Discussion dated, 2006, so clearly not in the current batch
"We have only discussed this document a few times in the past. It is a fake and not that cleverly done.
John McAdams immediately suspected it was a fake and asked us if there is anything to confirm that it is indeed a fake.
When I looked at it I knew instantly that it was a fake. How? It is not written in the proper format using the proper CIA style. One tip off is the marking "CO-2-34,030." That is actually from a Secret Service report. How would I know? Because I had obtained and used on my Web site some of the pages from that SS report, so the notation jumped out as a fabrication. What someone did was take a page from the SS report, maybe even downloaded it from my Web page, removed the original text and wrote their own. Also the wording is not how the CIA would word a document of that type at that time. They would not refer to Hoover by name or agencies by common names. Instead you would see code words like ODACID. You need to look at hundreds of thousands of genuine CIA documents as I have to develop a mental database of what genuine CIA documents look like. I have no doubt that the hoaxer really thought that something like that was said. I don't think the intent was like the other hoaxes to discredit all JFK assassination research. I think someone just assumed that he knew enough to create a realistic fake to incriminate the CIA."
At the least, that has been around since 2006; so why are we hearing about it now? Someone's trying to stir the waters up.
JFK assassination discussion group.
That document has made the rounds long ago so, I'd be careful about it.
Anyone with the right equipment might be able to manufacture something like this.
It seems bogus to me, that though this document has been passed around for over a decade, people are pushing this as the real deal in 2017. That in itself is questionable.
I hear Dan Rather might have a line on where to get that equipment. Also heard you have to pay extra for period specific fonts...