Look, we are in agreement at this point, but how half baked was the assumption about the proportional font being an indicator of forgery in view of the fact that this expert endorses it?
The expert was suspicious about the proportional font, but consider this: wouldn't that be the first thing anyone would notice? How smart would it be for CBS to present a document that couldn't possibly be typed in 1972?
Don't answer that.
How smart would it be for a forger to produce an impossible document that sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when ordinary military typewriters are easily available?
I respect the expert's opinion, particularly when he gets into the nuts and bolts of typeface differences. This is enough to require a look at the original document.