Reply #108: As I recall, the person who would have typed the original document

[JDPriestly]

stated that the substance of what was said sounded right to her, but that the document itself was not familiar. It would be a mistake to assume that the document was "forged," a word that suggests creation for some illicit purpose or for monetary gain without knowing whether perhaps an original existed at some point and was retyped for some reason.

An anachronistic font suggests either that the document is or was a forgery or that it is a recent retyping of an earlier document. Perhaps the original of a document with identical text was, at one time, available only in some form such of microfiche, and a person who was not permitted to have an actual copy of the document made an illegal copy and then typed a new document based on that illegal copy in order to prevent tracing.

Another possible explanation for a document with an anachronistic font, i.e., a document recently typed from an older document would be cleaning a file and retyping documents for the purpose of taking them home with the thought of writing a memoir. If the document was an official document, and an employee somehow wanted to be able to keep the memory of the document for personal use, the person would retype it.

Yet another possible explanation for a retyped document would have been updating files in an office. This may sound unlikely, but someone could have retyped a document in order to store it on a computer more effectively -- in the days before scanners.

So, the question here is not just whether the document was the original but whether the facts as presented in the document are true. The text may have been the original text although the document is not the original document.