Unless I start hearing some half-decent counterpoints from CBS with regard to these memos I'm considering them forgeries. I'd been reserving judgement to see if CBS would give counterpoints to at least a majority of the dozens of typographical, logical, and sourcing problems with the memos and their story in general. Now it appears the expert they used to authenticate them in the first place has recanted his statements, saying he only checked the signature on one memo (or something to that effect) and that he could not declare them genuine. Hodges has said he was misled by CBS about the nature of the memos when he was contacted and he believes them to be forgeries now that he has seen them. One of, if not the, only typewriters of the era that even had a remote chance of reproducing the memos was too expensive to have any probability of showing up in a National Guard unit, not to mention the fact that the text it produces just doesn't line up right and getting a superscript like in the memos is a royal pain in the ass which someone who rarely typed would never go through (hell, I would never go through that trouble). Experts seem to be lining up saying they're certain or almost certain these things are bunk, while the newest expert on CBS's side appears to have worked as a typewriter repairman. As someone on the blogs said, if fixing typewriters qualifies him as a document expert, then I'm a handwriting expert because I can sharpen a pencil. Add to all this the numerous comments from current and former military folks who point out several instances where the memos break military protocol of the era and these things are starting to smell very funny. Time for CBS and Rather to put up or shut up.

From what I can tell, they seem to be spending most of their rebuttal time obsessing over the superscripts and declaring the memos legit because (a few) typewriters of the era could produce (very different looking) superscripts. Hey Danny, the superscripts are just the tip of the iceberg. Given that it doesn't seem like a serious evaluation or rebuttal from CBS is forthcoming, it only seems natural to me to assume that's because they have nothing of substance to back it up with. They just keep asking us to accept the word of their anonymous "unimpeachable" sources. It starts to make one wonder who exactly this source is.