I can't argue with you about this. I don't have similar, relevant personal experience. All I did was read what "experts" had to say...and was unable to draw any definite conclusions.
Did you read the analysis of Joseph Newcomer?
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
This guy totally, definitively nails it with no caveats, cavils or qualifications. He demolishes all comers at the bit level. And he ought to know. He is one of the fathers of computer typography.
CBS's own experts told them the fonts indicated forgery before they went to air. Mary Mapes' response to that was "Well, we can get an expert to say anything we need them to." Think about that for a minute, especially the use of the word "need."
And then she proceeded to air. She lied internally at CBS to get the story aired and to defend it after it aired. She hooked Burkett up with Joe Lockhart. The DNC "Fortunate Son" ad campaign started the next morning. Every major news outlet in the country had the story of the documents as a lead story the next morning. It was a cornerstone of the strategy to defeat Bush. Victory, not accuracy, was the prime directive.
The Thornburgh commission's expert, Tytel, also concluded the documents were forgeries, even though the report itself rather inexplicably did not. I am unaware of any legitimate expert opinion that the documents are not forgeries. I exclude here the bozo typewriter repair guy trotted out by CBS that week, and the various DU, Daily Kos barking moonbats out there such as Corety Pein at the Columbia Journalism Review. The guy at Utah State who came out and said they might be legit turned out to be so out of his depth it was kind of pitiful. Newcomer dismantled this guy so thoroughly they stopped the fight. Newcomer has not been refuted. There is a reason for that. He's right, the documents are fakes.
You relegate yourself to the company flat-earthers to insist that the forgery has not been proven. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are no circumstances surrounding them which support their authenticity, and literally dozens, nigh unto 50 or 60 discrete facts - only some of which have been enumerated by conservatism_is_compassion - indicative of forgery, some overwhelmingly so. A general who has been retired 18 months pressuring Killian over a rating. What a freaking joke.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but with respect I say to you this one is in need of correction.
Regards,
Again...they were written in a format the the USAF (or Air Guard) did not adopt until the early 1990s.