...especially on a relatively trivial topic. Again- let's move on.
Sorry if I've poured more fuel on the flames.
I have absolutely no stake in the outcome of a discussion about an ex-American president's behaviour.
However, as an impartial observer, I was really surprised how sloppy thinking and strident voices were able to shut down discussion on this topic at the time.
If one is trained in critical thinking, one learns to deconstruct arguments, and test them for cogency.
So in this case, the argument now appears to rest on:
1. Premise: It was not possible to create these documents on any typewriter in 1970.
Clearly false, IBM had been producing typewriters with those features for some time before that.
The style of typewriter that I used with those features, was available since the 1960s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter
and the precursor to that typewriter had font kerning as early as 1944
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Electric_typewriter.
2. Premise: It was not possible for a Colonel, on a military base, that's large enough to have operational jet planes, to have access to a typist that used a typewriter that had been available since 1944. (Note this seems to be suggesting that there was only one typist and one typewriter on the entire base).
Clearly false, if a Colonel wants something typed, it gets typed.
Again, from my own experience, if a typist is not available for any reason, another typist picks up the work, typically the typing would be performed by someone in a typing pool (i.e. a room full of typists). If it is a long term lack, another typist from the pool, would be assigned to that person.
If something is considered to be particularly sensitive, then using a different typist may be a deliberate choice, for example, for contracts involving military equipment, typically the supervisor of the typing pool would prepare those documents for me (even though I could type, she was way better than me).
3. It is possible to (nearly) replicate the memos, using Microsoft Word 2003.
I'd classify this as a red-herring. Word processing software should allow someone to (nearly) replicate a photocopy of a type-written document. Even if it was possible to exactly replicate the document using this method, it still doesn't prove anything about the original document.
Looking at this another way. If I designed a process to exactly copy the Mona Lisa through 3D printing, does that prove that Leonardo da Vinci used a 3D printer to make the original?
4. The document was photocopied, therefore it is fake.
Demonstrably false. The act of photocopying does not affect the veracity of the original. No matter how many times the Mona Lisa is photographed, it doesn't turn the original into a fake.
Younger people, probably have not experienced "jokes" being photo-copied again and again, with each recipient making new copies of the copy they received. In the military, these jokes may be cartoons, text, or copies of real documents that people felt were amusing. For example, the common error "sorry for any incontinence..." often turned up in photocopied "jokes".
I can easily imagine people making copies of copies of a document that could be used against someone in the military, either for "***** and giggles" or to be saved up for possible future misuse.
So, once again. I don't care about the specifics (i.e. who did what) but respectfully suggest that no-one has come within coo-ee of proving that the document was fake.
As I said, I have no stake in the source of the argument, but do not like the lack of critical
