No, the question is - Is it possible that Killian used a typewritter with proportional spacing? And the answer is yes, no matter how you try to justify your head buried in the sand with respect to this issue.
Sorry bud, but it CAN be proved that a document is a forgery based on fonts and equipment available at the time, just as some forgers use pens or ink that were not available at the time a forgery is supposed to have been written.
What will be your response when the Navy finally releases skerry's dishonorable discharge from the 70's. I guess Bush's suppossed bad performance report trumps that right?
Ah, but how do you explain away the differences in the signatures?
"No, the question is - Is it possible that Killian used a typewritter with proportional spacing? And the answer is yes, no matter how you try to justify your head buried in the sand with respect to this issue."
That's true. Some other means is going to have to be taken to disprove these documents. They could have been prepared on a piece of equipment that was pretty common in those days.
It should be easy to get in touch with his secretary or secretaries who worked in his office at that time. They should remember pretty clearly what kind of typewriter they used to type stuff. I still clearly remember the old manual I used to take my Civil Service Clerk Typist Test back in 1964, then got the job with NASA which had the IBM ball typewriter with symbols on it I had never seen before.
I believe it is an IBM Model 4 built in 1941. Just FYI. I don't know how prevalent they were in the military. In 1975 I was using a 1918 Underwood at Norton AFB.... If that's any clue.