Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[John Tonkovich]

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?

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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”

[John Iacoletti]

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?

[John Iacoletti]

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

The bias lies in labeling your own conjecture "common sense".

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Bill Chapman]

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