Probably ignoring this wild speculation and wishful thinking until someone actually analyzes the document. It's funny how quickly the factcheck stuff got quickly attacked in all sorts of ways and here people can't mention the word "font" even after 1000 posts.
The proportional "font" problem in the Rather documents was obvious, since there were no reasonable machines capable of proportional spacing that would have been available to produce such transitory documents.
What appears to be the typewritten font here isn't proportional. Other than that, with such a poor quality image, it would be hard to look for traditional problems such as a damaged element on the typewriter, where you might see, for instance, a "m" consistently deformed.
The typewritten portion appears to line up in a manner that I would have expected from using a typewriter. It appears to me to be a bit light, perhaps, which might be consistent with older manual typewriter. I do notice that the typist used the very common convention of capitalizing last names.
There might be some obvious problem with the typewritten portion, but I don't see one.
I think that the most interesting part isn't so much analyzing this document as getting its provenance and finding out about the referenced primary documents. Those are the real birth records that this document is putative certfication of.
In the Rather case, the documents were an end product in themselves; in this case, the document is a pointer to other primary documents.
I mentioned it. The pixels are not right when you zoom it.
Why insinuate without support? Why not enlighten us with your superior knowledge and wisdom?