Within Majestic 12
Was the MJ 12 Date Format Really Impossible?
Claims that the MJ-12 date style was impossible are weakened by examples of authentic government documents using varied formats.
On this page
- The disputed date style
- Comparable period documents
- What formatting variation means for authentication
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The date-format objection to the alleged MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document is often presented as a simple authenticity test: a genuine 1952 government or military paper, the argument goes, would have written a date as “18 November 1952”, whereas the MJ-12 paper repeatedly uses forms such as “18 November, 1952” and, for single-digit days, “01 August, 1950”. That criticism identifies a real stylistic irregularity. It does not, however, establish that such punctuation was impossible in period government paperwork.
Authentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even papers produced by the same administration. The stronger conclusion is therefore narrower: the MJ-12 dating style is unusual and deserves scrutiny, but a comma or departure from a preferred government convention cannot by itself authenticate or disqualify the document.[skepticalinquirer.org]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
The disputed date style
Philip J. Klass made the dating issue one of his principal early arguments against the Eisenhower Briefing Document. In his 1987–88 Skeptical Inquirer article, Klass contrasted the American civilian form “November 18, 1952” with what he described as standard military usage, “18 November 1952”. The briefing paper instead says “18 November, 1952”: day first, as in the military convention, but with the comma associated with a month-day-year construction. He also highlighted forms such as “01 August, 1950”, “07 July, 1947” and “06 December, 1950”, arguing that the leading zero was another anachronistic feature.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
There is a genuine basis for saying that “18 November, 1952” was not the prescribed military form. Government Printing Office guidance identifies forms such as “15 April 1951” as military usage, without a comma between month and year. A later CIA historical-writing handbook likewise stated a preference for day-month-year dates such as “23 June 1953”. These sources support the proposition that the MJ-12 construction was non-standard.[GovInfo]govinfo.govGOVPUB GP 26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466ccThere is a genuine basis for saying that “18 November, 1952” was not the prescribed military form. Government Printing Office guidance id…
But “non-standard” is different from “could not have appeared on a government document”. The Government Publishing Office itself describes its Style Manual principally as a standardisation guide for government printing and cautions that its rules cannot be treated as rigid in every setting. That distinction matters when examining internal memoranda, cover notes, typed correspondence, date stamps and working papers rather than material formally typeset for publication.[GovInfo]govinfo.govgpo style manualBut “non-standard” is different from “could not have appeared on a government document”. The Government Publishing Office itself describe…
Klass attached additional weight to the format because he said William L. Moore, one of the researchers who introduced the MJ-12 papers to the public, used the same unusual construction in correspondence. He reported that Moore began placing zeros before single-digit days in his own dates in about 1983, shortly before the MJ-12 film was reportedly mailed to Jaime Shandera. Barry Greenwood later advanced a related argument after examining government documents that Moore had retyped for publication: according to Greenwood, Moore had altered otherwise conventional dates by inserting his preferred comma and, in one instance, a leading zero. That resemblance is potentially relevant to authorship, but it is a different proposition from saying that the format itself was historically impossible.[skepticalinquirer.org]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
Comparable period documents
The archival record makes any absolute rule about government dating hazardous. Official historical collections preserve papers using month-day-year forms, day-month-year forms, abbreviated months, rubber-stamped dates and other office-specific constructions.
