Of course. This was nothing more than a completely absurd bit of theater put on to throw meat to His tinfoil hat wearing, Alex Jones watching base of supporters.

Consider that even what people believe to be carefully anonymized data sets can be reverse-engineered down to a scarily specific group of people, if not all the way down to the specific person individually. [0] [1]

Aside from the fact that some people have a conveniently weak definition of "anonymous", this is part of why it's worrisome to have so many people collecting and reselling browsing data and other types of user analytics, despite their repeated assertions of anonymity.

It's perfectly plausible to believe that with the right shuffle of declassified data, substantial new information will become apparent.

[0] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/netflix-faq.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization

http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/

Even if you believe that such first-order evidence didn't exist, bureaucracies generate massive amounts of second-order evidence that's hard to erase. For example, if you believe that the conspiracy selected Oswald as a fall guy, you have to ask how; and the simplest way of doing that would be to send someone down to the records archive and search for a good one... which would be noted as someone accessing the records [1].

This is the problem with conspiracy theories: to explain the lack of evidence, they have to expand the conspiracy to be able to erase that evidence, which generates more evidence that needs to be erased.

[1] I don't know if such accesses were logged back then, but I'd be surprised if they weren't.

From "Stratfor Glossary of Useful, Baffling and Strange Intelligence Terms"

https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/The_Stratfor_Glossary_of_Usefu...