I do NOT think you are wrong. But I do think you need to have the best case possible, and there are questions about what the technology of the day could do.
As far as I am concerned, the superscript issue nails it.
I don't think the proportional-font issue, by itself, does.
My opinion is worth a half bag of warm spit, same as anyone else's.
If you think I was attacking you, I apologize, I did not mean to.
No apology necessary. I guess I am just a bit weary of all the speculation about what MIGHT possibly have been done with some arcane 1973 technology that was about as likely to be in a TANG office as a blue whale is to be in a kiddie wading pool.
It is clear the signatures are different.
It is clear there are superscripts in the document that are darn near unexplainable.
It is clear the document can be easily exactly reproduced by MS Word.
We have made our case. We no longer have to prove the document is a forgery. Unless some leftist proponent of the forgeries can show how such a document could be produced with 1973 technology and can demonstrate the signatures on the forgeries are authentic (and the official documents therefore forgeries), it will remain proved a forgery. The memos are deauthenticated - it is up to Rather to reauthenticate them if he can. And he can't.
I apologize myself if I seemed rude. I guess I am suffering from the 4 hours of sleep I got last night as a consequence of staying up late monitoring this story. I really try to be polite (its hard when you deal with lawyers all day, I assure you).