It's more a conncordance of small clues, not a smoking gun.
"IMO the preponderance of evidence says these were forgeries. Yes, they could have been written on an IBM Executive (and they were certainly produced on a typewriter of some kind; look at the variation in the letter heights and the strike angles.). On the other hand, I've used a similar typewriter, and they are the most colossal pain in the rear except for a very skilled typist; if you type the wrong letter on a proportionately spaced typewriter, and discover it after you type the next letter, you're screwed. Maybe the particular, word-processor like font was available. Maybe the non-standard military abbreviations were used. Maybe Lt. Col. Killian was a hipster and used 'feedback' and 'run interference' in the very modern sense they're used in the Aug. 18 memo. Maybe he had superscripted fonts. But given all these unusual aspects of these memos, what would you say the preponderance of evidence suggests?"
Well, you have a point. But, here's another thing to think about. Was Killian working full-time at this? If not, perhaps these memos were created not at the base, but in some other office. Perhaps dictated to a secretary, who DID have an IBM Executive typewriter. They were pretty common in some law offices back then.
I don't know, but if Killian had another job, that's a possibility.
It's a nice puzzle.
Agreed. There is some slight chance (0.001%) that these are genuine, but the simplest explanation is that they are rather crude forgeries.
They certainly look like a modern word-processed document to me.
If an unknown person handed an ESPN reporter a blurry and choppy video of a long-dead golfer supposedly hitting 18 holes in one in a row, I don't think even ESPN would run the video as gospel truth, and base a special broadcast on it.
That is what CBS has done. It screams forgery.