The State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States series, for example, reproduces classified and high-level records from the Eisenhower period with dates such as “Washington, November 20, 1956” and “Washington, November 21, 1956”. A Top Secret memorandum from 18 November 1956 is catalogued in the same month-day-year convention. These are not evidence for the exact MJ-12 hybrid, but they demonstrate that “the government used military dating” is too broad a description of actual federal practice.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govThe State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States series, for example, reproduces classified and high-level records from the…
The variation also appears within intelligence-related records. Authentic Hillenkoetter-era material catalogued by the State Department includes a letter dated “Washington, March 6, 1950” and a memorandum dated “Washington, May 8, 1950”. The Truman Library holds genuine Hillenkoetter memoranda from July and August 1948, while CIA records include correspondence to Hillenkoetter dated “December 2, 1948”. In other words, documents connected with the same intelligence bureaucracy were not universally headed in a single military day-month-year style.[state.gov]history.state.govThe variation also appears within intelligence-related records. Authentic Hillenkoetter-era material catalogued by the State Department i…
MJ-12 advocate Stanton Friedman went further. He reported finding three short communications from CIA Director Allen Dulles to White House Staff Secretary Andrew Goodpaster, produced within roughly ten days in November 1956, which used three different representations: “12 November 1956”, “November 20, 1956” and a stamped “NOV 22 1956”. He also claimed to have found a file containing seven date formats and examples associated with former CIA directors Roscoe Hillenkoetter and Walter Bedell Smith in which a comma followed the month in a day-month-year construction.[The Black Vault]theblackvault.comMJ-12 advocate Stanton Friedman went further. He reported finding three short communications from CIA Director Allen Dulles to White Hous…
Those examples are important because they attack the strongest version of the objection: that variation of this kind simply did not occur in real files. Friedman’s published claims should nevertheless be distinguished from independently inspectable archival images. His argument establishes a research lead and is consistent with the wider archival evidence for heterogeneous practice, but an exact alleged Hillenkoetter or Smith parallel carries more weight when the underlying original can itself be checked. The publicly accessible official records examined here demonstrate broad variation far more securely than they demonstrate routine use of the precise “18 November, 1952” construction.[The Black Vault]theblackvault.comMJ-12 advocate Stanton Friedman went further. He reported finding three short communications from CIA Director Allen Dulles to White Hous…
There is also contemporary evidence that the supposedly “standard” presentation was a preference rather than an all-purpose production rule. The Government Printing Office distinguishes a military date such as “15 April 1951” from civilian month-day-year usage, but its manual concerns government printing rather than dictating every keystroke made by every secretary, military office or intelligence unit. Administrative documents pass through different production systems: some dates are part of the typed text; others are letterhead dates, routing notations, received stamps or later archival annotations. Treating all of these as though they came from one centrally enforced template overstates the uniformity of the historical bureaucracy.[GovInfo]govinfo.govGOVPUB GP 26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466ccThere is a genuine basis for saying that “18 November, 1952” was not the prescribed military form. Government Printing Office guidance id…
The leading zero is the harder objection
The comma and the leading zero should not be treated as though they pose exactly the same problem. Authentic documents displaying many different date arrangements substantially weaken the claim that inserting a comma after the month was inherently impossible. The evidence currently available is less decisive for the repeated zero-padding of single-digit days in the alleged briefing document.
Klass specifically emphasised “01 August, 1950”, “07 July, 1947” and “06 December, 1950”. His survey of military and CIA material led him to say that the normal construction was “1 August 1950”, without either the zero or comma. Greenwood likewise concluded, after comparing reproductions with underlying Project Blue Book material, that Moore had inserted a zero into the date of a retyped 9 February 1949 memorandum where the original lacked one.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
That does not prove Moore produced the MJ-12 briefing paper. Shared typographical habits are circumstantial evidence, especially when there is no original sheet on which typewriter, ink, paper and alterations can be examined. Yet the combination of two features — the comma after a month in a day-first date and systematic zero-padding — is more diagnostically interesting than the comma considered alone. A persuasive rebuttal would ideally produce a substantial body of securely authenticated 1940s–early-1950s US intelligence or military papers using the same complete construction, not merely documents showing that federal offices used several other dating conventions.
This distinction helps reconcile what can otherwise look like two incompatible conclusions. Critics were justified in identifying the MJ-12 style as atypical. Advocates were justified in pointing out that real government files were much less typographically uniform than an appeal to a single style manual suggested. What remains disputed is how rare the exact MJ-12 combination was and whether its resemblance to Moore’s own habits is meaningful evidence of authorship.[skepticalinquirer.org]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
What formatting variation means for authentication
Date style is useful in document authentication mainly as comparative evidence, not as a binary authenticity switch. A historian or forensic document examiner would ask whether a format fits the producing office, author, secretary, document class and period; whether the same person used comparable conventions elsewhere; whether deviations cluster with other anomalies; and whether the questioned item survives independently in an archival chain of custody.
