It has not been done!

The issue is not so much the superscripts specifically, or even the actual font typeface, but the perfect match (accounting for multiple copying and other degrading) with the Microsoft word. Even the last letters on each line and the last letters on the document are still in alignment.

If something else could have produced these documents with such as good match, then why is there not one single example of this anywhere?

The Juliusblog image is a blown up view of the online image. The differences could be caused by different typefaces, or by "noise" creeping in through multiple copying. Viewing the originals (or 1st generation copies) should be enough to settle the argument, one way or another.

The Kos story didn’t look directly at font samples, but linked to another site which did – and drew exactly opposite conclusions!

Still, if I were ordering typewriters for the US armed forces, customised superscript "th", "st" and "nd" characters would certainly have been on my customisation list, for relatively obvious reasons.

If you look at the Juliusblog GIF above, it’s clear that LGF is using a different *typeface* variant from the letter – not only the spacing, but actual characters, are different.

Finally, here’s a third Kos story, which looks directly at font samples.

You really should have looked at LGF’s subsequent articles.

The Kos article mentions that a font consists of more than just the typeface; it also includes rules about spacing, etc.

Unfortunately for Kos, these rules vary in their implementation – not just between modern day word processors and 1970’s typewriters, but also between the same font on the same word processor, printed on different printers (trust me, this has on occasion been the bane of my life!)

Presumably, LGF and the unknown forger use a similar type of printer.

Many of his other points (eg. apparent differences in font, letters appearing to be out of alignment) are artifacts of multi-generational copying (I’ve seen worse).

The point about superscripting – a fair number of typewriters would have allowed sub/superscripting, but it would have been at normal typesize, not a reduced typesize. It could have been achieved by a special character (as he suggests), but would they really have gone to all the trouble of specially ordering a customised ^th character? Even more improbable, what are the chances of it exactly matching the same effect in MSWord’s default settings?

In summary, Kos’s criticisms definitively prove nothing.

Also, why has not someone been able to demonstrate such a close matching for the Killian memos and a document produced on the kind of typewriter people suggest produced these documents? I have not seen that anywhere. There is something special about the Microsoft Word match-up that has not been duplicated.