JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Margaret Kelly on February 08, 2020, 12:22:30 PM

Title: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Margaret Kelly on February 08, 2020, 12:22:30 PM
On Sept 19 1963, apparently in anticipation of his expected long bus journey to Mexico City, LHO took out four books from the New Orleans library:
(https://i.ibb.co/N9jzn9q/Oswald-Library-Books.png)
Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.

Why is there no mention of this in the Warren Report?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 08, 2020, 03:44:19 PM
On Sept 19 1963, apparently in anticipation of his expected long bus journey to Mexico City, LHO took out four books from the New Orleans library: Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.
Why is there no mention of this in the Warren Report?
I have seen this report before.
I figured [at first] it might have been Oswald's landlady in New Orleans...However--
Quote
Mr. LIEBELER - You say he read a lot?
Mrs. GARNER - He sure did.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see at any time what he was reading?
Mrs. GARNER - Well, it always was books, like those pocket books and papers, real big books, regular books.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never saw the names of any of the books?
Mrs. GARNER - No; you couldn't get that near him.
In the Did Oswald go to Mexico thread I expressed the doubt that Oswald actually ever went to Mexico City.
I really can't see anyone [packing light] with heavy hardback library books.
So..It could be a clue that Oswald actually didn't really leave New Orleans until the last weekend of September when he returned those books and then to Dallas next seen in the company of [Alpha 66 type individuals?] who showed up at Sylvia Odio's apartment.
She was adamant that "Leon" was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.
About the books...It could just be that the library didn't get around to stamping their return books until the following week.
It has been noted that Oswald liked spy novels.
Quote
Why is there no mention of this in the Warren Report?
Like all of the other mysteries in the case....it was best ignored :-\
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 08, 2020, 04:11:56 PM
On Sept 19 1963, apparently in anticipation of his expected long bus journey to Mexico City, LHO took out four books from the New Orleans library:
(https://i.ibb.co/N9jzn9q/Oswald-Library-Books.png)
Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.

Why is there no mention of this in the Warren Report?

You raise an interesting point.

Oswald was in Dallas at the TEC ( Texas Employment Commission?) on the 3rd, in Dallas.  And, en route to Dallas, from Nuevo Laredo, on the 2nd.
For the record, the 2nd and 3rd were weekdays, not weekends, so there is no possible "after hours/holidaySunday closure" explanation.

I think the only legitimate conclusion is that someone else returned the library books. Oswald taking the books to Mexico is conjecture, as is the traveling companion suggestion. Possible, but not proven.

Thanks. More info appreciated.

Addendum: New Orleans is 500 miles East/Southeast of Dallas.
And that is an odd mixture of reading material.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 08, 2020, 06:03:27 PM
And that is an odd mixture of reading material.
Just science fiction and spies it looks like to me.
Ever read Brave New World?
From Russia with Love....[not released as a film in the USA until the following year]
Seems natural that Lee would want to read that one.
Who was the "Oswald" identified by Sylvia and Annie Odio? If not the genuine Lee then he was another twin imposter.
Still points to a conspiracy either way.
For reference...1963 calendar-----

  (https://www.cocomilkcollectibles.com/shoppingcart/images/1963_m_and_t_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Margaret Kelly on February 08, 2020, 08:02:43 PM
I really can't see anyone [packing light] with heavy hardback library books.

Here is the WC testimony of Oswalds neighbour at 4907 magazine street, New Orleans:

Mr. ROGERS. He had two of them in my estimation, each one in one hand. They looked like these here to me, to my knowledge. I mean, yes. I don't think it was this type [indicating]. I would say this type [indicating].
Mr. LIEBELER. And you are pointing to No. A-l, which is a picture of Commission Exhibit No. 126 and do you think he had two bags that looked like "Commission Exhibit No. 126." Did he carry both in one hand?
Mr. ROGERS. One in each hand.
Mr. LIEBELER. As far as you can tell, he did not have a bag similar to Rogers Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. ROGERS. No, no. It was kind of daylight. You could see. You know what I mean?
Mr. LIEBELER. What makes you sure that he didn't have one like Rogers Exhibit No. 17 Is it a different size?
Mr. ROGERS. It was--they both look like the same size, and they were well packed. They were well stuffed. I know they wasn't light. I don't know what he had in them.

You see, if Oswald and his companion expected Oswald to get to Cuba, and he didn't get there (the cuban consulate wouldn't give him the visa), he would need to ring up his companion and explain why he was now not getting in to Cuba. And on meeting with him, give him and books and allow him to return them back to the New Orleans library. Remember, Oswald and his two companions (at Odios house) said they had just come from New Orleans. So there is a significant possibility it was one of these companions that dropped off the books for Oswald on Oct 3rd.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 08, 2020, 09:15:18 PM
Here is the WC testimony of Oswalds neighbour at 4907 magazine street, New Orleans:
Quote
Mr. ROGERS. It was--they both look like the same size, and they were well packed. They were well stuffed. I know they wasn't light. I don't know what he had in them. 

 
(https://kennedysandking.com/images/ctka/public/2014-Josephs/pic34.gif)
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Dan DAlimonte on February 08, 2020, 09:51:22 PM
On top of everything else there's the David Ferrie's Library card issue.  Did Oswald really have it in New Orleans and Dallas?
Did he ever have it at all?  Was it reversed?

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lib-card.txt
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 08, 2020, 11:09:43 PM
 
On top of everything else there's the David Ferrie's Library card issue.  Did Oswald really have it in New Orleans and Dallas?
Did he ever have it at all?  Was it reversed?
What it probably could have meant [on the surface] was that it was Oswald's library card and it perhaps had [for some reason] possibly on the back of it..David Ferrie's name and conceivably had information that was not disclosed [like a phone number] That would make more sense. Why would he have had Ferrie's library card? The actual allegation--
Quote
Martens told the FBI that Gill had stopped by Ferrie's apartment at about 1:00pm on 11/24/63, and that "Gill stated that he had gotten word that Lee Oswald, when he was picked up, had been carrying a library card with David Ferrie's name on it."
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 08, 2020, 11:10:06 PM
On Sept 19 1963, apparently in anticipation of his expected long bus journey to Mexico City, LHO took out four books from the New Orleans library:
(https://i.ibb.co/N9jzn9q/Oswald-Library-Books.png)
Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.

Why is there no mention of this in the Warren Report?


This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico.

The more likely explanation is that the books were returned before LHO left New Orleans and simply were not processed by the library until 10/3.

However, on page 742 of “Reclaiming History,” Vincent Bugliosi says that: “All three Bond novels turned up in his Dallas rooming house after the assassination.” There is no source note for this claim. I question Bugliosi on this one...

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 08, 2020, 11:23:09 PM
Charles: Some "covers" of James Bond novels and other books - including ones on Marxism - were retrieved from Oswald's possessions by the DPD. I don't know if just the covers were found (which is odd) and not the books too or they just photographed the covers only. It appears this may be what Bugliosi is referring to.

