[NonValueAdded]

If we stipulate that some IBM balls circa 1972 contained the single character ^th, has anyone found out how that would be represented on the typewriter keyboard? I doubt there would be a dedicated keycap for an optional character. Again it comes down to how simple it would be for a casual typer to operate the purported device.

Also, does anyone have an image of the purported "other document" that contains the ^th that C^BS cites to knock down that argument? I'm wondering if the "valid" th appears in a typeset letterhead and not in the body. Not that I wouldn't take C^BS's word at face value :)

[Buckhead]

I for one think the question of forgeries is so well settled that no further inquiry is required.

The questions now are whodunit and how long til Dan Rather ends up in the loony bin? It's like watching a bug you've sprayed with a slow-acting insecticide.

[Sloth]

It's in the body, but it's a totally different ^th. It's not even a true superscript, because it doesn't exceed the height of the normal characters, and it also has an underline ^th that obviously is absent in the forgeries.

[Jonah Lomu]

The rather (sic) thorough analysis at http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm, which has been referenced many, many times on FR answers this question, and many others. The th on machines of that era register at a different height (lower) relative to adjacent letters than does MS Word. The docs were made with MS Word.