"::::::::::: Go back up - you had referred to ""the dozens of memos known to be from Killian's office"" and I had explained (and then explained, and then explained some more....) that there are no such beasts from ""Killian's Office"" because ""memos"" are not considered official records, however official seeming they might appear, and hence are not archived unless they were classified (which is something else I had explained). That's why there isn't a single memo in the DoD archive of Bush's military records. The bulk of military ""memos"" that you will find online  which yet again is something I had already explained  are declassified ones like that 1961 memo I pointed out. And most of the memos from the 60's and early 70's appear to be proportionally printed. You might wonder, if this was/is the case, why wasn't this brought out at the time of the ""Killian Documents Controvery""  you can look at the current ""Climategate"" stuff (aka edit war) that's now raging on Wikipedia's Global Warming-related articles to get an idea of what happened: Rathergate was never more than a BS ""controversy"" manufactured by right wingers fuzzy-headed or completely clueless about military document formats and common office technology from the early 70's (I bet you didn't know that IBM was making more money selling word processors than typewriters by 1970, eh?), much like the hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In the case of the CRU email hack, if you actually read through them, you would just see a pretty random collection of email being sent back and forth among climate researchers, often expressing (well-justified) exasperation and anger at global warming deniers and their media enablers, whom they consider to be anti-science nuisances. The emails themselves collectively change nothing about the science, but right wingers parsed out little bits and pieces, and then deliberately or ignorantly grossly misrepresented what they meant. This then spread to some mainstream media outlets, even if mostly in equally dopey opinion columns, and that added fuel to a growing wildfire of ignorance.  

 ::::::::::: In Rathergate, you started with an insufficiently researched, me-too, 12 1/2 minute piece by CBS into Bush's service (it came towards the end of many other media investigations into Bush's very questionable service record, and even then it mostly featured an interview with Ben Barnes), and starting with a laughably tech-ignorant posting by ""Buckhead"" at the Free Republic charging forgery, it just grew and grew. Take Charles Johnson's supposed animated recreation of one of the memos that's featured on the other Killian article page: it shifts too much to have been created by the same type of word processor  it's much more typical looking of a Times Roman overlay of a earlier Roman-style font; and more importantly, did you ever wonder why Johnson never showed similar recreations of the other three memos that CBS featured? Because, being longer, more complex documents, they utterly fail, as does all other recreation attempts by others. All the other added stuff about formatting, terminology, Killian supposedly scheduling a health exam were also just BS, and as with Climategate ""coverage,"" aided and abetted by irresponsible he said/she said-type ""coverage"" by mainstream media people too lazy to hit a good library to look up early word processing and proportional printing typewriters, dig up equipment records of what the military was using then for office equipment, look up guides for proper military document formats, or even just locate other contemporaneous military ""Memorandum for..."" files for comparison. Fake ""experts"" with no real papers or publication to their names came out of the woodwork and got featured, and all in all it was just a complete breakdown of journalistic investigation, with CBS behaving more like a deer caught in headlights that couldn't wait to escape. The defenders of the Global Warming-related articles have been forced by likewise shoddy media coverage to walk a thin line on what constitutes reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, is normally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (although it shouldn't be  ever since Murdoch took it over, it's been utter rubbish on anything not specific to the financial industry), but its ""coverage"" of the CRU hacking stuff has just been regurgitated right wing blog site nonsense, so like newspapers in general it's been deemed non-reliable for a science-based article like Global Warming. In general, peer-reviewed science articles have been considered the only truly reliable sources. If that was the case with the Killian Documents articles, they would not at all resemble the heaps of rubbish they are now, but unfortunately, there was little or no interest by genuine forensic document examiners in the topic (and tellingly, none were hired by any of