I'm with Myarka on this one, Mr Caveman.
I work with Photoshop and other image software on a daily basis, and I'd imagine that to create a convincing forgery you must have a very high resolution image in the first place, otherwise you get the pixelated yuck surrounding all the text that you insert afterwards and try to blend in.
A scanner would not scan the logo in such detail and then make such a hash of the text and its immediate surrounding areas.
As interesting a read that it is, it's not an original document.
...at least I think not 🙂
I can see no discernible difference between the quality of the logo and the text? :confused:
Neither can I when I look a second time. But you agree that it looks photoshopped?
There's a line under the title on the first page around which I cannot see the pixelated halo, and the break in the line doesn't satisfactorily correspond with the wording of the title.
I'm not interested in arguing (these are just our opinions, after all), but I'd be less inclined to be pedantic if there were numerous credible sources that showed more realistic evidence than what was presented earlier.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on US date formats would like to comment too ;).
Myarka.