They are; they are copies of the original "transcriptions" which were presumeably provided by the source.
Like I said, I am half waiting for Rather to pull something out of his hat, or pants as the case may be, but I think this is a reach. First, in a professional environment, CBS would have had the same questions about authenticity that were expressed here within an hour of looking at those documents. If there were handwritten backups that eased their fears, they wouldn't have presented this as they did. Second, there are factual errors in those documents that have added to the opinion that they are forgeries, including a retired man's name (which couldn't be a typo).