Network and was put on the air live with that network's first bulletin concerning the shooting. MacNeil's initial bulletin can be heard here.

So, if the phones in the Texas School Book Depository went dead right around the time President Kennedy was being shot out on Elm Street, then they certainly didn't remain "dead" for very long at all.

........

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Do you think all calls just stopped from customers through the state, as well as book companies located elsewhere in Texas and other states?

Well, that's certainly what Miss Hine was implying when she said this....

"...because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling..."

Side Note....

If the electricity had gone completely out in the TSBD Building on Nov. 22, why didn't anyone else who was in the building at that time report any such power interruption? I know of no one who said anything about a power outage at about 12:30 on 11/22.

Are you, Ron Bulman, aware of any "power outage" witnesses---other than your interpretation of Geneva Hine's testimony?

Another Side Note Regarding The Telephones....

We can be pretty sure the phones in the Book Depository did not go "dead" right around the time of the assassination, because we have this additional Warren Commission testimony from Miss Geneva Hine, which is testimony at 6 H 396 which certainly implies that the TSBD telephones were working within a very very short time of when the shooting occurred:

"And there was a girl in there [the office of Southwestern Publishing Co.] talking on the telephone and I could hear her but she didn't answer the door. .... I called and called and shook the door and she didn't answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that's what she was doing."

53 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

"when All the lights went out and the phones became dead" is what she [Geneva Hine] said.

But then her very next words were...

"...because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling..."

...which implies that when she used the word "dead", she merely meant that there was no phone-call activity at that time. I don't think she meant the phones wouldn't work at all.

When evaluating Geneva Hine's entire statement (which is from her Warren Commission testimony, at 6 H 395), I think Bill Brown has got it correct. Hine was talking only about the lights on the telephones and not about the lights or the electricity in the entire building when she said "the lights all went out"....

"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."  -- Geneva L. Hine

It's remarkable how something like Miss Hine's WC testimony above can get twisted and misinterpreted by conspiracy believers until it mushrooms into something conspiratorial and sinister, when in reality it's not the slightest bit sinister at all.

26 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

Well you do have things backwards and upside down as usual David. As does almost everyone else here. But for you I say, if Lee Harvey Oswald did this thing by himself it makes no sense that he would go and wait for third parties to get him into the Depository.  He wants to kill the president, he’s got to get a job in that building. he cannot take a chance. So then the question is who got him in there? I have no idea, but it had to be… A conspirator. So David you’ve disproved your own argument.

It's you who's got things backwards. The TSBD job came first. Oswald's desire to kill the President came second. It was entirely a murder of opportunity.

Quote

Everybody's been lying.

Typical silly CTer motto there. You should have it tattooed on your forehead.

Related stuff....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

"incorrect merging" Noted!

Ten-Four. Glad I could help you out.  <--- Reciprocal sarcasm.

25 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Someone else please explain to this guy what I wrote and why he's 100% wrong.

From 2013:

THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

I think Linnie Mae [Randle] told the commission the truth because, well, I just can't see any reason for her to lie about it. If Linnie May [sic] did tell the truth, it suggests that Ruth Paine may have been much more directly responsible for Oswald's getting a job in a tall building on the motorcade route than has previously been thought by many people.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID (with emphasis added by DVP on 10/22/2022):

Huh?

Actually, if Linnie Mae Randle told the whole truth (and why in the world would anybody suspect she didn't--at any time?), it means exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting here, Tommy.

Because it means that it was really LINNIE MAE, and NOT Ruth Paine, who was the MOST responsible (albeit indirectly) for Oswald finding a job at the Book Depository. For it was LINNIE MAE, not Ruth Paine, who brought up the topic of a possible job opening at the Depository during the coffee-break get-together at Dorothy Roberts' house on 10/14/63.

In other words -- If Linnie Mae had not been there at Dorothy Roberts' house, it's a virtual certainty that Lee Oswald would have never gone to the TSBD the next day to seek out employment -- because without Linnie Mae bringing up the topic of the Depository, how could Ruth Paine (or Marina) have ever even known about the possible job opening there?

The conspiracy theorists should be going after Linnie Randle, not Ruth Paine, as much more of a "conspirator" in any silly plot to "plant" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository. Because without Linnie's presence at the coffee klatch, it's my very firm belief that John F. Kennedy doesn't get assassinated on November 22nd.

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

The FBI hand writes something that didn't happen. Thanks for that.

Yes. The FBI (Burnett) did precisely that.

From a 2007 discussion:

"By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it was surely common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald was carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after President Kennedy's assassination. Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same bit of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke, and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up a pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there)." -- DVP; May 5, 2007

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Hi David, Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write out the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's handwriting. .... The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker said it, but because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent included it as part of the narrative. He probably didn't give it a second thought and neither did Baker when he crossed it out. It wasn't important to them. I'm speculating, sure. But is it more plausible that the coverup crew wanted to hide the Coke story and yet left this document in the record?" -- Jean Davison; January 10, 2010

6 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

...there’s tons of evidence...

No, in actuality, there's none. You're counting your suspicions as "evidence". Doesn't quite work that way.

23 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

In the first statement that Baker wrote directly by himself without the filter of a third party, he initially wrote that Oswald was drinking a Coke when he saw him.

But there was most definitely a "third party" involved in that 9/23 statement. The 3rd party was FBI agent Richard J. Burnett, who most certainly wrote the words we see in this document....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

For some reason a number of folks here are determined to defend Ruth and Michael Paine no matter what. I'm not sure the precise reason why. Their involvement seems obvious to me.

And somehow you can say that despite a complete lack of evidence to show the "involvement" of either of the Paines.

Or are we supposed to count "gut feelings" as "evidence" nowadays?

51 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

There was never an "original claim" that Oswald was "holding a Coke".

Baker never said such a thing.

Michael G. must be talking about the scratched-out "drinking a Coke" reference that appears in CE3076. But that document wasn't written until September 23, 1964. Plus, it was most certainly not written by Marrion L. Baker himself. More here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke