"What I'm saying is that this document COULD have been prepared with an IBM Executive of the day. "
NO, IT CAN'T. AND HERE'S THE PROOF.
Sheesh! I'm not saying it's not a forgery. But if you argue based on things that can be refuted, you're going to lose in the end.
I could have created this document. No, it would not be identical with the word document. That's my point! I could do the superscript. I could even do the curly quotes, because they were also available as extra type bars for that machine. You see, people used it as a cheap typesetter, and IBM was happy to supply the things people needed to do that. You could buy tons of special characters, and just swap them into the typewriter when you needed them.
The point is that I could not have done a document that could be overlaid by the Word document. That would be impossible. What I could do is all the things people keep saying you couldn't do.
The only argument needed is the overlay. That would have been impossible.
I'm on your side, here. Use the right evidence, not the wrong evidence.
The only argument needed is the overlay. That would have been impossible. That's all I'm trying to say.
You said you "could have created this document". But then you say about the overlay, "That would have been impossible".
If you can't make it overlay, then you can't "make that document".