Reply #1: You have got to learn to distinguish

[Spinzonner]

the assertion that they are not inauthentic from the assertion that they are authentic.

All he says is that an analysis of the images and their printed characteristics does not produce any evidence that they could not have been produced on a typewriter of the time frame of the supposed creation of the memos. Furthermore, the analysis also indicates they were unlikely to be produced by any word processing digital printing means of a later period. That is sufficient to debunk the assertions that they were not capable of having been produced by Killian at that time. I.e. that are not proven to be inauthentic on the basis of printed characteristics.

That is not sufficient to prove that they are authentic which would depend upon lots of other criteria that are external to the copies themselves, including access to originals and chain of custody. That seems likely to be unprovable on those criteria. It does not exclude the possibility that they are authentic but that's very different from proving it. Its within the realm of possibility that originals could have been produced in a more recent time frame (vis-a-vis Killian) with access to appropriate equipment. The application of the signatures and thje possible duplication them needs to be addressed in this context and is not done so by his analysis.