Random thinking here but...
If I was a PA on 60 Minutes charged with creating the digital graphics for this story the following might happen:
After scanning the original documents I find they are illegible digitally. So I retype verbatim screen shot, bring it into PhotoShop, paste, apply a dimestore old XEROX filter, then photoshop out the signature and place it. Deadline met, the stylized graphic for production has been created. In general the networks do not require the actual document be shown, they have often in the past insisted it is ok to display the actual text in whatever format meets their production needs. So long as the content is not changed.
It needs to be confirmed that those images on the web, and in the show are images of the actual documents before this story goes on.
-- l8s
-- jrawk
It wouldn't be the first time they had been caught sexing up the truth. Does anyone recall the time they had an American voice actor do a fake Iraqi translator accent for Saddam's interview?
I think retyping the text is one thing, but I doubt seriously that a PA would put the signature on the retyped text.
---• Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number “4.” In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a “closed top,” which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. * He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.---
..kind of trouble is because you intend to deceive.