Link: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337905/?q=James%20Bond

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 08, 2020, 11:35:42 PM
However, on page 742 of “Reclaiming History,” Vincent Bugliosi says that: “All three Bond novels turned up in his Dallas rooming house after the assassination.” There is no source note for this claim. I question Bugliosi on this one...
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337905/m1/5/?q=James%20Bond
"Live and Let Die" and "The Spy Who Loved Me" were not on that New Orleans library book list.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2020, 12:02:49 AM
Charles: Some "covers" of James Bond novels and other books - including ones on Marxism - were retrieved from Oswald's possessions by the DPD. I don't know if just the covers were found (which is odd) and not the books too or they just photographed the covers only. It appears this may be what Bugliosi is referring to.

Link: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337905/?q=James%20Bond

Thanks Steve, you might be right. However Jerry makes it clear that the books found in the rooming house were not the same ones that LHO checked out in New Orleans. And Bugliosi’s claim appears to suggest that they were. Uncharacteristically sloppy work by Bugliosi...
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2020, 12:03:31 AM
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337905/m1/5/?q=James%20Bond
"Live and Let Die" and "The Spy Who Loved Me" were not on that New Orleans library book list.

Thanks Jerry.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 09, 2020, 05:28:39 AM

This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico.

The more likely explanation is that the books were returned before LHO left New Orleans and simply were not processed by the library until 10/3.

However, on page 742 of “Reclaiming History,” Vincent Bugliosi says that: “All three Bond novels turned up in his Dallas rooming house after the assassination.” There is no source note for this claim. I question Bugliosi on this one...

Why does there need to be an "explanation", and what makes your unsupported statement " more likely" ?

The library books were turned in on October 3rd. Seems to be accepted by the Warren Commission.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 09, 2020, 05:49:01 AM
]
Thanks Steve, you might be right. However Jerry makes it clear that the books found in the rooming house were not the same ones that LHO checked out in New Orleans. And Bugliosi’s claim appears to suggest that they were. Uncharacteristically sloppy work by Bugliosi...

Very characteristic.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Why does there need to be an "explanation", and what makes your unsupported statement " more likely" ?

The library books were turned in on October 3rd. Seems to be accepted by the Warren Commission.

Why does there need to be an "explanation", and what makes your unsupported statement " more likely" ?

The claim that I responded to WAS an (unlikely) explanation. Here it is again:

Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.

Margaret’s explanation states that “someone returned them...on Oct 3rd.” The SS report (CE 2650) only states that “card shows return date [10/3/63].” It most definitely does not state that “someone returned them on 10/3/63.”

Margaret’s explanation states that “This HAS to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico.” My contention is that it doesn’t HAVE  to be proof of that. She is jumping to an ad hoc conclusion. She doesn’t allow for ANY other possible explanations.

There are several possible scenarios in which the library could have processed the books a few days after they were actually returned. Here is one: The books were placed in an after-hours return (because LHO left town in a hurry). Consequently, the books were simply not processed until 10/3/63 because they were separate from others (that were returned to the desk during operating hours) and were neglected or forgotten about until 10/3/63. This type of scenario happens quite often in libraries and offices everywhere. Therefore this scenario is much more likely than Margaret’s contention that “someone” was helping LHO. Why aren’t you asking for corroborating evidence of a “helper”?

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 09, 2020, 03:01:54 PM
You raise an interesting point.

Oswald was in Dallas at the TEC ( Texas Employment Commission?) on the 3rd, in Dallas.  And, en route to Dallas, from Nuevo Laredo, on the 2nd.
For the record, the 2nd and 3rd were weekdays, not weekends, so there is no possible "after hours/holidaySunday closure" explanation.

I think the only legitimate conclusion is that someone else returned the library books. Oswald taking the books to Mexico is conjecture, as is the traveling companion suggestion. Possible, but not proven.

Thanks. More info appreciated.

Addendum: New Orleans is 500 miles East/Southeast of Dallas.
And that is an odd mixture of reading material.

For Mr. Collins.
Please above.
Note the word "conjecture".
Also note me, premptively,  "cutting off at the pass" the "aterhours/holidayweekend" excuse.

Oswald, according to Warren Commission report, leaves New Orleans 5 to 6 days before October 3rd. And is in Mexico City on the 1st, and in Dallas, 500 miles away from N.O., on the 2nd.

The OP raised an interesting point.  What does it mean?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 09, 2020, 07:39:39 PM
For Mr. Collins.
Please above.
Note the word "conjecture".
Also note me, premptively,  "cutting off at the pass" the "aterhours/holidayweekend" excuse.

Oswald, according to Warren Commission report, leaves New Orleans 5 to 6 days before October 3rd. And is in Mexico City on the 1st, and in Dallas, 500 miles away from N.O., on the 2nd.

The OP raised an interesting point.  What does it mean?


For the record, the 2nd and 3rd were weekdays, not weekends, so there is no possible "after hours/holidaySunday closure" explanation.

LHO cashed his unemployment check on 9/25/63 (sometime after 8: o’clock am) at a Winn-Dixie store near his apartment. He could have dropped the books at the library that morning before they opened. So it is certainly is possible.

If you disagree, because of the number of days that the books would have been neglected or forgotten about between the 25th and the 10/3, then here is another scenario for you:

LHO could have simply taken the books to the lost and found (or security office) at the bus station in New Orleans and told them that someone else must have left them there. It could have taken the bus station personnel until 10/3/63 to get the books back to the library. There are other possible similar scenarios that could have taken place.

 Yes, it is only conjecture. And we will probably never know for sure exactly what transpired. However, my point is that the evidence does NOT have to be “proof” that LHO had someone helping him with his trip to Mexico City.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 09, 2020, 11:59:00 PM

For the record, the 2nd and 3rd were weekdays, not weekends, so there is no possible "after hours/holidaySunday closure" explanation.

LHO cashed his unemployment check on 9/25/63 (sometime after 8: o’clock am) at a Winn-Dixie store near his apartment. He could have dropped the books at the library that morning before they opened. So it is certainly is possible.

If you disagree, because of the number of days that the books would have been neglected or forgotten about between the 25th and the 10/3, then here is another scenario for you:

LHO could have simply taken the books to the lost and found (or security office) at the bus station in New Orleans and told them that someone else must have left them there. It could have taken the bus station personnel until 10/3/63 to get the books back to the library. There are other possible similar scenarios that could have taken place.

 Yes, it is only conjecture. And we will probably never know for sure exactly what transpired. However, my point is that the evidence does NOT have to be “proof” that LHO had someone helping him with his trip to Mexico City.

Libraries keep close track of when books are returned, because...they charge fines for books returned late.

The evidence provided shows that someone other than LHO returned the books.

Nothing else.

The OP raised an interesting point.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Margaret Kelly on February 10, 2020, 02:24:01 AM
LHO could have simply taken the books to the lost and found (or security office) at the bus station in New Orleans and told them that someone else must have left them there. It could have taken the bus station personnel until 10/3/63 to get the books back to the library. There are other possible similar scenarios that could have taken place.

