What Can Copies Really Prove About MJ 12?

Introduction

The signature evidence against the alleged 24 September 1947 Truman–Forrestal MJ-12 memorandum is strong, but it is narrower than a laboratory finding made from an uncontested original would have been. The surviving MJ-12 material available for examination is reproductive evidence, not a securely provenanced White House sheet. That distinction prevents examiners from testing ink, paper, pen pressure, physical erasures and other features that could directly establish how the document was assembled. Federal archival searches have also failed to produce an independent executive-branch original.[Government Accountability Office]gao.govGovernment Accountability Office[Comments on Majestic 12 Material] | U.S. GAOJuly 28, 1995…Published: July 28, 1995

Yet “only a copy” does not make the signature comparison worthless. Reproductions can preserve enough geometry and distinctive detail to reveal that two signature images share a common source. In this case, the alleged MJ-12 signature reportedly matches Truman’s signature on an authentic 1 October 1947 letter to Vannevar Bush after adjustment for copying enlargement, including an accidental mark in the same place. Document examiner Peter Tytell regarded the result as a signature transplant. The defensible conclusion is therefore strong but qualified: the available image provides substantial evidence of copying, while the missing original limits what can be proved about the physical process that produced it.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006

What copies can reveal

Research supports that distinction. An Office of Justice Programs summary of a survey of 50 forensic document examiners reported that 70 per cent considered conclusive authorship findings scientifically possible from photocopied handwriting or signatures, whereas nearly 79 per cent did not believe the authenticity of a photocopied document could be determined conclusively. Most respondents favoured explicitly separating authorship from document authenticity.[Office of Justice Programs]ojp.govOpen source on ojp.gov.

Experimental work is similarly more nuanced than the simple rule that “copies cannot be examined”. In a study comparing examiners’ judgements on original and photocopied signatures, the correct opinion rates for questioned genuine signatures were 100 per cent for originals and 98 per cent for photocopies, with no authorship identification or elimination reversed when the examiner moved between a copy and its original. The experiment does not authenticate the MJ-12 memorandum, but it demonstrates why a clear reproduction can retain considerable comparative value.[Journal of Forensic Document Examination]jfde.orgJournal of Forensic Document ExaminationComparison of document examiners’ opinions on original and photocopied signatures | Journal of Fo…

That is important because the central MJ-12 observation concerns an unusually close image match. Philip J. Klass reported locating an authentic Truman letter to Vannevar Bush dated 1 October 1947. The Truman signature on the alleged Forrestal memorandum was approximately 3.6 per cent larger, but when the Bush signature was enlarged and superimposed, Tytell judged the MJ-12 version to be a “classic signature transplant”. Particularly significant was the reported recurrence of accidental pen marks rather than merely Truman’s normal letter shapes.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006

Two genuine signatures by the same person can of course look extremely similar. What gives the comparison greater force is the claimed reproduction of incidental detail. Klass and Tytell highlighted a stray mark associated with the “H” of “Harry”. They also focused on the top of the “T” in “Truman”: in the authentic Bush letter that stroke touched the typed closing, while the corresponding portion of the disputed image appeared thinned. Tytell interpreted this as consistent with removal of the surrounding closing before the signature image was transferred.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006

The enlargement does not necessarily undermine that comparison. Tytell argued that repeated photocopying could account for a modest increase in size, and modern research confirms the broader point that copying can alter signatures through widening, thinning, broken lines, merged traces and degradation of fine detail. Such distortion means exact measurements from successive reproductions require caution; it does not mean that a distinctive overall configuration surviving the process has no evidential value.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006

What the missing original prevents

The strongest limitation is not that examiners cannot see the signature. It is that they cannot interrogate the physical relationship between signature, typing, ink and paper. A reproduction flattens a three-dimensional artefact into an image. Consequently, some of the tests that could distinguish a genuinely signed 1947 memorandum from a later composite are unavailable.

Forensic research identifies several categories of information that may disappear or become unreliable in a copy: erasures, indentations, watermarks, colour differences between inks, crossing-stroke sequence, pen pressure and fine line-quality characteristics. Later-generation copies can introduce their own artefacts, including ragged edges, line widening and thinning, breaks and merging.[arch.ies.gov.pl]arch.ies.gov.pl117 Jasuja mProblems of Forensic Sciences 2019, vol. 117, 19–36February 7, 2020…Published: February 7, 2020

For the Truman–Forrestal dispute, an original could therefore have addressed questions that the reproduced image cannot settle directly:

• Was the signature actually written on that sheet? Microscopic examination could look for genuine ink deposition, pressure and line characteristics rather than merely a photographic or photocopied image.
• Were portions physically erased or masked? This is especially relevant to Tytell’s interpretation of the thinned portion of the “T”. A copy can preserve an appearance consistent with retouching without preserving the underlying physical evidence needed to establish exactly how it occurred.
• What was the sequence of production? Where handwriting and printing intersect, original-document examination can sometimes help establish which material was placed on the sheet first. Sequence-of-strokes examination is a recognised questioned-document technique.[American Academy of Forensic Sciences]aafs.orgAAFS 2019 J13AAFS 2019 J13
• Do the paper and ink belong in 1947? A securely provenanced original would open an entirely different class of physical tests and comparisons. No such authenticated MJ-12 sheet is available for this memorandum.

