that may be true, but how do you explain the word processing details, specifically the reduced font superscript on a 1972 typewritten memo. There were no typewriters capable of doing that in 1972 and in order to have the reduced font superscript, one had to use a TYPESETTER and what are the odds that a National Guard memo would be printed on a typesetter? One would only do that if they had planned on making a couple hundred copies of the document and it would have been done in a printing facility and not in the commander's office.
Someone on one of the other threads said that typewriter balls had various options and one of them had a superscript "th."
The issue really boils down to the "spacing" if I understand this correctly. I don't know enough about that to either explain it or not explain it.
What I know is that those are names, places, locations, details, reports, etc., mentioned in these 5 memos that are very specific and related to events of 32 years ago.
A recent forgery would have an extremely difficult time creating all those people and places without slipping up. The PRESIDENT would notice it.
I'm fine with people pursuing the forgery idea. I think what it will have to be, if it's true, is that they must have changed a few words off original real memos.