"-=jd=-" wrote:

I'll base mine on information from the
leading expert in the field (Dr. Bouffard)
and the success of rank amateurs in
reproducing the document. You can
base your opinion on... umm...
whatever...


My own eyes and a little common sense. You talk about "rank amateurs"
reproducing documents and use that as the basis to say the documents are
fake. All that tells me, instead, is that "rank amateurs" can fake
documents. That certainly doesn't prove to me these particular documents are
fake.

Further, I simply don't agree with your assessment of the documents
produced by those "rank amateurs." Their work does not look like the
documents in question. Their documents were clearly produced on a computer,
while the documents in question were clearly produced on a typewriter.

Finally, the contents of the documents in question, including military
document layout, dates, events, and signatures, all match what we know of
the situation at the time. That would be very difficult to fake without
intimate knowledge of each of those (a lot harder than some "rank amatuers"
simply copying what they see on a document in front of them).

In other words, you'll have to work a lot harder if you want to convince
me those documents are fake.

Stewart