That last point also explains why the absence of an original is more than a technical inconvenience. The Government Accountability Office reported in 1995 that the National Archives, Air Force and Information Security Oversight Office knew the MJ-12 material only from material supplied by non-governmental people and had no evidence that it represented documents originating in the executive branch.[Government Accountability Office]gao.govGovernment Accountability Office[Comments on Majestic 12 Material] | U.S. GAOJuly 28, 1995…Published: July 28, 1995 The National Archives likewise says searches of Air Force, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, Truman Library and Eisenhower Library holdings failed to find the expected MJ-12 documentation, apart from the separately controversial Cutler–Twining memorandum.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…

Those searches do not prove that a secret memorandum could never have existed. They do mean there is no independently recovered White House counterpart against which the reproduced Truman–Forrestal sheet can be checked. The signature analysis therefore operates without the provenance and physical artefact that would normally provide the most powerful authentication tests.

Could a legitimate process explain the duplicate?

The central caution is that proving a signature image was reproduced is not identical to proving that the whole memorandum was fraudulently manufactured. In principle, an office could employ a reproduced or mechanically applied signature legitimately. More generally, a genuine signature can be attached to a fraudulent document, or parts of different genuine documents can be assembled and recopied into what looks like one coherent sheet. Forensic-document guidance explicitly recognises composite or “paste-up” photocopies as a problem because the final reproduction may conceal the joins between source materials.[Norwitch Lab]questioneddocuments.comNorwitch Lab Photocopy ForgeryNorwitch Lab Photocopy Forgery

This possibility cuts in two directions. It prevents the simplistic argument that a non-original signature automatically proves the memorandum false. But it also shows why demonstrating that the signature itself genuinely originated with Truman would not authenticate the surrounding MJ-12 text. A genuine Truman signature lifted from another document remains a genuine Truman signature; the relevant question is whether Truman placed or authorised that signature on this memorandum.

For the MJ-12 image, the Bush-letter comparison supplies a specific proposed donor rather than merely showing that the signature looks reproduced. Klass and Tytell argued that the distinctive match, copying-related enlargement and apparent alteration where the donor signature intersected the original closing formed a coherent transplant scenario.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006 That is considerably stronger than finding an ordinary facsimile signature and speculating about its source.

Defenders of MJ-12 have disputed how decisive such arguments are. Stanton Friedman continued to defend the Truman–Forrestal memorandum and argued that circumstances surrounding its date and preparation were consistent with authenticity.[CloudFront]d2r0txsugik6oi.cloudfront.netOpen source on cloudfront.net. MJ-12 advocate Robert Wood, however, was quoted by Klass as agreeing that, when carefully superimposed, the questioned and 1 October signatures were a “dead match”; the dispute was therefore not simply over whether the images corresponded, but over what that correspondence meant.[Center for Inquiry]cdn.centerforinquiry.orgCenter for Inquiry SUN #58S KEPTICS UFO NEWSLETTER By Philip J. KlDecember 6, 2024…Published: December 6, 2024

Without the original, a legitimate reproduction mechanism cannot be excluded solely by examining the surviving image. But such an alternative needs affirmative historical support if it is to compete with the transplant explanation. The image match itself does not establish who created the memorandum, when it was assembled or by what exact equipment. What it does is create a substantial authentication problem: the signature that appears to authorise “Operation Majestic Twelve” can be connected visually to a known Truman signature on another document, while no authenticated original has emerged to demonstrate an innocent physical explanation.

Why the conclusion is strong but qualified

The most accurate assessment separates three propositions that are sometimes collapsed into one.

First, the signature is consistent with Truman’s genuine handwriting. That is not surprising if the image was taken from an authentic Truman letter, and therefore it does little by itself to authenticate the MJ-12 memorandum.

Second, the questioned signature appears to share a common image source with the 1 October 1947 Bush signature. The reported agreement extends to incidental features and, after scaling, was strong enough for Tytell to interpret the MJ-12 version as a transplanted photocopy. This is the strongest signature-specific evidence.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer SKEPTICALINQUIRER Vol. 14 No. 2/Winter 1990 $6June 27, 2006…Published: June 27, 2006

Third, the surviving reproduction cannot by itself establish every step by which that common-source image reached the alleged memorandum. Contemporary forensic literature warns precisely against moving from conclusions about handwriting visible in a photocopy to conclusions about the authenticity of the entire unseen original. Copies can conceal alteration and lose information with each generation.[Office of Justice Programs]ojp.govOpen source on ojp.gov.

