Could One CIA Office Use Three Date Styles?

Introduction

One of Stanton Friedman’s more concrete replies to date-format objections against the alleged MJ-12 papers was a tightly defined historical comparison: three short communications attributed to CIA Director Allen W. Dulles and sent to White House Staff Secretary Colonel Andrew J. Goodpaster during November 1956. Friedman reported that the papers displayed three visibly different dates — “12 November 1956”, “November 20, 1956”, and a rubber-stamped “NOV 22 1956”.[Medium]medium.comUPDATE ON OPERATION MAJESTIC 12 DOCUMENTS | by Richard Geldreich, Jr. | Physicist Stanton Friedman’s Articles | MediumJune 28, 2024…Published: June 28, 2024

If the three originals are as Friedman described them, the example is important for one limited reason. It shows why an argument based on an assumed single, invariant CIA date style is too strong: closely related correspondence could acquire different date presentations within days. It does not establish that the alleged MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document is authentic, nor does it demonstrate that its distinctive day-month-comma-year construction was normal CIA practice. The surviving online evidence supports the broader phenomenon of period variation, but independent archival confirmation of this exact three-item set remains incomplete.

The three reported November 1956 formats

Friedman described the material as three brief cover communications from Dulles to Goodpaster at the White House. In a later account of his MJ-12 research, he said they were produced within a ten-day period and gave their dates as:

The same three forms appeared in Friedman’s published discussion reproduced in the MUFON UFO Journal. That account adds a useful detail: he characterised the items as cover letters, unclassified when separated from their classified enclosures.[Electronics and Books]electronicsandbooks.comElectronics and Books$4.00Mutual UFO Network ••^•"^•^••••^ UFO Journal… That qualification matters. A short transmitting note moving a classified enclosure between senior offices is not necessarily governed by exactly the same production conventions as the enclosed intelligence paper itself.

The trio is therefore more interesting than three random government documents with different dates. Friedman’s claim puts the variation in a narrow institutional corridor: one named sender, Dulles; one named recipient, Goodpaster; the CIA-to-White-House channel; and a short interval in November 1956. Goodpaster was indeed central to Eisenhower’s White House information flow at the time. Contemporary Foreign Relations of the United States records repeatedly identify him as drafting memoranda of presidential conferences and handling sensitive material during precisely this period.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the HistorianHistorical Documents - Office of the HistorianNovember 20, 1956…Published: November 20, 1956

There is also independent evidence that Dulles was sending Goodpaster short cover notes in November 1956. The State Department’s official historical series records, for example, that a 10 November memorandum from Dulles was transmitted to the White House under a note from Dulles to Goodpaster. A separate Dulles memorandum of 16 November was accompanied by a 17 November note saying that Dulles was sending a copy to “Andy Goodpaster”.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the HistorianHistorical Documents - Office of the Historian… These are not themselves verification of Friedman’s three specified date forms, but they confirm that the kind of Dulles–Goodpaster traffic he described belonged to a documented working relationship.

What the example says about office variation

The strongest inference from the Dulles example is not that date conventions were meaningless. It is that document appearance cannot safely be reduced to one supposed agency-wide template.

The reported third item makes the point especially clearly. “NOV 22 1956” was, according to Friedman, a rubber-stamped date rather than an ordinary typed dateline. A stamp can reflect a receiving, processing or clerical procedure different from whatever convention governed the author’s typed correspondence. Treating such a stamp as though it were evidence of Dulles personally choosing a third writing style would therefore go beyond what the example establishes.[Medium]medium.comUPDATE ON OPERATION MAJESTIC 12 DOCUMENTS | by Richard Geldreich, Jr. | Physicist Stanton Friedman’s Articles | MediumJune 28, 2024…Published: June 28, 2024

Period CIA records independently demonstrate this distinction between documentary convention and absolute uniformity. A CIA Current Intelligence Bulletin dated 14 November 1956 displays the day-month-year form “14 November 1956”, while another bulletin from 22 November likewise uses “22 November 1956”.[CIA]cia.govCENTRAL INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.govCENTRAL INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)November 14, 1956…Published: November 14, 1956 Yet government records involving Dulles were not universally represented that way. The State Department’s historical edition catalogues a Dulles memorandum of 22 November as “Washington, November 22, 1956”, illustrating the month-day-year presentation common in State Department documentary editing.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the HistorianHistorical Documents - Office of the Historian…

That last comparison also exposes a trap in date-format research: the date displayed by an archive or documentary editor is not automatically a facsimile transcription of the typography on the original sheet. Foreign Relations of the United States standardises document headings for publication. Its “Washington, November 22, 1956” heading therefore proves the date of the Dulles memorandum, but by itself cannot prove that those exact characters and punctuation appeared as its original typed dateline. The physical or scanned source remains the better evidence when the research question concerns typography rather than chronology.

This is precisely why Friedman’s three alleged facsimiles have greater potential evidential value than a catalogue search. If genuine originals really show the three forms he reported, they would demonstrate variation at the artefact level rather than merely variation introduced by later cataloguing or editing.

