So why would correct data be presented on forged documents with inaccuracies and forged signatures?

Why would they have to be artificially aged?

Is this what Amos calls "he-said, she-said, neener neener and PR smokery dopery"?

Bobert asks "Can you offer any evidence that the documents that Dan Rather presented were forged???" And when 3 of his favorite leftwing suckass newspapers provide the evidence, he shifts the focus in the typical liberal "you can't catch me" mode to the data on the forged documents is correct.