This note takes up a very messy, boring subject, so I’ll try to keep it short and snappy. It helps that not much is at stake in these releases.

The problem with 2025 FBI releases: a complaint

Before you read this note, take a look at part 3A. That gives an overview of FBI doc problems in 2025.

The main issue discussed in this note: NARA is posting FBI pdfs that include multiple records. I am sure that this is not NARA’s choice, this is what the FBI is giving them. The first two batches of records posted on 3/18 only had a couple of records like this. Batch three, however, increased the number dramatically.

The strange result: There are now dozens of records online that are 100 percent duplicates. I mean byte by byte, one hundred percent identical copies. If one expands the definition of duplicate to mean identical in appearance, with only minor bit differences due to scanning adjustments, there are even more. My attention was drawn to this peculiar situation by reader Mark Ulrik, hat tip to Mark!

Why did this happen? The answer is in the pdfs with multiple records.

Say you are providing people with a document series. To make the series available, you post pdfs of each doc online. Now say you have a file with 10 docs in it and you not only want to make it available to people, you want them to know what docs are in it. What do you do?

Of course the simplest answer is to redo the file so that there are ten small files, name each file using the standard naming system that all the other docs use, and post them online.

With the multi record FBI pdfs, NARA used a different method. They posted the 10 docs online in one pdf, gave it a special name, say 10in1, and put up a spreadsheet that listed all the docs in 10in1, by record number, with links to the one online file. Get it? The spreadsheet listed each record in 10in1 separately, and gave ten separate hyperlinks to the single 10in1 file.

Well that’s messy, because you need the spreadsheet, but it sort of works, in that people know where to go to find, say, doc #2 in 10in1, if you tell them what you’re doing, and if they’re careful people, and if they don’t mind sifting through the entire 10in1 pdf themselves to find where doc 2 is.

There is a third possible method for handling these multi record docs. Don’t bother redoing 10in1 to make 10 files, skip the spreadsheet that tells people which records are in 10in1, and just post 10 copies of 10in1. Name each copy after one of the docs in the compilation. Then, to remind people of what’s going on, at the end of these multi-record compilations, add the suffix ‘multirif’. That is what they did at NARA this time.

So here is an example, a list of 10 pdfs recently posted at NARA which are byte by byte identical:

124-10273-10008 (pp 224-245)
124-10273-10012 (pp 186-205)
124-10273-10014 (p 181)
124-10273-10016 (pp 176-180)
124-10273-10018 (pp 119-175)
124-10273-10022 (pp 176-180)
124-10274-10357 (pp 209-223)
124-10274-10358 (pp 206-208)
124-10276-10482 (pp 002-099)
124-10276-10483 (pp 100-118)

For the reader’s reference, the parentheses give the page range that each record actually takes up in the pdf.

Although each file has a different name, which is based on the ARC record numbers of the docs in the file, these 10 files are all identical. Each one is a copy of the same ten ARC records, each one is 245 pages long.

So how many pages had redactions in this 245 page pdf prior to March 18? The answer is two.

The most recent release of this 245 page pdf, prior to March 18, was on 15 December 2022. It is available at NARA here. See pdf pages 11-12. Nothing else in the pdf was redacted. Look for yourself, let me know if you can find anything redacted on other pages.

So to get these two redacted pages released, NARA posted a total of 2450 pages. That, of course, is ridiculous, and I think it is fair to say that the FBI’s performance in releasing ARC records has been terrible.

The FBI has been both efficient and accurate at reviewing its records for release of material. Much better than the CIA. But the way in which they have done it, using these multi-record pdfs, has been incredibly awful. Don’t blame NARA for this snafu. It is all on the FBI.

The punch line

The final irony, the punch line, to this really odd story is great. Ready? None of the records being released in the multi record pdfs are relevant to the JFK assassination. Don’t believe me? Take another look at that 245 page pdf. Is the name JFK mentioned? Is the name Oswald mentioned? Is the name Ruby mentioned? No, no, and no.

What IS in this pdf? MLK. Cointelpro. CIA-FBI quarrelling over Thomas Riha. Blah-blah-blah. Nothing about the assassination at ALL. Why? Because these records are all from the FBI-SSC administrative file. SSC is FBI-speak for the Church Committee.

The Church Committee did look at the JFK assassination. A sub-commmittee looked at a number of issues. But that was only a small part of the SSC investigation. The 245 page pdf gives you a good sample of the vast range of OTHER issues SSC was primarily concerned with.

Amazingly, NARA has now posted the ENTIRE FBI-SSC administrative file, over 47000 pages of it, most of it using this crazy multi-record pdf system. Don’t misunderstand me, this is a very interesting subject, and it is a good thing to have so many documents available IF YOUR ARE RESEARCHING the Church Committee investigation.

I started off, however, with an interest in the JFK assassination. It is a torture and torment to have to go through these tens of thousands of pages looking for JFK relevant material. Enough.

I checked for ARC redactions as a service to the JFK research community. Multi-record docs are irrelevant to JFK, so I’m done with them.