I agree with you 100%. Not only is the footnoting unclear in some spots, there's also missing footnotes. It says that the documents were later proven to be frauds and mentions new FBI techniques, but does not give any support to this. Not a bit of backup. While it may not be the intent, it makes it seem like the author is slanting the point of view and just saying that the document was a forgery without proof because that's they want the story to end. The only information he footnotes on the document are either opinions or state that they can't prove it's a forgery. I shouldn't have to go to another site to find the proof and information on this (which I haven't done, yet, so I'm not yet sure it exists...if it does, it should be footnoted here, if not, there should be no forgery conclusion, just speculation based on other evidence).  (Kelly)