Bloggers are taking note that the Thornburgh/Boccardi report on CBS does not seem to take a position on the authenticity of the Killian documents. On p. 14 on the report, the authors note:

The Panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries.

This shouldn’t be interpreted as a cop-out, I think. Barring an admission from the forger, it’s difficult to prove document forgery with “absolute” certainty. But Appendix 4–seems to speak loud and clear on this. Here’s the intro:

The following is a summary of the information provided to the Panel by Peter Tytell relating to the typestyle of the four documents aired on the September 8 Segment (the “Killian documents”) and the typestyle of the previously released Texas Air National Guard (“TexANG”) document containing a superscript “th” that was featured on the September 10 CBS Evening News (the “Superscript Exemplar”) .’

Tytell concluded, for the reasons described below, that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle . Tytell acknowledged that deterioration in the Killian documents from the copying and downloading process made the comparison of typestyles “to some extent a subjective call.” However, he believed the differences were sufficiently significant to conclude that the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic…

The Killian Documents Were Likely Produced On A Computer

Tytell concluded that the Killian documents were produced in a typestyle that closely resembles Times New Roman, a typestyle that he explained was not available on standard typewriters in the early 1970s.6 Tytell explained to the Panel that although the typestyle of the Killian documents has certain similarities with the “Press Roman” typestyle on the IBM Selectric Composer typewriter that was available in the early 1970s, there are enough significant differences in his opinion to conclude that the Killian documents were not produced by an IBM Selectric Composer. The basis for his conclusion is summarized below.

According to Tytell, the Killian documents are proportionally spaced and therefore could not have been produced by monospaced typewriters, which constituted a substantial majority of the typewriters available in the early 1970s.

In addition, Tytell explained that the Killian documents are produced in serif typestyle (i.e., “with feet”). This is visible, for example, on the capital “M” from the May 4, 1972 Killian document. Therefore, he was able to eliminate all “sans-serif” proportional typestyles . Tytell also reviewed the June 2004 version ofthe Haas Atlas, which he described as a compendium of available typewriter typestyles that he considers a key resource in examining typography issues. Tytell told the Panel that he reviewed the proportionally spaced, serif typestyles in the Haas Atlas and did not find a single match with the Killian documents…’

***
For most bloggers, Tytell’s analysis is old hat, deja vu all over again. But the appendix is worth reading all the way through. This should put to rest any last desperate straw-grasping from some fringe quarters that the documents were authentic.