
Additional JFK Assassination Documents Released - runesoerensen
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release?new
======
jayess
I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. It
took me over a year to read on and off. It's a national treasure and I wish it
could be made freely available online. It's over a thousand pages and includes
a CD with thousands more pages in footnotes and endnotes.

I was a die hard conspiracy believer because I grew up in a household where my
mom lived through the assassination and she had nearly every conspiracy book
available around the house. After reading Bugliosi's book I am absolutely now
convinced that Oswald did it alone. Bugliosi's book absolutely devastates all
of the conspiracy theories.

I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove"
otherwise.

There is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Full
stop.

If you search around for interviews online with Bugliosi, you can get a feel
for the breadth and depth of his work.

~~~
jMyles
I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as
convincing as you do.

There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted:

* The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City

* The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window _just five seconds_ before the shooting began

* The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?)

* Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death)

There are many more.

I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he
is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he
were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do.

I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.

~~~
jayess
The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over
and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.

There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground
below.

Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving
away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than
if the motorcade was coming at him.

Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet
entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's
back and then out his chest lines up perfectly.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA)

As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed
the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did
it.

~~~
jMyles
> There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the
> ground below.

This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me.
People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on
the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly.

Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window.
Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile
(which, after all, was just white male near the median height).

He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen
by several people on the first-floor.

Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was
standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are
obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked
over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him
doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of
the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that
the shots came from that direction).

He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup.

Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence:

[http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-
knoll-...](http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-
witnesses)

> Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was
> moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much
> less than if the motorcade was coming at him.

I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy
to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than
position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much
easier the shot on Houston is?

> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified
> over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.

It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I
don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also
think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range
specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds.

> Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter.

Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence?
This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An
experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his
testimony?

I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet,
and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle
office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second
after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered
by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly
unwounded.

I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I
mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some
pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff?

> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified
> over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.

I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over"
has. OK, so it's completely possible that _somebody_ was firing from the 6th
floor. Indeed several witnesses said so.

But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the
proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds,
hitting a moving target at 80 yards?

Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any
person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some
inculpatory evidence against Oswald.

But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly.

My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial
today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.

~~~
hnnoob2003
Your willingness to think critically and challenge "the truth" is great,
especially questioning whether Howard Brennan's testimony is reliable and free
from manipulation.

There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he
was _not_ the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot
Officer Tippit?

His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with
an innocent man.

~~~
jMyles
But see, this is what happens in these discussions. First, it's "100% of the
evidence in Dealy Plaza implicates Oswald - he is guilty to a moral certainty,
etc" \- then, when you point out the actual fact pattern, the goalposts are
moved miles away to talk about other happenings in Dallas that day. And then
months earlier in New Orleans. And then years earlier in Russia, Japan, etc.

I don't want to rehash the entire case in an HN thread, but needless to say
there are very rational explanations for nearly all of the incorrect
conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.

I think that a sober, rational analysis suggests very, very clearly that this
was a crime committed by group, rather than an individual.

------
watertom
Here is what I believe. After Oswald's first shot Kennedy's limo, and the
chase vehicles all hit the gas The chase vehicle directly behind Kennedy had
FBI agents with M-16's, with the safety off, standard protocol. There is a
picture of the car directly behind Kennedy, where the FBI agent has his M-16
resting on the top the windshield angled slightly downward, the chase vehicle
as a convertible as well. When all the cars hit the gas to get out after the
first Oswald shots I think the agent holding that M-16 accidentally pulled the
trigger when he was knocked off balance when the car accelerated. That shot
was the head shot was the kill shot. The bullet from kennedy's skull was a
different type and smaller caliber than what came from Oswald's gun.

The reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI agent, telling the American
public that an FBI agent accidentally did a head shot on the president wasn't
something anyone wanted, plus the shot that Oswald hit Kennedy with would have
killed him anyway.

~~~
Apocryphon
Secret Service, actually. This is one of the more reasonable conspiracy
theories:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error)

~~~
mhneu
The most reasonable idea about a conspiracy is that the CIA/FBI knew Oswald
had contact with the KGB, were embarrassed they didn't stop Oswald before he
acted, and the CIA covered up what they knew about Oswald's Russia/Cuba ties.

------
jMyles
Note that this is not the entire collection of documents (some number of
pages, perhaps 300, have been withheld - reports so far vary on this).

------
Overtonwindow
I believe it was Oswald. After believing it was more than one for a long time,
maybe two independent shooters, unaware of the other. I really studied a lot
and realized it could only have been Oswald. A most unfortunate fluke of
history.

