sorry, that's a bogus rationalization.
First, have you ever worked with a scanner? It doesn't make things less legible.
Second, they'd retype the documents, and then create all the artifacts to make it look like an old document?
Third, instead of putting up the original document online, they put up their re-created document, and pass it off as original?
Sorry, this theory is ridiculous.
uh... the production rooms of networks and webmasters of news sites are still filled with computer dorks, not journalists.
Ever seen that story with a pile of documents, then one of them flies up, then a line highlights and is "pulled out" so you can read it.
You think they use the actual documents to do that? Do they make it look like "actual documents"?
Did they re-record the translators voice for the Saddam interview because they didn't like the sound of the original?
It isn't just journalists in the production room. There are creative types, producers, and production artists. Believe me it is no trouble, would only take 5 seconds, and would be done at a whim because the producer thought the original didn't look "military" enough...
Besides we cover our ass if we pitch this story as:
Are those images of the real documents? Because those documents are not period, and are forgeries...