Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[Richard Smith]

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

[Charles Collins]

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

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

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

Such as?

Evidence that has already been cited in this thread.

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

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

[John Iacoletti]

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

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

[John Iacoletti]

Evidence that has already been cited in this thread.

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

[Charles Collins]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Charles Collins]

"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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.