Right there is a catalog of the documents that have been released so far. It may be a debunking site, but I at least read information from conspiracy websites to understand the other side's point. If they are lying about any of those files, then show it.
Regardless, for the last bloody time, our government was and still is a bit paranoid. We classify tons of stuff that has no reason to be classfied. Our research on Hitler was another good example (sorry for all the Godwin's but I know a lot about WWII so it keeps popping up). They classified a bunch of stupid fun facts for years.
I would also love to see the "facts" showing that Oswald couldn't have done it. I can probably answer most them quickly.
No fingerprints - I don't blame you for this one. You are a child of the CSI generation. Guns usually don't hold great fingerprints with the graining making it hard to pull good ones. Forensics science was also not at its best back then.
I found another link on the McAdams' site. Again, you might disagree with the site, but they are mainly showing examples of other cases where no prints were and I wouldn't feel right stealing that much of their information.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
FBI marksmen - This is just wrong. I've seen someone perfectly replicate the shot with a Mercano. At least 3 programs have done it. It's an easy shot. I've always been confused by this argument. His movement was basically nothing for the first two shots and Oswald wasn't trying to be a super sniper. It looked like he was just taking pop-shots at Kennedy's center mass and got lucky. How is shooting a barely moving target, centered in your view, only 200 yards away, from a stationary position, with a ledge to act as a sniper's perch...an impossible shot.
The rifle is crappy and it's a miracle (curse really

) that it didn't jam, but it's easy for a half-decent shot to make the hit. Plus, Oswald did miss one of the shots. He was only 66.7% accurate that day.
And yes...another McAdams' link. Again...it makes a good argument with plenty of citations to the relevant sources. In this case, it was the reports of the actual tests. You can always fact-check.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt
For those who don't have the time, the synapsis is that the argument is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The marksment hit the target 13 out of 18 times in their time trials. Right on par with Oswald and they were using a damaged scope, which may have been damaged when Oswald hid it. So they may have been at a worse disadvantage (even if it was already mis-sighted, Oswald might not have used it. The iron sights would have been fine for that range).