Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

2nd shooter and FA

It’s no longer a conspiracy theory, APL confirmed it’s very likely that there were 2 shooters, we should remove this possibility from the “conspiracy theory” section. Due to the great changes that will come to this article in the future, I also think the featured article status should be put in to question too. V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If 'great changes' are made to this article, they'll occur in the context of including more credible refutations of these conspiracy theories. No new evidence or information has come to light -it's the same magic bullet myths and grassy knoll narratives that have been endlessly repeated for decades and discredited by various ballistics experts, computational analysts, intelligence professionals etc. The allegations against the CIA and US government are groundless, and the mafia speculation's based on little more than a hunch. It's clear to me that a significant number of Americans will continue to live in these rabbit holes, despite all the science, evidence and logic telling them they're wrong.[1] Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess we will have to wait until 2027 to see. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

All the unredacted files have been released as of today, March 18, 2025.

There was no 2nd shooter. It's over. SlapperDapper (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@SlapperDapper Not really, they mentioned 18 thousand files and only 3 thousand were released + not enough time has passed for them all to be analyzed. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Luna has said that she believes that there were likely two shooters, but that's just her personal opinion and if it's based on newly discovered evidence the relevant files have not yet been released. The scholarly consensus has not yet changed. Possibly when the new records are declassified and released the scholarly consensus will change, but as of this moment it hasn't. It's also worth remembering that Luna is a politician, not a scholar and not an expert on the Kennedy assassination – our article on her even says She faced scrutiny when she suggested bringing in members of the Warren Commission for questioning about the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, as all members of the Warren Commission are dead which doesn't suggest to me that we should be blindly trusting her statements! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The ability of such people to mouth off, without embarassment, about something they obviously know nothing about never ceases to amaze. EEng 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to V.B. Speranza, who naively believes Luna is an authority in this area. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

She clearly reviewed the documents and made those exact remarks, something you and I didnt, so it’s hardly surprising that she now carries herself as an authority on the matter. Of course, Jonathan, I’m sure your understanding of the topic is far more extensive. V.B.Speranza (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

AUDIO OF THE SHOTS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq-ZJ99qaCc

The audio of the Dallas PD radio traffic in this video has been scientifically analyzed and it is highly compelling. I invite any and all to examine this audio and science behind the discovery (can be found here https://presidentkennedyassassination.blogspot.com/)

Key points: - The Morse code conclusions are wrong but I now know what the beeps mean, I have not released that information as of yet. - Discoveries made after I published the video -- Whistling right before the first shot -- and Beethoven's 5th right after the President was shot was transmitted (V for victory) -- A flurry of radio traffic right after the President was shot -- Chief Jessie Curry smuggled this unedited audio out of the Dallas Police Dept (the provenance of the audio cannot be disputed) -- The Congressional Hearing audio experts in the 1970's did not decompress the Gray Audiograph machine recording medium and thus got the timeline completely wrong. Rtshawnee (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Amateur analysis isn't admissible on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This person isn't isn't an amateur, audio and music professional with one film credit, published book and one released album. He also works with complex mathematical algorithms. Certainly not an amateur. What's your qualifications? Rtshawnee (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Being a musician doesn't make someone a professional forensic acoustic analyst. Wikipedia uses reliable academic and scholarly sources, it does not source from blogs. Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• See also: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Audio_of_the_JFK_assassination. EEng 19:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource link for File 104-10009-10222

HAL333 – can you please explain on why you removed the Wikisource link for File 104-10009-10222? Your stated reasoning for removal was "gain consensus". Per WP:BOLD, editors are encouraged to boldly edit, add, or remove information. Your removal reasoning goes against the idea of the BOLD policy, since users do not need to "gain consensus" to add information. So if you would, can you please explain in detail your objection to the Wikisource link? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's needed? The WP:ONUS is not on me, pal. Follow Wikipedia policy and gain consensus. ~ HAL333 00:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is a document from the CIA to the Australian government regarding Australia's request to not disclose part of the Warren Commission. The CIA's reply, in that document, is literally, "the points made by [the Australian government's letter] provide every reason to keep the document out of the public domain." That seems relevant enough to include in this article's "Warren Commission section. Since I have now provided the clear reason, and you still have not given any actual objection besides "get consensus", I will go ahead and restore the link, which is equivalent to an image. You are welcome to revert it, but only if you have a reason besides "gain consensus", since per WP:SILENCE, there is always a presumed consensus unless challenged. So, without an actual objection, to me, there is indeed a consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's undue. Do you know how many documents have been released pertaining to the Warren Commission? What makes this one worthy of inclusion? ~ HAL333 02:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The link is clearly undue, unless the document has itself received significant coverage in WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are summaries, not collections of links to anything and everything connected to the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an actual explanation HAL333 and thank you for your reply AndyTheGrump. HAL333, the fact it took you (1) ignoring requests for an explanation, (2) followed by administrator noticeboard threats towards a user who was very clearly trying to just communicate, you are lucky I am not taking you to AN/I for clearly assuming bad faith. Please be more mindful of that in the future. I now see why it may be undue. I will do further research to see what/if sources discuss this file and I will get back to you both. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)