Hey, I'm not defending the authenticity of the memo, just pointing out that they've already addressed your observation about spelling and date format.

I think that you and Tom are so anxious to see the memo discredited that you're "missing" (wilfully not seeing) things that might point the other way. Such as the word "transcription" in the footnote. The word clearly signals that the Observer doesn't have the original or a reproduction, but that they had to rely on somebody reading the document and writing down what he read. Do you think it's reasonable to suppose that a British journalist would make notes in Anglish?

(Again, I'm not advocating the memo's authenticity, just pointing out reasonable possibilities that you two partisans are unwilling to consider.)

--Robert