~~~
jMyles
Thank you for your candor.

I always have the same three questions about Oswald for people who subscribe
to this theory:

1) What happened in his last three years of his life that took him from
Maggie's Drawers to the skill required to execute such incredible precision
shooting? Do you believe that he dedicated himself to intense rifle training
during this time without anyone knowing?

2) Why didn't he fire as the motorcade approached on Houston?

3) We now know from video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds
before the shooting took place. Why not? Why wasn't he watching his target
during this time? Even if he wanted to hide the rifle for that moment?

Bonus question: have you ever tried to hit a target at this range? A moving
target? Without having your rifle in a ready position 5 seconds prior? It
takes years and years of training to get this good.

For my part, I'd certainly vote to acquit Oswald based on what we know today
if I were consider this case as a juror. We have video evidence that he was
not in the window 5 seconds prior, and witnesses to establish his whereabouts
just 3 minutes later on the first floor (where he was calmly drinking a coke,
not out of breath from having darted down six flights of stairs).

But if it was him, this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship
and escape.

~~~
ctdonath
As a trained long range shooter, may I observe:

 _such incredible precision shooting?_

 _this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship_

It's not incredible. With some decent practice, it's not hard. The limo was
hardly moving laterally from that position, and not receding fast. Numerous
experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.

You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and
find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded)

There's no reason to believe Oswald couldn't/didn't shoot JFK. A SS agent may
have added to the confusion with a negligent discharge though.

~~~
jMyles
So, I am not a trained long range shooter, let me just put that out there.
I've only fired maybe 200-300 rounds at distances longer than 70 yards.

But it's not hard to dispute parts of your statement:

> Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.

Most of the experts enlisted to do this have not concluded the same. Some are
now ardent believers in multiple-shooter theories.

I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with a fact pattern in
which they were out of sight of the target 5 seconds before, had to shoot
through foliage at a moving target, and used a sufficiently similar weapon.

What's the closest thing in your opinion?

> You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and
> find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation:
> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded)

I have played quite a bit with this simulation, and while it gives a pretty
good sense of Dealy Plaza, I found three things notable about it:

1) Even after trying many, many times (probably a thousand), I was unable to
recreate the Warren Commission scenario

2) The easiest way to kill anyone in the motorcade is to shoot while it's on
Houston

3) The rifle is much, much different than a 6.5mm bolt action. It behaves more
like an AR-15. It feels semi-automatic with very little recoil.

~~~
ctdonath
_Most of the experts enlisted to do this have not concluded the same._

Do you know these "experts" personally? I do know ones who have tried it and
deemed it a not unreasonable shot.

I have to suspect naysaying "experts" either have ulterior motives in
advocating an "it's difficult" angle, or just aren't experts - more likely
someone made a comment that got rephrased until it mutated into "experts say
it couldn't be done alone..."

FWIW: I've repeatedly hit man-sized targets up to 1000 yards with a bolt-
action rifle under tight time constraints. I won't say it's "easy", but it
certainly was doable with few days' solid practice.

 _I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with .... What 's
the closest thing in your opinion?_

What you describe is normal deer hunting. Moving targets, narrow windows of
opportunity, bolt-action rifles. A good percentage of 18,000,000 hunters make
comparable shots annually.

 _three things notable about it_

1) That was the ultimate goal of releasing the "game": to see if anyone could
reproduce that particular scenario precisely. Admittedly, nobody did - though
most found that making the JFK-killing shot was not difficult. Then again, a
proper study of the data collected would likely show that any given shot was
never substantially repeated. If we consider the "agent accidentally fired a
shot in a really bad direction" theory, it all does add up.

2) Easiest, yes - when you know exactly how the whole scenario can play out
with all variations start to finish. While that would have been the ideal
shot, firing when Oswald did (limo traveling away from window) is not
substantially more difficult.

3) Mouse & keyboard don't recreate the feel of a bolt-action rifle. That
aside, a trained shooter (like ex-Marine Oswald) can operate a bolt-action
nearly as fast as a semi-auto, and comes to control & ignore recoil.

------
diggernet
I recently read an interesting argument that Oswald actually had a grudge
against the Governor, not the President. So it wasn't really an impossibly
good shot -- he missed.

Sadly, do not recall where I saw that. Links, anyone?

