No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of the materials he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be expected to remember all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to ID this one as altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the other documents because he had never been in touch with the outlet releasing them, contrary to their apparent belief.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
> As I think I said in the other thread, less specific charges that require
> more specific proof and almost never leveled before a trial is set, because
> it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public opinion, where a lot
> of information can't be released lest it spoil an investigation or
> potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be little to gain at
> this point by alleging that the slides are fake since there would be few
> people to believe it,
>
> "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong argument -
> especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden himself* has accused
> outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he says he did not
> provide*.
>
Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to discredit Snowden.

Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide?

This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get unnoticed.