The MJ-12 comparison has limits

Friedman deployed the Dulles examples against a specific kind of objection to the alleged MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document: the claim that intelligence or government practice was so standardised that a document departing from the expected date convention could be rejected on that ground alone. His examples make that absolute proposition difficult to sustain.[Medium]medium.comUPDATE ON OPERATION MAJESTIC 12 DOCUMENTS | by Richard Geldreich, Jr. | Physicist Stanton Friedman’s Articles | MediumJune 28, 2024…Published: June 28, 2024

They do not, however, reproduce the most controversial MJ-12 construction. The three reported Dulles forms are “12 November 1956”, “November 20, 1956” and “NOV 22 1956”. None is the characteristic MJ-12 hybrid form such as “18 November, 1952” — day first, followed by the month, then a comma before the year. The Dulles trio consequently demonstrates variation, not an exact match.

That distinction changes the evidential question. If the proposition is “CIA correspondence could show more than one date presentation”, Friedman’s example is directly relevant. If the proposition is “Dulles routinely used the precise MJ-12 date construction”, these three communications do not establish it. And if the question is whether the alleged MJ-12 papers themselves are genuine, the comparison is weaker still: authenticating a disputed document requires convergence among provenance, paper and typography, bureaucratic terminology, classification markings, signatures, content and archival context, not merely finding precedents for individual stylistic features.

The episode is therefore best understood as a rebuttal to an exclusion rule, rather than positive authentication. Showing that real offices could vary their dates undermines “this format variation could never happen”. It does not turn the reverse proposition — “therefore MJ-12 is genuine” — into a valid inference.

Why archival verification still matters

There is an important evidential imbalance in the material available online. Friedman’s assertion about the three dates is easy to trace: his later article explicitly names Dulles and Goodpaster and lists all three forms, and the same claim appeared in his published UFO literature.[Medium]medium.comUPDATE ON OPERATION MAJESTIC 12 DOCUMENTS | by Richard Geldreich, Jr. | Physicist Stanton Friedman’s Articles | MediumJune 28, 2024…Published: June 28, 2024 Independent official sources, meanwhile, strongly corroborate the surrounding historical setting. They show Dulles corresponding with Goodpaster during November 1956, Goodpaster processing sensitive presidential material, and Dulles producing classified memoranda during the same days.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the HistorianHistorical Documents - Office of the Historian…

What the accessible official material located here does not yet provide is a clean archival chain independently matching all three of Friedman’s facsimiles to their repository identifiers and confirming each date presentation directly from the original image. That gap should not be papered over. Repetitions of Friedman’s statement on later websites are secondary transmission of his claim, not separate corroboration.

The ideal verification would identify each item by repository, collection, box and folder; inspect the original or high-quality scan; distinguish a typed document date from receiving or processing stamps; establish whether Dulles signed or initialled the communication; and determine whether the three items were actually generated by the same CIA office or merely passed through the same Dulles–Goodpaster correspondence stream. Those details could explain the variation rather than merely document its existence.

There is good reason to expect such complexity in the archival record. The official State Department history identifies material from this period across the Eisenhower Library’s Staff Secretary Records, Whitman File and Dulles-related files, while contemporary CIA holdings preserve their own internal dating conventions.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the HistorianHistorical Documents - Office of the Historian… A “Dulles document” can therefore represent several stages of production and custody — drafting, signature, transmission, White House receipt, filing and later archival description — each capable of generating a visually different date.

Could one CIA office use three date styles?

The defensible answer is possibly, and Friedman produced a specific historical example that deserves to be taken seriously — but the wording “one CIA office used three styles” is stronger than the presently verified evidence permits.

His November 1956 cluster is valuable because it replaces an abstract argument about bureaucratic consistency with a testable archival claim. Three Dulles-to-Goodpaster communications were said to carry “12 November 1956”, “November 20, 1956” and “NOV 22 1956”, all within days. Contemporary official records independently confirm intensive Dulles–Goodpaster correspondence in that period and show that different documentary systems surrounded the same senior officials.[Medium]medium.comUPDATE ON OPERATION MAJESTIC 12 DOCUMENTS | by Richard Geldreich, Jr. | Physicist Stanton Friedman’s Articles | MediumJune 28, 2024…Published: June 28, 2024

For the date-format debate surrounding the alleged MJ-12 documents, that is enough to weaken claims that a single punctuation or ordering rule operated without exception throughout period intelligence correspondence. It is not enough to authenticate MJ-12, and it does not by itself validate the disputed day-month-comma-year form. The lasting value of the Dulles example is narrower and more useful: 1950s intelligence paperwork should be judged against actual documents and their production histories, not against an assumed universal house style.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Could One CIA Office Use Three Date Styles?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Top Secret/Majic

By Stanton T. Friedman

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...

See on Amazon

Book

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA

By Tim Weiner

Traces the history of the CIA from the end of World War II to Iraq, in a study that condemns the organization for its record, its inabili...

See on Amazon

Book

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

By Victor Marchetti, John D. Marks

First published 1974. Subjects: United States, United States. Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Inlichtingendiensten, Spionage.

See on Amazon

Book

Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques

By David Ellen

Completely revised and updated to reflect the latest techniques and technological advances, this second edition provides and clear, conci...

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:Top Secret/MajicLegacy of Ashes: The History of the CIAThe CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

Conspiracy Theory Poster Wall Print Gift UFO Aliens Flat Earth Moon Landing

GBP 5.97 | Free shippingNewSeller: forgevalleyprint (99.3% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

VINTAGE UFO ABDUCTION ILLUSTRATION FRAMED WALL ART PICTURE POSTER PRINT

GBP 11.99 | Free shippingNewSeller: canvas monkey (99.8% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

UFO S4 Framed Picture Poster Print Wall Art A3 Bob Lazar

GBP 21.50 | Shipping GBP 3.71NewSeller: lavishaddict (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

I WANT TO BELIEVE UFO POSTER TV SERIES POSTER A0-A1-A2-A3-A4-A5-A6-MAXI 191

GBP 15.99 | Free shippingNewSeller: big-print-uk (99.8% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: medium.com
Link:https://medium.com/stanton-friedmans-articles/update-on-operation-majestic-12-documents-ed2df58fd8a1

Published: June 28, 2024

2. Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian Historical Documents
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d596

Published: November 20, 1956

3. Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian Historical Documents
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/ch3subch1?start=31

4. Source: cia.gov
Title: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79t00975a002800220001-6

Published: November 14, 1956

5. Source: cia.gov
Title: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79t00975a002800290001-9

6. Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian Historical Documents
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v12/ch3

7. Source: archive.is
Title: Harry on Reddit
Link:https://archive.is/LcwdW

8. Source: medium.com
Link:https://medium.com/stanton-friedmans-articles/book-review-kevin-d-randles-case-mj-12-the-true-story-behind-the-government-s-ufo-conspiracies-9e06f4e82250

9. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v04/d40

10. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v04/d40

11. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/ch3subch1?start=61

12. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v12/ch3

13. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v12/ch1?start=121

14. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v19/ch1?start=91

15. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v01/ch3

16. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/persons

17. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v01/ch3

18. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v13/persons

19. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v12/d417fn1

20. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/ch8

21. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/ch7?start=31

22. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/sources

23. Source: cia.gov
Title: M Y DEAR MR. DULLES: | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-04718a002400440051-3

24. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00400r000100100047-4

25. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/d218fn6

26. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp92-00420r000300020009-0

27. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d626fn5

28. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d626fn10

29. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d604fn6

30. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d596fn1

31. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d579

32. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/d168fn4

33. Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v25/d124fn5

34. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80b01676r004200100038-6

35. Source: electronicsandbooks.com
Title: Electronics and Books$4.00
Link:https://electronicsandbooks.com/edt/manual/Magazine/M/MUFON%20UFO%20Journal/MUFON%20UFO%20Journal%20-%20January%202004.pdf

36. Source: wikidisc.org
Title: Majestic 12 documents | Wiki Disc
Link:https://www.wikidisc.org/wiki/Majestic_12_documents

37. Source: findingaids.library.nyu.edu
Link:https://findingaids.library.nyu.edu/tamwag/tam_170/all/

38. Source: sscnet.ucla.edu
Link:https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/guide/dulles.html

39. Source: sscnet.ucla.edu
Link:https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/guide/guide/dulles.html

Additional References

40. Source: youtube.com
Title: DARK JOURNALIST: Stanton Friedman
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxXuw763O_U

41. Source: youtube.com
Title: Top Secret / MAJIC By Stanton T. Friedman
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Je48I-xNjY

42. Source: en.ikwipedia.org
Title: 1952 MJ 12 surrender agreement
Link:https://en.ikwipedia.org/wiki/1952_MJ-12_surrender_agreement

Published: July 21, 2026

43. Source: youtube.com
Title: Flying Saucers Are Real
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyV6Go15-c

44. Source: theblackvault.com
Title: The Black Vault Update on Operation Majestic 12 Documents
Link:https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/update-on-operation-majestic-12-documents/

45. Source: youtube.com
Title: UFOs and MJ-12
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHqIXLOqRak

46. Source: youtube.com
Title: Interview with Stanton Friedman, New CIA & MJ-12 Copies
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80pGr6r2lnY

47. Source: nps.gov
Title: A Wartime Organization for Unconventional Warfare (U.S. National Park Service)
Link:https://www.nps.gov/articles/a-wartime-organization-for-unconventional-warfare.htm

48. Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/812887392/14-We-Were-Never-There-Volume-1-CIA-U-2-Operations-over-Europe-the-USSR-and-the-Middle-East-1956-1960-e

49. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350083063_Murky_Projects_and_Uneven_Information_Policies_A_Case_Study_of_the_Psychological_Strategy_Board_and_CIA