~~~
Apocryphon
Brings to mind the Zangara shooting, where the alleged target was the Mayor of
Chicago and not President-elect FDR.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara)

------
peacetreefrog
Not knowing much about it, but taking an outside-in view here. You have a guy
(Oswald) with a rifle and telescopic sight, aiming and shooting and purposely
trying to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed. Why is it so hard for
people to believe Oswald was successful?

Occam's razor. Bayes theorem. Seems incredibly unlikely that there was a
second shooter or accidental fluke shot from a secret service agent that just
_happened_ to occur right when Oswald was intentionally and purposefully doing
it himself.

~~~
jMyles
It's not at all clear that Oswald was even involved. It's far more likely that
he was on the first floor the entire time, where we was seen minutes before
and minutes after the shooting.

We now have video evidence showing that he was not in the window just 5
seconds before the shooting began.

He was seen on the first floor no more than 3 minutes after the shooting took
place, and the police officer who saw him insisted that he was not out of
breath and did not appear to have just run down six flights of stairs.

The chain of evidence for the bullets is flimsy.

And perhaps most importantly: there is no evidence that Oswald was capable of
doing this shooting. He was a mediocre shot as a marine, and no evidence that
he dedicated himself to long-range training in the intervening years.

The rifle was not in good shape, and wasn't a very good rifle to begin with.

I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to convict Oswald beyond a
reasonable doubt, though I also admit that I'm not sure what exactly did
happen on the plaza that day.

edit: Thinking about those downvoting without commenting - just one thing I
want to implore: in our system of justice, we demand proof of built beyond a
reasonable doubt. I think that there are dozens of reasonable doubts about
Oswald's involvement; I have outlined three (what we know of his whereabouts
during the events in question, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the
matter of whether he was even capable of the act). If you honestly think that
you can look someone against whom there is similar evidence and pronounce them
guilty, I'd love to hear your comments on the matter and what specifically you
think proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This man died without
getting a trial; we owe it to our justice system to take a measured approach
about the evidence against him.

------
jMyles
FWIW, I think it will be more surprising if evidence emerges which buttresses
the "lone nut" theory than the "conspiracy" theory, which is far more
plausible in the first place.

There are a few items that may appear in these collections that are relevant
today for reasons other than their connection to the murder of a sitting
President:

* The particularities of Operation Mongoose - which of course was denied for years in official statements - may still be occurring today without general public knowledge. In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences.

* Oswald's trip to Mexico City (and the other various "sightings" of "Oswald" in the Fall of 1963) may give us clues about the kinds of tactics that are employed when someone is being setup to take the fall for an act. I can definitely imagine similar patterns being employed to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of large-scale cyber attacks in the years to come.

I think that one of the most important things to come out of this is a
reminder that these events have shaped a part of American history. It's a good
time to talk to your kids and your parents about the murder of JFK if you
haven't already.

~~~
ceejayoz
> In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government
> apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture
> which would appear as though they were natural occurrences.

That's like the _least_ astonishing Cold War covert op I can think of. This
was the time of generals who though they could levitate and walk through
walls, for goodness sake.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine)

~~~
nasredin
General Brown: So they started doing psy-research because they thought we were
doing psy-research, when in fact we weren't doing psy-research?

Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: Yes sir. But now that they _are_ doing psy-
research, we're gonna have to do psy-research, sir.

------
gitpusher
Cool. Will wait for a news outlet (i.e. someone else) to go through the
documents and write up a summary, though ;)