Possible. But Oswald knew well in advance that he was leaving for Mexico. It looks to me like Oswald was trying to steal these books and carry them in to Cuba never to return them. He pulled a similar episode with the rent lady by leaving and not paying the final 2 weeks rent. Then when he found out he wasn't getting in to Cuba, he was forced to arrange to have them returned. I presume he did this in case the library would track him down and issue a late-penalty.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 10, 2020, 02:43:14 AM
Possible. But Oswald knew well in advance that he was leaving for Mexico. It looks to me like Oswald was trying to steal these books and carry them in to Cuba never to return them. He pulled a similar episode with the rent lady by leaving and not paying the final 2 weeks rent. Then when he found out he wasn't getting in to Cuba, he was forced to arrange to have them returned. I presume he did this in case the library would track him down and issue a late-penalty.

LHO had a lot to do: Ruth Paine’s visit, getting the car packed with all of their belongings, conning the landlord into believing that he wasn’t leaving, sneaking out after dark to avoid his landlord, etc. It is easy to understand that returning the library books was probably not very high on his priority list. And that he either ran out of time and/or forgot about them. He might have even left them in the apartment and the next tenant found them and took them to the library.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2020, 02:49:22 PM
LHO could have simply taken the books to the lost and found (or security office) at the bus station in New Orleans and told them that someone else must have left them there. It could have taken the bus station personnel until 10/3/63 to get the books back to the library. There are other possible similar scenarios that could have taken place.

If you want to make up an alternate scenario, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make it “more likely”.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 10, 2020, 11:00:48 PM
If you want to make up an alternate scenario, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make it “more likely”.

Thanks.

I anticipated a convoluted attempt to downplay the facts.

Let's remember, the Warren Commission shows the books returned October 3rd. And shows Oswald far away starting 5 to 6 days before, as well as several days after that date.

Someone else returned those books. Who? Oswald is a "loner", "lone assassin" etc.
Could be his aunt, uncle, cousins? Or someone else.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 10, 2020, 11:30:31 PM
Thanks.

I anticipated a convoluted attempt to downplay the facts.

Let's remember, the Warren Commission shows the books returned October 3rd. And shows Oswald far away starting 5 to 6 days before, as well as several days after that date.

Someone else returned those books. Who? Oswald is a "loner", "lone assassin" etc.
Could be his aunt, uncle, cousins? Or someone else.

How does any of that prove Oswald shot Kennedy? Oops... sorry, I was just channelling CT Paranoid Central. My bad.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 11, 2020, 12:18:30 AM
How does any of that prove Oswald shot Kennedy? Oops... sorry, I was just channelling CT Paranoid Central. My bad.
Another inestimable contribution from Chapman.
  He might have even left them in the apartment and the next tenant found them and took them to the library.
That got me to checking...
Quote
Clay Shaw trial counsel... MR. DYMOND: Q: Do you know whether Lee Harvey Oswald was living in your house up until the latter part of September, 1963?
MRS. JESSIE GARNERA: Up until between the 21st and 23rd.
Then where was he up until the 26th-27th?
Quote
Q: Did he appear to you to be a talkative person?
A: No, he was not.

Again evidence that Oswald was not likely to be chit-chatting with strangers on a bus.
Quote
Q: Mrs. Garner, after Lee Oswald left, did you have occasion to go into the apartment?
A: Well, after he left, I was sure that he was not coming back, I went in.
Q: And what was the condition of the apartment?
A: Dirty.
Q: In what respects?
A: Well, everything was broken, the icebox door was broken, the mattress was all messed up, the stove was broke, stuff like that.
Q: Was it in a generally dirty condition?
A: Well, it was clean when he got it.
Apparently...Oswald was a slob. No mention of books when cleaning up for the next tenant.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2020, 07:33:36 PM
Another inestimable contribution from Chapman.That got me to checking...Then where was he up until the 26th-27th?
Again evidence that Oswald was not likely to be chit-chatting with strangers on a bus.Apparently...Oswald was a slob. No mention of books when cleaning up for the next tenant.

Maybe the books were on a high shelf in a closet or somewhere else that the landlord didn’t look. And the next tenant found them. I am not claiming that this is what happened. Only that it is a possibility. LHO was seen leaving the apartment on Tuesday evening, the 24th, by neighbor Eric Rogers. He cashed his unemployment check on Wednesday at the Winn-Dixie store near the apartment. My guess as to why the apartment was reportedly in such a wreck is that the landlord had earlier insisted that LHO take down his pro-Castro leaflets he had posted on the screen porch or vacate the apartment. If the reported trashed condition of the apartment is true, then it might have been LHO’s way of expressing his displeasure about having to take them down.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 11, 2020, 07:51:56 PM
"Oswald's books.  LOL."  Let's use CTer logic to travel down this important rabbit hole.  Where is the evidence to satisfy my subjective impossible standard of proof that there is a library in New Orleans, that Oswald ever visited it, that he had a library card, that he ever checked these books out, that these specific books were ever kept at the library, or that they were ever returned?  Where is the chain of custody on these books?  Did anyone check them for prints?  If Oswald's prints were found on them, that doesn't mean he ever checked these books out.  Maybe it was just a matter of chance. He could have picked them up and put them back without checking them out.  Did any eyewitness remember him checking these books out?  Did Marina remember what the covers of each book looked like and the exact date he brought them home?  As a result, it's possible this is all faked by someone for some unspecified purpose that I refuse to explain or even speculate.  I don't have the burden of proof and can just play contrarian arguing nonsense until the end of times.   
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 11, 2020, 08:08:02 PM
"Oswald's books.  LOL."  Let's use CTer logic to travel down this important rabbit hole.  Where is the evidence to satisfy my subjective impossible standard of proof that there is a library in New Orleans, that Oswald ever visited it, that he had a library card, that he ever checked these books out, that these specific books were ever kept at the library, or that they were ever returned?  Where is the chain of custody on these books?  Did anyone check them for prints?  If Oswald's prints were found on them, that doesn't mean he ever checked these books out.  Maybe it was just a matter of chance. He could have picked them up and put them back without checking them out.  Did any eyewitness remember him checking these books out?  Did Marina remember what the covers of each book looked like and the exact date he brought them home?  As a result, it's possible this is all faked by someone for some unspecified purpose that I refuse to explain or even speculate.  I don't have the burden of proof and can just play contrarian arguing nonsense until the end of times.

So many words just to explain that you really don't have a clue who returned the books to the library and that you don't give a damn anyway.

That's not really a big surprise, but what is kinda funny is that you are now questioning information provided by the Warren Commission.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 11, 2020, 08:33:18 PM
So many words just to explain that you really don't have a clue who returned the books to the library and that you don't give a damn anyway.

That's not really a big surprise, but what is kinda funny is that you are now questioning information provided by the Warren Commission.

