Actually, now that I think about it, I think the right margin on the page already contains the all evidence that points to authenticity.
Never mind.
Item 22. After seeing another document, with the address, I believe it is a pre-printed letterhead. I do not believe a printshop would use the raised "th" in a letterhead.
I think this first point is false. Proportional font spacing WAS generally available through the IBM Executive typewriter, for example. Whether or not this was available or not at TANG, who knows.
3. superscripts not generally available
4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
These two go together, sort of. It was indeed possible to get a "th" element in a typewriter head, as other Bush documents show. Unlikely, as you say, but available. The key is that such elements are not true superscript in that the top of the letters did not extend above the top of the normal letters when typed---unless the carriage was manually adjusted vertically, which is unlikely.
5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top
I don't know if this ought to be a separate point. I think this ought to be folded into a more general topic that concludes that the typeface used does not match any commonly available in typewriters, as catalogued in the Haas Atlas. Even the IBM Selectric Composer fails to sufficiently match the font.
Thanks for all your help and input. The continued thread for
all your review and comment is
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1214226/posts?page=1