~~~
monochromatic
Nobody more trustworthy than the news media!

~~~
grzm
While I understand where you're coming from, I know I personally don't have
the requisite background in that area of history to be able to properly
interpret the documents myself.

Of course, this doesn't mean one has to uncritically accept anyone else's
interpretation. Nor does it mean anyone else should feel the need to lean on
someone else's interpretation! The more eyes, the better!

------
runesoerensen
Press release [https://www.archives.gov/press/press-
releases/nr18-05](https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-05)

------
staunch
Trump was about to release all the files and then the CIA _recommended_ he not
do that.

The CIA also wrote this nice memo for Trump:

> _" I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted" on the records, the
> memo said. "At the same time, executive departments and agencies have
> proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted
> because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns.
> I have no choice -- today -- but to accept those redactions rather than
> allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation's security."_

You've gotta love the "I have no choice" wording...

From the best book on this topic, JFK and the Unspeakable:

> _The book 's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to
> peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security
> apparatus_

> _The book highlights the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the Central Intelligence
> Agency 's attempt to entrap Kennedy into a full-scale US invasion of Cuba.
> Citing Daniel Schorr's conclusion that "In effect, President Kennedy was the
> target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion
> collapsed", the book argues that the result of this operation was Kennedy's
> avowed intention "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to
> the winds."_

> _The forced resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles and several deputies
> served notice that this statement might be followed through. The book
> describes Kennedy 's conflict with the military, including over the Cuban
> Missile Crisis (1962), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (ratified by the
> Senate in September 1963), and a back-channel to Fidel Castro in September
> 1963, via William Atwood, aimed at normalising relations, and National
> Security Action Memorandum 263 (beginning withdrawal from Vietnam)._

> _The book also cites an April 1962 confrontation with the US steel industry,
> led by U.S. Steel, which together with five other steel companies declared a
> price increase shortly after an agreement had been brokered to avoid them,
> in order to control inflation. The Kennedy administration raided corporate
> offices, issued subpoenas, and tasked the Defense Department with overseas
> marketing of its steel. Shortly after the steel industry backed down, Henry
> Luce 's Fortune published an editorial, headlined "Steel: The Ides of
> April", stating that the price rise had been conceived in political terms as
> a means to either damage the President's credibility, or to unite the
> business world against him._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable)

Curtis LeMay called JFK an appeaser to his face, and accused him of
endangering America's safety. [https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-
munich/](https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Cri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Crisis)

~~~
Veratyr
> because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns

Well that certainly makes it sound like something important is hidden.

~~~
positr0n
I took this to mean they investigation was so thorough it uncovered and
documented lots of potentially embarrassing stuff, but none of that was
relevant to who shot Kennedy.

Not that they figured out who shot (or set up Oswald to shoot) Kennedy, but
they're covering it up because it is embarrassing.

~~~
Veratyr
I understand what you're saying and while those things might be able to cause
tension, I don't think that anything "embarrassing" could be a risk to
national security.

------
yeukhon
I am still unsure. I remember there was a talk circulating around the
Internet, questioning how many people were actually in the car during the JFK
assassination. Is that a fake news?

~~~
excitom
Well, there are lots of pictures and film of the event, so unless someone is
hiding in the trunk I'd say that's fake.

------
retox
Thank you for your request to download the 2017 release of JFK assassination
files. Completely download all 11 files to the same directory then open
jfk.zip to unzip all.

Download times may be significant due to the large size.

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.zip)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z01)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z02)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z03)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z04)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z05)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z06)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z07)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z08)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z09)

[https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...](https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z10)

~~~
jakeogh
Criminals love their gang signals.

This is the work of a friend of mine, Bob Fischer:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ)

When I saw it years ago, I had to verify it myself.

Note the odds calculation is wrong due to a rounding error. The correct odds
are: 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 = 1 / 5,153,632

Details:
[https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ](https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ)

------
Bromskloss
Why were they withheld?

~~~
mhneu
My guess is that the CIA knew more about Oswald's radicalization then has been
previously disclosed. The guy spent three years in Russia, had a Russian wife,
and had some contact with Cuba. Almost certainly he had some contact with
Russian and/or Cuban intelligence.

If the CIA knew about that and failed to stop Oswald, they might have some
incentive to keep their records classified.

------
chiefalchemist
These are what? Documents compiled by various intelligence community agencies?
All of which are versed and comfortable with propaganda, misinformation, etc.
On top of that, some info has (allegedly) been withheld.

So now we must ask:

1) Why now?

2) Why by Trump?

3) If this release has a political agenda (and certainly it does) then who
might win from its release? Who might lose? And what current issue will be
ignored while the MSM and the proles are distracted by this smoke screen?

~~~
cheald
1) Because the 1992 JFK Records Act put a 25-year timer on their release. The
deadline for that release was...you guessed it, October 26, 2017.

2) Because Trump is president on October 26, 2017, 25 years after the passage
of the JFK Records Act.

3) Irrelevant because of the above.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992)

