There is one MAJOR problem with this alleged forgery.
There is something over the word “Maiden” in the Mother section of the form the first image. There is also a stain on the paper above the word. On the second image, the “something” isn’t there, but the stain is. Now that’s no big deal, but the revealed word under the “something” isn’t “Maiden”. It’s “Maieen”. Either the forger added this “something” to the document because of his typo, or he photoshopped it out of the document, and didn’t think about copying in the correct letter, or removing the stain. The right serif of the foot of the letter “i” is also missing.
This is just someone who owned the same rug or quilt and figured he could claim responsibility for the document.
Good point. I can’t say “I knew all along” whether it’s fake or not. I’m no expert in forged documents. With photoshops, I never know what I’m looking at.
But if it is fake, I’d like to know two things.
Why would a forger, after detailed research and effort to create it, and seeing it start to reach the height of public interest; blow his cover after only a few days by saying “you’ve been punk’d”? A very elaborate joke with such a small payoff suggests the clever, meticulous forger is also an idiot prankster.
And why wouldn’t the forger just make it 1961 for simple instant impact?
Fake or not, I think this guy printed out copies and used the same style bedspread.
“This is just someone who owned the same rug or quilt and figured he could claim responsibility for the document.”
Possibly, but at this point, I wouldn’t trust the first one is real either.