"Oswald's books.  LOL."  Where is your proof that Oswald checked them out or ever was in possession of these "books?"  Maybe they were confused from some other object made of "paper" like you claim the rifle was confused for some object made of "wood."  Where did he store them in his apartment?  Where is the eyewitness who saw him check them out?  Does Marina remember his having these specific books to the exclusion of any others?  Can she describe them in detail?  These are just the kinds of questions and claims certain kooks insist must answered in regard to the rifle and other evidence.  I guess you don't care for that line of reasoning, though, unless it fits your desired outcome.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 11, 2020, 09:50:20 PM
If you want to make up an alternate scenario, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make it “more likely”.

Here is the scenario that is in the original post:

Someone then returned them to the New Orleans library on Oct 3rd (at a time when LHO was on his way to Dallas from Mexico). This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.

Here is another common scenario that happens quite often in many places:

LHO could have returned the books to another branch of the library system (one near the bus station, for example). Typically library systems shuffle books to and from branches via their own vehicles. It usually takes several days to accomplish the transfers of books due to their scheduled routes that cover the various libraries involved. If this was the case, the book would have been checked back in when it arrived back to the branch that LHO checked it out of (a few days after he returned it).

Now if you believe that the common scenarios that I have presented are just as likely as the one in which LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Then you are biased.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 11, 2020, 10:44:46 PM
So many words just to explain that you really don't have a clue who returned the books to the library and that you don't give a damn anyway.
You have to understand how alcoholics think troll.   
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 04:30:44 AM
I don't have the burden of proof and can just play contrarian arguing nonsense until the end of times.

Why yes, “Richard”, yes you can. That’s nothing new. You’ve never accepted a burden of proof for any of the crap you state as fact.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 04:46:01 AM
Now if you believe that the common scenarios that I have presented are just as likely as the one in which LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Then you are biased.

I don’t claim to know what is more likely, but I would suggest that the person who does claim to know, in the absence of any evidence or data of such, is the one exhibiting bias.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2020, 01:22:41 PM
I don’t claim to know what is more likely, but I would suggest that the person who does claim to know, in the absence of any evidence or data of such, is the one exhibiting bias.

It’s called common sense, not bias.

Since, after extensive investigations over the past 56 plus years, no credible evidence indicates LHO had an assistant helping him with his trip to Mexico City and there are several common everyday scenarios that would also explain this, it is extremely unlikely that the books’ return date on the cards is proof that he did (have an assistant). Because the scenarios that I have presented are common, everyday occurrences, the likelihood that one of these scenarios is what happened is much higher.

And based on experiences in the past here in this forum, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever convince you of anything.

Common sense...
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 12, 2020, 03:25:26 PM
So, Oswald, before leaving for Mexico City, and then, supposedly, Cuba and, eventually, the USSSR, perhaps permanently, takes the time to arrange for someone to return his library books, on time, because..he is worried about library fines, and/or charges for book replacement?
 
Ok.

Or, maybe, the whole Mexico City trip is just a theater piece, designed to make the Cubans, Soviets, CIA ( gee guys, you didn't notice LHO during his 3 visits to those embassies?) all go into " Incoming! CYA " mode?

Note: Above is conjecture; CYA is " cover your a#@".
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 12, 2020, 06:08:47 PM
So, Oswald, before leaving for Mexico City, and then, supposedly, Cuba and, eventually, the USSSR, perhaps permanently, takes the time to arrange for someone to return his library books, on time, because..he is worried about library fines, and/or charges for book replacement?
 
Ok.



I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2020, 06:13:47 PM
I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.

The original post does. That is what I responded to and then got deluged with questions, etc.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 07:08:51 PM
It’s called common sense, not bias.

That's what everyone calls his own unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.

Quote
Since, after extensive investigations over the past 56 plus years, no credible evidence indicates LHO had an assistant helping him with his trip to Mexico City

And "credible" is used to disregard data that doesn't fit into one's unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.  Like the surveillance photos of other men, and the imposter phone calls that the CIA recorded.

Quote
and there are several common everyday scenarios that would also explain this, it is extremely unlikely that the books’ return date on the cards is proof that he did (have an assistant).

There's nothing we actually know that makes this "extremely unlikely".  The info from the library just says "return date".

Quote
And based on experiences in the past here in this forum, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever convince you of anything.

Perhaps if they came up with better evidence than "common sense"...
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 07:11:38 PM
CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.

Only clear to people who seize on rhetoric to suggest false certainty.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2020, 07:37:13 PM
It’s called common sense, not bias.

Since, after extensive investigations over the past 56 plus years, no credible evidence indicates LHO had an assistant helping him with his trip to Mexico City and there are several common everyday scenarios that would also explain this, it is extremely unlikely that the books’ return date on the cards is proof that he did (have an assistant). Because the scenarios that I have presented are common, everyday occurrences, the likelihood that one of these scenarios is what happened is much higher.

And based on experiences in the past here in this forum, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever convince you of anything.

Common sense...

It’s called common sense, not bias

It's biased common sense
There's no universal 'common' sense

Crack open a dictionary, people
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 12, 2020, 08:02:14 PM
I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.

Who returned the books?
Who was this person - in relation to Oswald?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 12, 2020, 08:18:29 PM
Who returned the books?
Who was this person - in relation to Oswald?

Who knows?  What difference does it make that no one can verify five decades after the fact who took some library books back?  Plausible possibilities have been noted several times that do not involve Oswald.  The evidence confirms Oswald was in Mexico City regardless of how his books got back to the library.  And that is where things will stand until doomsday.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2020, 08:50:30 PM
It’s called common sense, not bias

It's biased common sense
There's no universal 'common' sense

Crack open a dictionary, people

From The Oxford Dictionary:

com·mon sense
/ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
"a common-sense approach"


Sorry Bill, but I don’t see anything about it being biased.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2020, 09:14:50 PM
That's what everyone calls his own unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.

And "credible" is used to disregard data that doesn't fit into one's unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.  Like the surveillance photos of other men, and the imposter phone calls that the CIA recorded.

There's nothing we actually know that makes this "extremely unlikely".  The info from the library just says "return date".

Perhaps if they came up with better evidence than "common sense"...

That's what everyone calls his own unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.

Definition (FYI):

com·mon sense
/ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
"a common-sense approach"


And "credible" is used to disregard data that doesn't fit into one's unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.  Like the surveillance photos of other men, and the imposter phone calls that the CIA recorded.

Definition (FYI):

cred·i·ble
/ˈkredəb(ə)l/
 
adjective: credible
able to be believed; convincing.
"few people found his story credible”
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 10:18:13 PM
Who knows?  What difference does it make that no one can verify five decades after the fact who took some library books back?

What difference does it make that no one can verify five decades after the fact who killed JFK?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 10:19:11 PM
Sorry Bill, but I don’t see anything about it being biased.

The bias lies in labeling your own conjecture "common sense".
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 12, 2020, 10:21:39 PM
adjective: credible
able to be believed; convincing.
"few people found his story credible”

Convincing to whom though?  Bias influences whether or how you find something convincing.  For example, some people here find Donald Trump to be a credible president.

