Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Richard Smith]

Why do they need to stay neutral?  There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin.  All the evidence points in that direction.  A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories.  Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination?  That is absurd.

[Andrew Mason]

Why do they need to stay neutral?  There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin.  All the evidence points in that direction.  A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories.  Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination?  That is absurd.

If "impartial" means a lack of bias that is not based on evidence, it would be ok.  After all judges and juries are supposed to be impartial and they often reach pretty definitive conclusions.    However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice. 

[Charles Collins]

Why do they need to stay neutral?  There is no real debate that Oswald was the assassin.  All the evidence points in that direction.  A museum presents facts not crazy, baseless theories.  Does Ford's Theatre need to remain "neutral" about John Wilkes Booth's involvement in the Lincoln assassination?  That is absurd.

Why do they need to stay neutral?


Two good (in my opinion) reasons would be:

1. The same reason that celebrities and entertainers (be it athletes, musicians, actors, etc.) should be publicly neutral (especially regarding political items): in order to try not to alienate a large percentage of their fans (customers). The Sixth Floor Museum is a for-profit business. And it makes good business sense to not alienate their potential customers by taking one side or the other. The controversy surrounding the assassination generates a large percentage of the interest that potential visitors to the museum have. So having an ongoing controversy is good for their business. Why would they want to state their opinion? Taking a side, either way, would tend to discourage potential customers (the ones that feel strongly that the opposite side is correct) from wanting to visit the museum.

2. Public opinions change over time. But factual information does not. Presenting the facts impartially is not only ethical, but insures that the museum will stay relevant even if the public opinions change years from now.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Unfortunately because of anti-American leftwingers like Oliver Stone (like the leftist Mark Lane earlier who ruined the thinking of thousands of college kids) and his disgraceful movie "JFK" - which was widely praised and shown around the world - many younger Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The movie was shown in history classes in public schools at the time of its release. Maybe it still is. So I think the Museum has to at least indirectly if not directly mention this fact and present - fairly but not uncritically - the major theories, e.g., grassy knoll shooter.

As we know since the assassination more than half - sometimes up to 70% of Americans - believed there was a conspiracy. And many people around the world also believe there was a conspiracy. Earl Warren said that after the release of the WC report that when he went overseas to lecture or give speeches that he often received critical questions about the report. People in Europe, for example, simply didn't believe the lone assassin explanation. Fred Litwin talked about leftwing Canadians using the CBS CBC (the Canadian national TV network) to promote these conspiracy claims.

So, again unfortunately I don't think the Museum can ignore the overall conspiracy view, a view that is probably held by most people and not just Americans. This is not like the Lincoln assassination.

[Charles Collins]

If "impartial" means a lack of bias that is not based on evidence, it would be ok.  After all judges and juries are supposed to be impartial and they often reach pretty definitive conclusions.    However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.

However, if by impartial it means that the museum does not take a stand and provide historically accurate information e.g does not provide the evidence that Oswald shot JFK and Officer Tippet and does not mention the lack of evidence that anyone else did, then it is doing an historical disservice.

That would not be impartial, period.

[Charles Collins]

Unfortunately because of anti-American leftwingers like Oliver Stone (like the leftist Mark Lane earlier who ruined the thinking of thousands of college kids) and his disgraceful movie "JFK" - which was widely praised and shown around the world - many younger Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The movie was shown in history classes in public schools at the time of its release. Maybe it still is. So I think the Museum has to at least indirectly if not directly mention this fact and present - fairly but not uncritically - the major theories, e.g., grassy knoll shooter.

As we know since the assassination more than half - sometimes up to 70% of Americans - believed there was a conspiracy. And many people around the world also believe there was a conspiracy. Earl Warren said that after the release of the WC report that when he went overseas to lecture or give speeches that he often received critical questions about the report. People in Europe, for example, simply didn't believe the lone assassin explanation. Fred Litwin talked about leftwing Canadians using the CBS to promote these conspiracy claims.

So, again unfortunately I don't think the Museum can ignore the overall conspiracy view, a view that is probably held by most people and not just Americans. This is not like the Lincoln assassination.

Exactly.

And don’t forget that the interest in the museum (and visitation numbers) increased dramatically because of the popularity of Stone’s movie. But that doesn’t mean that the museum should endorse the film as being totally factual. Just answer the conspiratorial type of questions that arise impartially and with as much factual information as possible. That is easier said than done, I know. But that is their apparent goal.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Exactly.

And don’t forget that the interest in the museum (and visitation numbers) increased dramatically because of the popularity of Stone’s movie. But that doesn’t mean that the museum should endorse the film as being totally factual. Just answer the conspiratorial type of questions that arise impartially and with as much factual information as possible. That is easier said than done, I know. But that is their apparent goal.

Yes, they simply can't ignore this alternative view although I guess we lone assassin believers are the holders of the "alternative" view right? Let's be honest here: we're sadly in the minority. Not only of Americans but probably "world" opinion (however that's measured).

Lots of Americans think Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of Moscow. And lots think today that Biden stole the election because of voting chicanery by Democrats. Ugh. It's a sad commentary on our times; and a sad commentary about how completely divided we are as a people. But that's another subject for another time.

[Gerry Down]

Lots of Americans think Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of Moscow. And lots think today that Biden stole the election because of voting chicanery by Democrats. Ugh.

How come social media never banned online talk suggesting that Trump stole the 2016 election? Youtube has banned all such talk about Biden stealing this election.