Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[John Iacoletti]

Jerry Organ showed a photo of a typical date stamp system card with the due dates stamped on it. And I have briefly described how that type of system typically worked.

No, he showed a single example of a library book slip (not a "card") with "date due" stamps.  That doesn't make it "typical" or applicable to the Mosk memo.

So, did your embossed library card magically record the actual return date in some mysterious place (or what)?

Now you're just being silly.  The library card itself wouldn't have that information.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't kept.  The purpose in bringing up the card was because you took your memory of a library card being photographed with a page from the book and just decided that this was "typical", and therefore applicable to New Orleans.  Unless somebody can prove that it wasn't.  One anecdotal example is as good as any other.

No assumption, the evidence is convincing. The two words are synonymous in the context of this specific situation.

You find a lot of stuff convincing that you you just declare are "most likely" or "typical".

We have other evidence than just the memo. That is not "all we have."

Such as?

[Richard Smith]

Down the rabbit hole we go.  It's now a library "slip" and not a card in the back of the book?  Wow.  This is where rational people should check out and not play into the endless contrarian game in which no fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven absent a time machine.  Remarkably some folks here came up with some very insightful explanations supported by common sense and logical inference.  But of course that is of no interest to contrarians.  It's just an endless game to avoid checkmate.  And the last card is always that not every conceivable possibility has been disproven to their subjective satisfaction no matter how plausible the explanation provided.

[John Iacoletti]

Down the rabbit hole we go.  It's now a library "slip" and not a card in the back of the book?  Wow.  This is where rational people should check out and not play into the endless contrarian game in which no fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven absent a time machine.

True to form, "Richard" thinks that making something up and calling it "rational" somehow proves that it's true.

[Richard Smith]

"Oswald's library book.  LOL."  I don't recall any kook providing a notarized copy of the original forms with a complete chain of custody that proves that Oswald ever checked a book out of the New Orleans library.  Much less his prints on those books or a library clerk who could remember him checking them out.  So the return date is moot as it doesn't meet the contrarian standard of proof that it ever happened.  Isn't that how it works?  We need ever possible source of proof that can ever be dreamed up to support a fact?  And if there is anything missing or any possible counter possibility that can't be disproven with 100% certainty then it is only "speculation" or an "assumption." 

[Charles Collins]

No, he showed a single example of a library book slip (not a "card") with "date due" stamps.  That doesn't make it "typical" or applicable to the Mosk memo.

Now you're just being silly.  The library card itself wouldn't have that information.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't kept.  The purpose in bringing up the card was because you took your memory of a library card being photographed with a page from the book and just decided that this was "typical", and therefore applicable to New Orleans.  Unless somebody can prove that it wasn't.  One anecdotal example is as good as any other.

You find a lot of stuff convincing that you you just declare are "most likely" or "typical".

Such as?

Evidence that has already been cited in this thread.

Additionally, here is a link for a thread on “The Straight Dope” regarding this type of library checkout system (before computerization). It includes descriptions from various locations. I have read the first 25 posts. All describe a system similar to what I have already indicated as typical. None of them have tracking of the actual return date.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558711

[John Iacoletti]

So the return date is moot as it doesn't meet the contrarian standard of proof that it ever happened.  Isn't that how it works?

No, it’s yet another “Richard Smith” strawman that has nothing to do with who killed JFK.

[John Iacoletti]

Evidence that has already been cited in this thread.

No evidence has been cited in this thread other than the Mosk memo and some conjecture and personal anecdotes.