Not for any good reason though.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 12, 2020, 10:29:14 PM
From The Oxford Dictionary:

com·mon sense
/ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
"a common-sense approach"


Sorry Bill, but I don’t see anything about it being biased.

Although I agree with your posted definitions of common sense to a degree, they are merely scraping the surface. A deeper investigation in regards the logic of the term is necessary.

I looked the term up a couple of years ago. I don't think I've used it myself since that time, and cringe a bit when others use it. I fall into the 'whatever that means' camp.

I find the following a fascinating study of the subject:

Common Sense
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_sense

EDIT: 6:08pm EST
Additionally, I doubt whether the term would be allowed in formal debate
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 12, 2020, 11:22:07 PM
Convincing to whom though?  Bias influences whether or how you find something convincing.  For example, some people here find Donald Trump to be a credible president.

Not for any good reason though.

Bias can influence it, but not necessarily.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 13, 2020, 12:21:19 AM
From The Oxford Dictionary:

com·mon sense
/ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
"a common-sense approach"


Sorry Bill, but I don’t see anything about it being biased.

Good sense and sound judgment is subjective and mostly based upon preconcieved ideas.

It's impossible for any human person to be 100% neutral and completely free of bias.

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2020, 01:02:27 AM
Although I agree with your posted definitions of common sense to a degree, they are merely scraping the surface. A deeper investigation in regards the logic of the term is necessary.

I looked the term up a couple of years ago. I don't think I've used it myself since that time, and cringe a bit when others use it. I fall into the 'whatever that means' camp.

I find the following a fascinating study of the subject:

Common Sense
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_sense

EDIT: 6:08pm EST
Additionally, I doubt whether the term would be allowed in formal debate

Thanks for the link Bill. Here are a couple of paragraphs that I selected:

Common sense plays a role in science. If there are two possibilities that could both be true, it is accepted by science that the most simple, most "common sense" answer is the place to start, and until or unless it is disproved or "wobbly,"[4] it should be given more weight than an answer that breaks common sense until more evidence can be gathered. Mostly this is settled by Occam's Razor, in which case the preferred answer is the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

The bolded emphasis was added by me. To me “more weight” would be because it is “more likely.”


This paragraph is from the article linked to the Occam’s Razor link:

Its scientific application is to select priority between developing theories of equal predictive power. The "simpler" theory with fewer (or less onerous) assumptions is probably the most appropriate one. For example, if you see hoof-prints on your local walking trail, think horses, not Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 13, 2020, 02:52:55 AM
If everybody is finished with the philosophical cream and cherries...who returned the books?   :-\
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 13, 2020, 07:26:26 AM
Thanks for the link Bill. Here are a couple of paragraphs that I selected:

Common sense plays a role in science. If there are two possibilities that could both be true, it is accepted by science that the most simple, most "common sense" answer is the place to start, and until or unless it is disproved or "wobbly,"[4] it should be given more weight than an answer that breaks common sense until more evidence can be gathered. Mostly this is settled by Occam's Razor, in which case the preferred answer is the one that requires the fewest assumptions.

The bolded emphasis was added by me. To me “more weight” would be because it is “more likely.”


This paragraph is from the article linked to the Occam’s Razor link:

Its scientific application is to select priority between developing theories of equal predictive power. The "simpler" theory with fewer (or less onerous) assumptions is probably the most appropriate one. For example, if you see hoof-prints on your local walking trail, think horses, not Invisible Pink Unicorns.

I'm an artist and coming upon hoof prints might well trigger my imagination to make visible your 'pink unicorns'

What you've added dovetails back to bias in my view. I maintain that, for all intents & purposes, it's impossible to remain bias-free.
> To wit:'Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen' -  attributed to A. Einstein

Charles: That's a wrap: I'll not continue this particular subject any longer on this thread. Nevertheless, it's an extremely important issue here in my view; in fact it could be argued that it is the main cause of the rancor & differences between the two camps.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2020, 11:52:45 AM
I'm an artist and coming upon hoof prints might well trigger my imagination to make visible your 'pink unicorns'

What you've added dovetails back to bias in my view. I maintain that, for all intents & purposes, it's impossible to remain bias-free.
> To wit:'Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen' -  attributed to A. Einstein

Charles: That's a wrap: I'll not continue this particular subject any longer on this thread. Nevertheless, it's an extremely important issue here in my view; in fact it could be argued that it is the main cause of the rancor & differences between the two camps.

Einstein also said:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

And:

Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.

But you have to put some of his quotes into context. They make more sense when viewed from the perspective of a theoretical physicist.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 13, 2020, 02:26:22 PM
If everybody is finished with the philosophical cream and cherries...who returned the books?   :-\

Let's assume that after five decades that no one can ever prove with absolute certainty how these books were returned.  Now what?  It does not mean by default that Oswald was in New Orleans and returned them.  There are any number of plausible explanations that do not involve Oswald.  Those have been noted several times.  The evidence demonstrates that Oswald was elsewhere.  He can't be in two places at once.  So someone returned them on his behalf or there was some delay in processing that none of us can ever uncover even if we dwell on this pedantic issue until the end of times.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2020, 04:16:24 PM
I'm an artist and coming upon hoof prints might well trigger my imagination to make visible your 'pink unicorns'

What you've added dovetails back to bias in my view. I maintain that, for all intents & purposes, it's impossible to remain bias-free.
> To wit:'Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen' -  attributed to A. Einstein

Charles: That's a wrap: I'll not continue this particular subject any longer on this thread. Nevertheless, it's an extremely important issue here in my view; in fact it could be argued that it is the main cause of the rancor & differences between the two camps.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 13, 2020, 07:29:44 PM
Let's assume that after five decades that no one can ever prove with absolute certainty how these books were returned.  Now what?  It does not mean by default that Oswald was in New Orleans and returned them.  There are any number of plausible explanations that do not involve Oswald.  Those have been noted several times.  The evidence demonstrates that Oswald was elsewhere.  He can't be in two places at once.  So someone returned them on his behalf or there was some delay in processing that none of us can ever uncover even if we dwell on this pedantic issue until the end of times.

plausible explanations  ok.

Someone else returned the books.  Not "plausible".  Easiest, simplest explanation. 
Occam and all that.  :)
Good enough for the Warren Commission to accept.

Now, who was that?
Why, if Oswald allegedly believes he is off to Mexico City, Cuba, USSR, does he, or some acquaintance(s) give a rat's a@# about library books?


Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 13, 2020, 11:44:08 PM
plausible explanations  ok.

Someone else returned the books.  Not "plausible".  Easiest, simplest explanation. 
Occam and all that.  :)
Good enough for the Warren Commission to accept.

Now, who was that?
Why, if Oswald allegedly believes he is off to Mexico City, Cuba, USSR, does he, or some acquaintance(s) give a rat's a@# about library books?

I’m pretty sure that it has been decided that the invisible (or visible if you prefer) pink unicorns returned the books...
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 14, 2020, 12:15:34 AM
October 3, 1963 was a Thursday and according to various pieces of evidence - eyewitness and documents - Oswald was in Dallas after having returned from Mexico City.

