You don't understand "proof". It is a word that has meaning, and meaningfulness. Yet your assertion that we can not "prove" something is no more than saying that the word and concept "proof" is meaningless.
Why? Because exacting proofs are impossible -- Godel's Theorem. "Proof" at some intrinsic level becomes subjective, the depth to which a demonstration must go has not bottom for any "fact" if one is exacting to the degree you sugggest, That is -- NOTHING is proveable by your metric. Yet things are proved all the time -- to some level of "reasonability". Even the LAW recognizes this aspect of proof. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it is beyond even the strictist of reasonable doubts that those documents are forgeries.
Your point is mine exactly. There is never 100% proof" and we never needed it.
They needed 99.9%.... and didn't get 1%
The font used in the documents did not exist in that form when the documents were supposedly produced. The pseudokerning in the documents was a 1980's invention.
The only loophole would be the possible existence of closed timelike loops. A time machine, in the vernacular. It can't currently be ruled out, physically, but before we can rightly consider the possibility, CBS should offer it as an explanation.