The biggest problem I see with the BC shown is it’s printed on security paper. Photocopiers weren’t in wide use in 1961. In fact, they were quite rare in the ‘60’s because they were so expensive. Photo copiers didn’t become common until the mid to late 1970’s, and with that came security paper. I worked on copiers, took formal Xerox training, etc, when I was an undergrad working as an intern for Nuclear Assurance Corp. To me, this is a simple, glaring flaw no one seems to address. The rest of the stuff you can find in Adobe Illustrator adds fuel to the fire, but it seems the use of security paper is the biggest flaw in the forgery.
Well that's not true - we had fine copiers back then. Used some process that made the pages slightly sticky and somewhat washed out. We had a guy that was really anal about copying everything. You can imagine his surprise when he found out that all the copies began fading immediately, and were illegible within five years.
No way this was copied on one of the POS copiers we had in the ‘60’s. I didn't see one that was worth a hoot until the ‘73-74 timeframe.
Not a problem - the photocopy, which is recent, is on security paper, not the original which was copied out of a bound book.
Groan.
It was printed on security paper a few weeks ago. That doesn’t make it a forgery. The original was scanned at some point, stored for an unknown period (perhaps decades), and then printed on the security paper. That’s functionally identical to modern photocopy methods (scan-then-print) with only an intervening delay, which due to storage constraints prompts technical shortcuts which produce the multi-layer multi-resolution artifacts.
Heck, one way or another the original gets scanned, processed, and rendered on your computer monitor - which isn’t any more or less proof of forgery, just the reality of modern technology.
The ultimate proof it’s NOT a fake is its own content. Nobody would produce a forgery which, if taken as the truth it alleges, proves he is ineligible.
The actual document in the archives is not on security paper. I’m not even sure the copy of the actual document was on security paper, because a copy shown by several news orgs had no security hash marks on it. Only the WH copy had the security hash.
Definitely some odd stuff going on.
“In fact, they were quite rare in the ‘60’s because they were so expensive.”
Not rare for governments and large companies at the time.