He checked in that morning afternoon at the local YMCA - he registered as a serviceman to avoid paying the registration fee - then went to the Texas Unemployment Division Employment Commission to obtain an unemployment check (it was for $6) and to get help finding a job. He had been there before in 1962 when he first arrived in Ft. Worth from the Soviet Union. He and/or someone else (the writing looks like it was two people or was done over numerous months) filled out or updated the various forms and listed the Paine address as his home address.

A work history/resume form was filled out/updated at the unemployment office and is here (a 10-3-63 date is on the bottom right): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0208a.htm

He listed the Paine address in Irving as his home (a 10-3-63 date is at the top): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0106a.htm

He signed the application/resume/work history here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0106b.htm

Oswald's claims records showing he received a $6 unemployment claim on October 3, 1963 is here:  https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0105b.htm

Shorter: Oswald was in Dallas on October 3.

If the real Oswald was in New Orleans dropping off library books then he was impersonated in Mexico City and then impersonated here in Dallas for some inexplicable reason. Or he was really in Dallas and the October 3 date indicates someone else returned them or some other innocent explanation such as they were processed later. Which makes more sense?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 14, 2020, 01:58:27 AM
The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vintage-library-due-date-card-attached-to-yellowed-book-page-still-original-one-stamps-off-partially-stamped-116223260.jpg)
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Mytton on February 14, 2020, 02:14:59 AM
The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vintage-library-due-date-card-attached-to-yellowed-book-page-still-original-one-stamps-off-partially-stamped-116223260.jpg)

 Thumb1:

JohnM
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 14, 2020, 03:04:57 AM
The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vintage-library-due-date-card-attached-to-yellowed-book-page-still-original-one-stamps-off-partially-stamped-116223260.jpg)

That makes sense and agrees with the titles of the respective columns in the list in the original post of this thread. The other column title reads “date would have been checked out.” Good work Jerry!

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Mytton on February 14, 2020, 07:33:46 AM
That makes sense and agrees with the titles of the respective columns in the list in the original post of this thread. The other column title reads “date would have been checked out.” Good work Jerry!

Yep!

(https://i.ibb.co/N9jzn9q/Oswald-Library-Books.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVyJF0vk/5457590626-764704e39d-z.jpg)

JohnM

Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 14, 2020, 11:27:37 PM
The document doesn’t say “date due”, it says ”return date”.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 15, 2020, 03:49:50 AM
 
The document doesn’t say “date due”, it says ”return date”.
That would be the same thing John---Jerry is correct...
The "Return Date" would have been stamped on the card in the back of the book when it was checked out. Typically a date two weeks from the day it was checked out. It was not necessarily the date the book was actually returned.
So it looks like this whole thread was a chase after wild fowl :D
Apparently...Oswald was a speed reader.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 16, 2020, 05:23:25 PM
The memo says: "Card shows return date" rather than just "return date".  A big difference.  It means the "return date" is established from the "card."  And that seems to further confirm Jerry O's theory that it means the due date and not the date actually returned.  Another conspiracy myth busted.

It's interesting that Oswald read "The Huey Long Murder Case" by Hermann B. Deutsch.  A case in which there are disputes over whether Long was killed by an assassin or accidentally shot by his own bodyguards.   
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 17, 2020, 05:06:08 AM
I’m not sure how Jerry’s photo of a random library book due date slip tells you anything about Oswald’s library books.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 17, 2020, 03:08:51 PM
LOL.  Do you think Oswald returned every book that he checked out precisely two weeks later?  A logical inference strongly suggests that this reflects the due date. 
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 17, 2020, 05:28:48 PM
It’s not at all unusual to think that Oswald kept his books until they had to be returned.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 18, 2020, 04:38:29 PM
LOL.  Do you think Oswald returned every book that he checked out precisely two weeks later?  A logical inference strongly suggests that this reflects the due date.
The information provided by the WC in the OP is incomplete, and the wording is ambiguous.
"Return date" suggests the date the books were returned. "Due date" would be a different matter.
Reading the entire Commission Exhibit on this matter, we learn that the New Orleans public library system (supposedly) does not keep detailed records on patrons' activities.
No further effort seems to have been made to discover the actual library activity of Oswald. Why?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 18, 2020, 06:42:21 PM
The information provided by the WC in the OP is incomplete, and the wording is ambiguous.
"Return date" suggests the date the books were returned. "Due date" would be a different matter.
Reading the entire Commission Exhibit on this matter, we learn that the New Orleans public library system (supposedly) does not keep detailed records on patrons' activities.
No further effort seems to have been made to discover the actual library activity of Oswald. Why?

Again, the memo doesn't say "Return Date."  It says "Card Shows Return Date."  The "card" in a library book shows the due date.  That is bolstered by the fact that the dates noted are exactly two weeks from the day that the book was checked out.  The due date would be some fixed period of time like two weeks. Or do you think Oswald returned every book he checked out exactly two weeks later to the day?  LOL.  That seems to resolve this mystery.  How do you know no further effort was made to discover the actual library activity (btw that question seems to presume that this record shows the due date otherwise it would reflect his "actual library activity)?  How would they know, for example, that the NO library didn't keep detailed records if they made no efforts to obtain them?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 12:25:15 AM
Again, the memo doesn't say "Return Date."  It says "Card Shows Return Date."  The "card" in a library book shows the due date.

The memo doesn’t say that the card being referred to was a card inside the book showing a due date. That’s pure speculation.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 11:31:40 AM
The memo doesn’t say that the card being referred to was a card inside the book showing a due date. That’s pure speculation.

Here is how a typical manual system (before computerization) worked:

When I checked out books as a kid in New York in the 1950s, as I recall they would put the book, open to the card holder page, and your library card together in a machine that would photograph them both together. This would provide their record of who had checked out the book. They would put a stamped card in the pocket in the book to let you know when it was due. IIRC correctly, they retained the card that was in the pocket in the book in a file. (I would guess they were filed by due date.) When you brought the book back, they could find the card in the file to see if it was overdue. They could also look up overdue books and match them to the photo to see who had them out.

The report shown in the original post in this thread is from the Secret Service. They would have most likely reviewed the microfilms of the library to determine which books were checked out by LHO. With this type of system, the due date is what would have been stamped on the card and photographed. With this type of system, there was no record of when the books were actually returned. The due date is what was recorded. Whoever wrote the SS list used the word return instead of due. You are arguing semantics.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 02:04:39 PM
...and you (again) are arguing that something is “most likely” based on nothing other than that you think it makes sense.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 02:13:11 PM
...and you (again) are arguing that something is “most likely” based on nothing other than that you think it makes sense.

No, I am saying that that IS the way that the library system worked. Now if you have evidence that the N.O. library system worked differently and actually had records of the actual return dates, then YOU might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you don’t.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 02:39:38 PM
Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?

