Reply #5: There's no question; the docs are NOT from '72 [View All]

[halfso]

It was obvious to me the first time I saw them that these 4 documents were all made on a modern PC, in the Times New Roman typeface. I just figured that someone along the way was tasked with organizing/consolidating the Colonel's personal memos (probably originally handwritten), and typed them up, also retyping the official orders/memorandum doc of 04 May 72 so they have a uniform appearance and for ease of reading, not to mention to backup the original copies in a modern computerized format.

These are not forgeries, I believe, but simply transcriptions of real original documents, made way after the Col's death. Now why they decided to cut and paste a copy of his signature instead of putting "Original Signed* or something is beyond me. That can do nothing but confuse the issue of authenticity, as it is doing right now.

But the most compelling and obvious argument for an alternate explanation is that if these were indeed intended to be passable forgeries, there is no excuse for someone just sitting down at their Dell desktop and cranking these out. These documents wouldn't fool anybody; any forger would know this.

They're not from 1972, or from any obscure, $20,000 state-of-the-art typewriter that the TANG happened to have laying around their Houston office. They are from MSWord, plain and simple, and I hope that someone has a mighty good explanation for this before the whole thing backfires and somehow works in Bush's favor. CBS, it's time to tell us more about this "expert" you had evaluate these docs... or did he/she evaluate the originals that we haven't seen yet? We can hope...