Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[Charles Collins]

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?

[John Iacoletti]

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"?

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".

[Charles Collins]

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?
 

[John Iacoletti]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Charles Collins]

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.



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."

[John Iacoletti]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such as?

[Richard Smith]

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

[John Iacoletti]

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

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