How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 19, 2020, 03:09:11 PM
No, I am saying that that IS the way that the library system worked. Now if you have evidence that the N.O. library system worked differently and actually had records of the actual return dates, then YOU might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you don’t.
CE 2560 does indicate a delinquency on Oswald's part, regarding a Dallas public library book.
There is no mention of any investigation into New Orleans library delinquencies.
The entire "investigation " seems rather perfunctory, a.k.a. CYA.

A little googling reveals that some libraries used an Adressograph system, similar to the old credit card system. Not sure of the validity of your "photograph " anecdote.

Conclusion: CE 2560 shows the "due date" of Oswald's library books. When they were actually returned is lost in time...like tears in rain. : )

Aside:  Oswald's overdue Dallas library book, The Shark and The Sardines looks to be a great read. Who better than the ex president ( first democratically elected, to boot) of Guatemala to recount U.S. oppression ( including the 1954 CIA coup de etat) of his country?
This only adds to the enigma of Oswald re: his reading material and actual political beliefs. Spy books glamorizing Western agents of the establishment, and progressive, anti imperialist screeds?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 03:29:26 PM
Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?

How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?


How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?

They don't need the actual return dates to administer overdue fines. They typically keep the cards and file them by due (return) dates. And, if a card is still in a certain date's (for instance 10/3/63) file on 10/4/63, after all the books that were returned prior to 10/4/63 have been processed (the cards taken out of the file and placed back in the pockets inside the books and returned back to the shelves) then the books that correspond with those cards are overdue. The librarian can then look up those cards on the microfilm and send out reminders to the borrowers. Therefore the actual return date(s) of the books that anyone borrowed (including LHO) is unknown. We only have evidence that they were returned before 10/4/63.


Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?


No, that is not necessary because the actual return dates were not available under the standard library systems in use during that time period (see above response). If you contend that it was the actual return date, then you need to show evidence that that information was available. Example: the New Orleans Library system used a different system than the standard system for libraries elsewhere which included the actual return dates.

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?


I have evidence that the actual return dates were not available. Therefore it is not conjecture.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 03:40:45 PM
CE 2560 does indicate a delinquency on Oswald's part, regarding a Dallas public library book.
There is no mention of any investigation into New Orleans library delinquencies.
The entire "investigation " seems rather perfunctory, a.k.a. CYA.

A little googling reveals that some libraries used an Adressograph system, similar to the old credit card system. Not sure of the validity of your "photograph " anecdote.

Conclusion: CE 2560 shows the "due date" of Oswald's library books. When they were actually returned is lost in time...like tears in rain. : )

Aside:  Oswald's overdue Dallas library book, The Shark and The Sardines looks to be a great read. Who better than the ex president ( first democratically elected, to boot) of Guatemala to recount U.S. oppression ( including the 1954 CIA coup de etat) of his country?
This only adds to the enigma of Oswald re: his reading material and actual political beliefs. Spy books glamorizing Western agents of the establishment, and progressive, anti imperialist screeds?

The book "The Shark and the Sardines" was probably the last library book that LHO checked out of the library. It is available on Kindle for a very reasonable price. However, it was a difficult read for me. Mostly because it was full of redundancy and ideas that I simply disagreed with. It did, however, have plenty of fuel to add to the fire in LHO due to his dislike of the political system in the U.S. and his perception of it's mistreatment of Cuba and Latin America in general.

 Now, for the mystery seekers out there: who returned that library book to the Oakcliff Library after LHO was murdered???
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 05:53:52 PM
They don't need the actual return dates to administer overdue fines. They typically keep the cards and file them by due (return) dates. And, if a card is still in a certain date's (for instance 10/3/63) file on 10/4/63, after all the books that were returned prior to 10/4/63 have been processed (the cards taken out of the file and placed back in the pockets inside the books and returned back to the shelves) then the books that correspond with those cards are overdue. The librarian can then look up those cards on the microfilm and send out reminders to the borrowers. Therefore the actual return date(s) of the books that anyone borrowed (including LHO) is unknown. We only have evidence that they were returned before 10/4/63.

Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.

Quote
No, that is not necessary because the actual return dates were not available under the standard library systems in use during that time period (see above response).

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.

Quote
I have evidence that the actual return dates were not available. Therefore it is not conjecture.

What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 06:44:21 PM
Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.

What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?


Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.


No, they did not need the actual return date (unless the book became overdue). And in that case, all they needed was how many days it was late (after the due/return date). And they had the due/return date information by using the standard system already described. The elapsed days between the return/due date and when the book(s) were returned was multiplied by the per day rate. Why do you believe they would have gone to the trouble to track unnecessary information?

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.


My contemporaries and I grew up using the manual system and remember how it worked. It was THE standard system used before computerization, not just a single example as you imply. If you believe there was another system (that included the actual return dates) in use back then in the New Orleans Library System, then where is your evidence of such a system? Otherwise, you are the one assuming something that was not at all common.


What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?

The standard manual library system did not have that information. The SS report list shows every "return date" as exactly two-weeks from the "date would have been checked out," which is evidence and consistent with the case that the New Orleans Library System used that type of system. What is your evidence that the New Orleans Library System used a system that did have that information?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 06:54:34 PM
No, they did not need the actual return date (unless the book became overdue). And in that case, all they needed was how many days it was late (after the due/return date). And they had the due/return date information by using the standard system already described. The elapsed days between the return/due date and when the book(s) were returned was multiplied by the per day rate. Why do you believe they would have gone to the trouble to track unnecessary information?

It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

Quote
My contemporaries and I grew up using the manual system and remember how it worked. It was THE standard system used before computerization, not just a single example as you imply.

I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used.  Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 08:13:26 PM
It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used. 


It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

If they charged a late fee and you challenged it, then they would have the actual return date recorded (along with the late fee). They wouldn't have discarded any information period. They just do not need the actual return date unless the book becomes overdue. And it would be extra time and work to manually record the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due/return date. Challenge: Show me an example of exactly how and where you believe that this extra date was recorded. Personally, I have used libraries all my life and have never needed to question the return date of anything.


I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used.  Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".

I do remember when the libraries started using the microfilm method of documenting check-outs. Larger library systems in the larger cities (like New York) likely had microfilm in use before smaller towns. Before that, we signed our names on the cards. There are slight variations (similar to these) from place to place. But they all functioned basically the same way. Computerization brought along automated information. The books have bar codes which are typically simply scanned when checked out or in, therefore the extra information is typically automatically recorded without extra work by the librarians.

Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".


Based on all the evidence (not just guessing) that I and others have specified; in the SS memo, the return date is synonymous with the due date. You are smarter than you are pretending to be. You just don't like admitting when you are wrong.

My initial response to this thread was to indicate that this: [This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.] is not true. Do you really think it is true?
 
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 08:34:28 PM
If they charged a late fee and you challenged it, then they would have the actual return date recorded (along with the late fee). They wouldn't have discarded any information period. They just do not need the actual return date unless the book becomes overdue. And it would be extra time and work to manually record the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due/return date.

