Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Richard Smith]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.  We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt.  It is weak sauce.  Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt.  He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.

[Charles Collins]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.  We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt.  It is weak sauce.  Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt.  He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.

It is more like they welcome all questions with equal enthusiasm. They don’t discourage the conspiracy questions by belittling the person asking it. Most of the questions that I have seen are for the guest speakers at a gathering of some type. These are usually eyewitnesses to the assassination and the audience usually has a few CT type questions for them. The museum moderators typically let the eyewitnesses answer for themselves regardless of what their personal opinions might be. It is that type of neutrality that is proper. The museum is not a haven for CTers and the related conjecture. But it doesn’t discourage that stuff by declaring it crazy either. It is fact based history that is mostly intended to educate. The museum is a treasure for those of us who value these types of things. And I am very thankful that the creators of the museum accomplished their goal.

[Louis Earl]

I've been to the museum 4x.  Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day.  Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs.  I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator.  But that's just me.

[Charles Collins]

I've been to the museum 4x.  Each visit I spend some time just sitting there and trying to imaging what it was like that day.  Imagine (if you want) Oswald firing from the window, running with his rifle across the expanse of the 6th floor, dropping the rifle and going down the stairs.  I know, maybe that's all fiction but it's an incredible exercise to imagine what it would have looked like.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

I would like a red line in the floor showing the path he "might" have taken from the window to the elevator.  But that's just me.

My only real complaint is the jewelry store exhibit of LHO's wedding band.  I don't know why that is there. 

Maybe Marina didn’t want it anymore...

Just making a bad joke. Couldn’t help it...

[Jerry Freeman]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt. 

"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it?  [which you haven't even remotely]
                                       

[Andrew Mason]

"Doubt" huh?-----Then why do you keep feeling compelled to remove it?  [which you haven't even remotely]
                                       

Because it is so easy to do. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The facts and evidence prove this beyond any doubt.  We are 50 plus years down the road and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  At best CTers now nitpick the evidence against Oswald or attempt to apply an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt.  It is weak sauce.  Just because these are vocal nuts doesn't mean that the 6th floor should entertain their baseless fantasy or be neutral about Oswald's guilt.  He is not the "alleged" assassin of JFK anymore that John Wilkes Booth is the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln.

Your problem - and ours - is that most Americans disagree with this (our) view about the assassination. The 6th floor museum just can't ignore this fact. We can lament it, curse it, scream about it but that doesn't make it go away. They need to consider this fact and include it in their exhibits.

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

As with the 6th Floor Museum, the response to conspiracy theories is not to ignore them but answer them with more speech. After all, isn't that what we're trying to do here? I used to be a conspiracy believer (the single bullet explanation didn't make sense but I was misled) and over time changed my mind. I can't point to an article or a book that did this; but it's clear that the more "speech" on the assassination I was exposed to made me change my mind. That's how it works.

[Andrew Mason]

There's an increasing desire in the US at this time to suppress dissenting views. We see it all around as mostly the liberal/left is joining up with corporations to stifle views they don't like. And we know about academia. I don't like some of these views either - e.g., the election wasn't stolen from Trump and Trump didn't steal the election in 2016 - but the answer to bad speech is indeed more speech. The alternatives simply don't work.

I don't see social media trying to stifle views they don't like. They are trying not to participate in disseminating false statements of fact that are harmful to the public.  Before the internet that was done by news organizations.  It was done voluntarily, and in most  cases, with few notable exceptions, continues.  It is done for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to alienate one's customers or wanting to avoid legal liability.

With the internet, Congress in its wisdom exempted internet site owners from liability for third-party content, including defamatory content.  But internet site owners can still be legally liable for harm caused by information disseminated on their sites that they know about, and which a reasonable person would conclude could cause harm to members of the public or the public at large, in countries other than the U.S.  And they still have a business interest in not being party to disseminating material that is harmful to the public.  They are not doing anything that legitimate news organizations do not already do.  U.S. law (also recognized in the USMCA trade agreement) protects them from liability for removing third-party content that the site owner considers harmful to the public interest.