Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Andrew Mason]

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.

Maybe because Trump "stole" it legally - he got fewer votes and much fewer votes per electoral vote because of the crazy way your U.S. electoral college works. He also "stole" it legally with the assistance of rampant voter suppression by GOP state executives and legislators. But even that was legal because your courts do not recognize universal suffrage as a constitutional right.   So there was nothing wrong with his election - just with the system that your country tolerates for some reason.  U.S. democracy is not living up to its ideals and Trump took full advantage of it.

Hillary Clinton recognized that she lost the election and she never alleged widespread voter fraud.  But she did complain about the 8 hour-long waits to vote that many of her supporters had to endure and the other attempts by some states (e.g. Georgia) to deregister and suppress the vote of blacks and hispanics.  The GOP did not even deny that their tactics were to suppress the non-GOP vote.  She also complained about the Comey statement about her emails late in the election and Russian interference.  When she said that she felt the election was stolen from her that is what she mentioned. She never suggested that the actual votes that were counted were not all the legal votes that were cast by legal Amercan voters.

Trump is the one that was alleging wide-spread voter fraud in 2016 (both before and after the election) and even appointed a commission to look into voter fraud.  The commission never made a report, however because Trump disbanded it in 2018. I wonder why.....

[Andrew Mason]

Yep, definitely the minority.

Initially, there was a lot of opposition (in Dallas) to preserving the TSBD building and creating the Sixth Floor Museum. But It is now one of the main attractions for Dallas. And I am very happy that they created it and preserved Dealey Plaza. Just another example of why the efforts to destroy monuments depicting our major historical events is misguided.

I hope you are not including in those monuments all the "monuments" to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.  There were many diabolical historically significant figures - Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ghadafi, Ceaușescu etc..  That does not mean they deserve monuments.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

Ok then, I agree with you.  Impartial means the absence of predisposition one way or the other ie. before looking at the evidence. But in looking at the evidence the Museum should not feel the need to present the evidence that Oswald acted alone as being "equal" to alternative conspiracy theories.

I have not been to the Sixth Floor Museum but I hope to eventually. A good test would be to see how the Museum treats Ruby and his killing of Oswald. It can present all of the evidence of what kind of character Ruby was.  But if it should fail to present the evidence of what Ruby did on the morning of November 24/63 at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, as well as the evidence that shows the impossibility of Ruby knowing in advance that Oswald would be coming out of those doors 2 hours late, then I think it would be failing to act impartially.

[Charles Collins]

I hope you are not including in those monuments all the "monuments" to Confederate leaders in the Civil War.  There were many diabolical historically significant figures - Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ghadafi, Ceaușescu etc..  That does not mean they deserve monuments.

I meant in general terms. Jerry makes my point by this example:

The PC mob in Canada are removing statues of Sir John A. Macdonald, the country's founding father. I don't know where it's going to end. Political correctness is a major reason why almost half of Americans voted for Trump.

Wars in general are deplorable and should be avoided if at all possible. But not many people are calling for the removal of all monuments that commemorate all wars. And just what is supposed to be being accomplished by removing the monuments?

Monument - a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Commemorate -recall and show respect for (someone or something).


Commemorate means to remember and show respect. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to agree with what that someone or something did to show our respect. The JFK assassination is one of the most evil events that I have encountered in my lifetime. I believe that LHO is guilty and his cowardly act offends me greatly. But I don’t believe that his monument (gravestone) should be destroyed. WTF would that accomplish?

[Andrew Mason]

Wars in general are deplorable and should be avoided if at all possible. But not many people are calling for the removal of all monuments that commemorate all wars. And just what is supposed to be being accomplished by removing the monuments?

Monument - a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Commemorate -recall and show respect for (someone or something).


Commemorate means to remember and show respect. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have to agree with what that someone or something did to show our respect. The JFK assassination is one of the most evil events that I have encountered in my lifetime. I believe that LHO is guilty and his cowardly act offends me greatly. But I don’t believe that his monument (gravestone) should be destroyed. WTF would that accomplish?

There is a difference between a grave marker and a monument.  A grave marker does not signify public respect for the occupant.  A statue in a public square does.

[Charles Collins]

There is a difference between a grave marker and a monument.  A grave marker does not signify public respect for the occupant.  A statue in a public square does.

Technically, by definition, a gravestone is a monument. (See the second definition of monument in this dictionary.):


https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS922US923&oq=dict&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i273j0i433l2j5.3797j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#dobs=monument


If the difference between the two is supposed to be that one is on public property, then I disagree that it necessarily signifies the public’s respect. Example: It has become very popular for roads, bridges, intersections, airports, parks, etc. to be named for individuals. All of these examples are public property. And I see the signs and markers that designate the various names of people. Some who I might respect, but others who I might find go against my own opinion of being worthy of the honor. And some who I (and certainly people visiting from other places) might not be familiar with. The point is that there is no implication that the general public respects these monuments. Only that the people with authority to name the monuments want to show their appreciation. Or, perhaps, simply that the property was donated to the public by the namesake. It doesn’t matter whether or not the general public respects or even cares.

Now, if the authorities required that the general public show respect, it would be a different story.

[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.