How do you know that any of Oswald's books were returned on or before the due dates, since you don't know the actual due dates?

Quote
Challenge: Show me an example of exactly how and where you believe that this extra date was recorded.

Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

Quote
I do remember when the libraries started using the microfilm method of documenting check-outs. Larger library systems in the larger cities (like New York) likely had microfilm in use before smaller towns. Before that, we signed our names on the cards. There are slight variations (similar to these) from place to place. But they all functioned basically the same way.

The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.

Quote
Based on all the evidence (not just guessing) that I and others have specified; in the SS memo, the return date is synonymous with the due date. You are smarter than you are pretending to be. You just don't like admitting when you are wrong.

It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

Quote
My initial response to this thread was to indicate that this: [This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.] is not true. Do you really think it is true?

What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 19, 2020, 09:31:36 PM
How do you know that any of Oswald's books were returned on or before the due dates, since you don't know the actual due dates?

Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.

It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.


Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

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.


The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.

(https://www.sjpl.org/sites/default/files/images-legacy/1960s%20library%20card.jpg)

So, did your embossed library card magically record the actual return date in some mysterious place (or what)? Like the credit cards of that era, it just had account numbers, etc embossed on it. So what is the big deal about it. And going from memory, LHO's library card wasn't embossed.


It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

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


What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.

We have other evidence than just the memo. That is not "all we have."
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2020, 11:15:22 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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".

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

Such as?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 20, 2020, 12:03:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 12:16:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 20, 2020, 12:23:59 AM
"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." 
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 01:33:15 AM
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
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 07:59:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 08:01:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 01:08:24 PM
No evidence has been cited in this thread other than the Mosk memo and some conjecture and personal anecdotes.

Your contrarian attitude has you blinded.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 03:36:58 PM
Your contrarian attitude has you blinded.

"Contrarian" is a bogus label meant to try to absolve oneself from having a burden of proof for his claims.

"You just just accept my 'common sense' argument as 'evidence' or else you're being a 'contrarian'"

Yes I am.  Your argument is contrary to the actual facts and evidence.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 03:58:16 PM
"Contrarian" is a bogus label meant to try to absolve oneself from having a burden of proof for his claims.

"You just just accept my 'common sense' argument as 'evidence' or else you're being a 'contrarian'"

Yes I am.  Your argument is contrary to the actual facts and evidence.


"Contrarian" is a bogus label meant to try to absolve oneself from having a burden of proof for his claims.

That might be your definition. But the actual fact of the matter is:

A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view.

Your blindness and wayward opinion has you lost out in left field somewhere.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/business-commerce-contrarian_funds-contrarian_investor-contrarian_investing-strategy-investments-hscn2732_low.jpg)
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 04:44:00 PM
A contrarian is someone who takes an opposing view, especially for the sake of being difficult, contentious or in opposition to the generally held view.

Well then that would be another unfounded assumption made by you, because you're under the impression that your opinions automatically constitute the "generally held view".  And/or that if a view is "generally held", that makes it automatically true.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Tonkovich on February 20, 2020, 05:00:31 PM
Since I am an "old" , and do remember checking out books in the late 1960s, I can testify that records were kept of overdue books, since there were fines assessed for tardiness. (5 cents a day, perhaps?)

The Commission document notes a Dallas library delinquency on Oswald's part.

No mention of New Orleans' delinquencies, nor mention of any investigation therein.

Any objections to the above statements?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 05:14:23 PM
Well then that would be another unfounded assumption made by you, because you're under the impression that your opinions automatically constitute the "generally held view".  And/or that if a view is "generally held", that makes it automatically true.

You disagree with practically everyone here about whatever. You fit the definition to a tee.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 05:25:43 PM
You disagree with practically everyone here about whatever. You fit the definition to a tee.

Only people who make claims that they can't support with actual evidence.

You seem to have a problem being disagreed with.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 05:59:07 PM
Only people who make claims that they can't support with actual evidence.

You seem to have a problem being disagreed with.

You have turned a blind eye towards the already cited evidence.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Richard Smith on February 20, 2020, 07:11:08 PM
Using the contrarian's version of logic as applied to any evidence that points to Oswald's guilt in this case, we must have the original library documents (not even copies), a chain of custody (they love that phrase), the recollection of the clerk from whom Oswald checked out the books confirming that he did so, prints on the books in question, and Oswald's motive for checking out these particular books.   Unless that is established beyond any doubt then the return date is moot because there is "no evidence" Oswald ever actually checked out any books from the library.  All we have is "speculation" and "assumptions."   Henceforth they can be referred to as "Oswald's books.  LOL". 
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 07:38:06 PM
You have turned a blind eye towards the already cited evidence.

Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 07:56:10 PM
Using the contrarian's version of logic as applied to any evidence that points to Oswald's guilt in this case, we must have the original library documents (not even copies), a chain of custody (they love that phrase), the recollection of the clerk from whom Oswald checked out the books confirming that he did so, prints on the books in question, and Oswald's motive for checking out these particular books.

"Richard's" standard false equivalence game.  Nobody's guilt or innocence of murder hinges on who checked out a library book, or when it was returned or by whom. So if you don't want to believe that there is sufficient evidence to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald checked out these books then I don't really give a damn.  You're just helping to make my point about the difference between assumptions and evidence.  It's not like the New Orleans public library records help us determine who killed JFK, so what difference does it make?
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: Charles Collins on February 20, 2020, 09:00:06 PM
Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".

Here is your original claim:

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


First it was the entire thread:

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


Now you want to change it to my evidence:

Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".


The entire thread is full of relevant evidence. WC testimony, Texas history unit archives, unemployment records, stamped library book card, calendar, link to a discussion on another internet board regarding exactly how the old manual library systems worked (with many examples, none of which included the actual return date of books returned on or before the due dates). Here are some quotes from this thread that either include this evidence or a response that disagrees with your position and demonstrates how far out in left field you are.


That would be the same thing John---Jerry is correct...So it looks like this whole thread was a chase after wild fowl :D
Apparently...Oswald was a speed reader.


The memo says: "Card shows return date" rather than just "return date".  A big difference.  It means the "return date" is established from the "card."  And that seems to further confirm Jerry O's theory that it means the due date and not the date actually returned.  Another conspiracy myth busted.

It's interesting that Oswald read "The Huey Long Murder Case" by Hermann B. Deutsch.  A case in which there are disputes over whether Long was killed by an assassin or accidentally shot by his own bodyguards.




LOL.  Do you think Oswald returned every book that he checked out precisely two weeks later?  A logical inference strongly suggests that this reflects the due date.


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




Again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of a public library system in operation in the U.S in 1963 that routinely recorded the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due dates. Unless you can, I am finished with this discussion. Period.
Title: Re: Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2020, 09:13:33 PM
Again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of a public library system in operation in the U.S in 1963 that routinely recorded the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due dates. Unless you can, I am finished with this discussion. Period.

I'm sure you are.  Because none of that is the slightest bit relevant to how Mosk got his "return dates".  It's all one big trip on the speculation bus.