Applied to MJ-12, that produces a more defensible assessment than the familiar claim that the comma alone “proves” forgery. The format “18 November, 1952” does depart from the preferred military pattern documented by government style guidance. Period records also show, however, that US officials moved among civilian, military, abbreviated and stamped date forms, sometimes within closely related records. Date-format diversity was real.[govinfo.gov]govinfo.govGOVPUB GP 26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466ccThere is a genuine basis for saying that “18 November, 1952” was not the prescribed military form. Government Printing Office guidance id…
The date objection therefore works best cumulatively. If an anonymously sourced document uses an uncommon hybrid convention, repeatedly pads single-digit days with zeros and happens to resemble the personal dating habits of someone connected with its emergence, those facts can add weight to a forgery hypothesis. They are not equivalent to demonstrating that no authentic government typist could have produced such a date. Klass’s original argument was strongest when framed as pattern evidence; it becomes weaker when converted into an absolute rule about what government paperwork was permitted to look like.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer+2Gov InfoAuthentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p…
Conversely, finding one or several genuine period documents containing an unusual comma would not authenticate MJ-12. Authenticity depends on much more than whether a typographical feature existed somewhere in the federal bureaucracy. The relevant comparison is with documents produced under genuinely comparable circumstances, and the evidential value rises sharply when several independent traits — typography, security markings, routing practices, terminology, signatures, paper and provenance — all point in the same direction.
For the date-format controversy specifically, the safest conclusion is thus neither “the dates prove MJ-12 genuine” nor “the dates make MJ-12 impossible”. Authentic period records undermine the latter claim by demonstrating considerable formatting variation. At the same time, the repeated hybrid form and leading zeros remain legitimate anomalies whose importance depends on how closely they match the practices of the office and people that supposedly created the briefing. The date issue is therefore a clue to be weighed alongside other authentication evidence, not a verdict in itself.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Was the MJ 12 Date Format Really Impossible?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Top Secret/Majic
Exposing the U.S. government's biggest-kept secret: a fifty-eight-year UFO cover-up. Top Secret/Majic is the result of nuclear physicist...
UFOs Explained
Analyzing several UFO cases, the author exposes the myth of extraterrestrial visitors to earth.
Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques
Completely revised and updated to reflect the latest techniques and technological advances, this second edition provides and clear, conci...
Forensic Document Examination: Principles and Practice
This book introduces the reader to the basic principles of handwriting and the factors that affect their development. The book discusses...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Title: Skeptical Inquirer+2Gov Info
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/03/Issue-02-10.pdf
Source snippet
Authentic records from the late 1940s and 1950s show considerable variation between agencies, offices, typists, document types and even p...
2.
Source: govinfo.gov
Title: GOVPUB GP 26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466cc
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-GP-26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466cc/pdf/GOVPUB-GP-26106c7aa879602e0a802c3c3f4466cc.pdf
Source snippet
There is a genuine basis for saying that “18 November, 1952” was not the prescribed military form. Government Printing Office guidance id...
3.
Source: govinfo.gov
Title: gpo style manual
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/gpo-style-manual
Source snippet
But “non-standard” is different from “could not have appeared on a government document”. The Government Publishing Office itself describe...
4.
Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian+2Office of the Historian
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/ch3subch1?start=61
Source snippet
The State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States series, for example, reproduces classified and high-level records from the...
5.
Source: history.state.gov
Title: CIA+3Office of the Historian+3Office of the Historian
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d418fn0
Source snippet
The variation also appears within intelligence-related records. Authentic Hillenkoetter-era material catalogued by the State Department i...
6.
Source: theblackvault.com
Title: The Black Vault
Link:https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/update-on-operation-majestic-12-documents/
Source snippet
MJ-12 advocate Stanton Friedman went further. He reported finding three short communications from CIA Director Allen Dulles to White Hous...
Additional References
7.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJplVuElLs
Source snippet
1 UFO Crash Retrieval Expert on CIA Alien Files & Majestic 12 | Ryan Wood...
8.
Source: youtube.com
Title: 1 UFO Crash Retrieval Expert on CIA Alien Files & Majestic 12 | Ryan Wood
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JeoxrJ0mI4
Source snippet
UAP researcher: Lue Elizondo's new role is a 'controlled narrative' | Reality Check...
9.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZiEFA2h79U
Source snippet
1947 Newscast: Spies, Aliens, and Collapsing Empires! - W2W 18...
10.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0dQjNrLcb8
Source snippet
Carl Sagan Leads a Double Life at Majestic-12...
11.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Carl Sagan Leads a Double Life at Majestic-12
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIVzGhNZcCg