I did not say the memos were not fake. I said that an accurate copy of a real original memo is just as "real" as the original, although much more difficult to validate. Burden of proof should be on the one presenting the copied documents.
In the first place, you can't "retype" a memo and guarantee its accuracy. I've edited essay collections for publication, and in my experience even the most experienced scholars constantly misquote original material when you check the sources.
In the second place, the assertion that these memos are accurate, plus the assertion that these memos even existed in the first place, rests on the word of one man. After all we've been through with the press, anyone who trusts the word of a news reporter is an idiot.
So, we have only his word that these documents were accurately transcribed and only his word that they existed in the first place. You can even add a third possibility: that the sources leaked to him by someone in the agency with a political agenda were fakes. How can anyone prove anything, given these facts?
Geee, that's exactly what Dan rather and SEE?BS said. What the heck are you, a democrat?
The memos have just been discredited...
But one cannot know if the copy is accurate unless the originals remain to compare.
Thus, with no guarantees of accuracy, one cannot accept the copy.
Too bad, so sad. The "Downing Street Memo" is a fraud.