That distinction produces a more defensible verdict than either extreme. Saying that the signature evidence is useless because no original survives understates what high-quality reproductions can reveal. Saying that the copies provide the same proof as possession of the original overstates what forensic examination can recover from a flattened, potentially multi-generation image.

For the Truman–Forrestal memorandum specifically, the evidence is therefore strong evidence of a signature-image transplant or common source, but not a complete physical-document demonstration of how the alleged forgery was constructed. An authenticated original could potentially have strengthened the case dramatically by revealing physical retouching, incompatible production methods or a signature that was not actually penned onto the sheet. Conceivably, it could also have weakened the transplant theory by revealing a legitimate contemporary production mechanism.

No such artefact has surfaced, and official archival searches have not supplied an independent government copy.[Government Accountability Office]gao.govGovernment Accountability Office[Comments on Majestic 12 Material] | U.S. GAOJuly 28, 1995…Published: July 28, 1995 The missing original consequently leaves a real evidential ceiling. It does not erase the unusually specific correspondence between the Truman signatures; it means that correspondence should be described for what it is: a powerful objection to authenticity whose strongest observations survive reproduction, but whose final physical confirmation remains unavailable.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What Can Copies Really Prove About MJ 12?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Forensic Document Examination: Principles and Practice

By Katherine M. Koppenhaver

This book introduces the reader to the basic principles of handwriting and the factors that affect their development. The book discusses...

See on Amazon

Book

Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents

By Ordway Hilton

Disputed document inquiries encompass extensive and varied technical examinations, unique phases of investigation, and specialized legal...

See on Amazon

Book

Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century

By Miriam Angel, Jan Seaman Kelly

Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century is designed as a resource for the forensic document examiners, and document examiner tr...

See on Amazon

Book

QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

By Albert Sherman 1858-1946 Osborn

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:Forensic Document Examination: Principles and PracticeScientific Examination of Questioned DocumentsForensic Document Examination in the 21st Century

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 fromTruman memorabilia oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

The Truman Show Movie Poster Cast Signed Printed Autograph A3 Framed Memorabilia

GBP 29.99 | Free shippingNewSeller: hwctradingltd (99.9% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Truman Show Film Lobby Card Fold Out Collectable Memorabilia

GBP 16.15 | Shipping GBP 2.94UsedSeller: statictransit (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

The Truman Show Movie Poster Jim Carrey Film Memorabilia Collectable Item

GBP 7.99 | Shipping GBP 4.29UsedSeller: sartoristores (99.9% 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: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos

2. Source: arch.ies.gov.pl
Title: 117 Jasuja m
Link:https://arch.ies.gov.pl/images/PDF/2019/vol_117/117_Jasuja_m.pdf

Published: February 7, 2020

3. Source: d2r0txsugik6oi.cloudfront.net
Link:https://d2r0txsugik6oi.cloudfront.net/neon/resource/mufon/files/2015-02.pdf

4. Source: GOV.UK
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electronic-signatures-accepted-by-hm-land-registry-pg82/our-practice-on-electronic-signatures-that-was-current-between-15-july-2024-and-14-june-2026
Published: july 2024

5. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk How to check someone’s identity (1.0)
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-check-someones-identity-1-0/how-to-check-someones-identity-1-0-pre-release

6. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Dealing with customer documents
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dealing-with-customer-documents/dealing-with-customer-documents-accessible

7. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Confirming identity: checking a signature is genuine
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/checking-a-signature-is-genuine-caseworker-guidance/confirming-identity-checking-a-signature-is-genuine-accessible-version

8. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/presidential-libraries

9. Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Expert Evidence | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/expert-evidence

10. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Forensic science activities: statutory code of practice
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-activities-statutory-code-of-practice-version-2/forensic-science-activities-statutory-code-of-practice-version-2-accessible

11. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Draft code of practice (accessible)
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/forensic-science-code-of-practice-version-2/draft-code-of-practice-accessible

12. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk How to prove and verify someone’s identity
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/identity-proofing-and-verification-of-an-individual/how-to-prove-and-verify-someones-identity

13. Source: tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk
Title: Tribunal decisions
Link:https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2023-003904

14. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk[Withdrawn] Forensic Science Regulator: Code of Practice (accessible)
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-code-of-practice-for-forensic-science-activities/forensic-science-regulator-code-of-practice-accessible

15. Source: hse.gov.uk
Title: Collecting physical evidence
Link:https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/collectingphysical/preparing.htm

16. Source: justice.gov.uk
Title: pd part05a
Link:https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05a

17. Source: archives.gov
Title: Documents | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/legislative/finding-aids/reference/senate/armed-services/documents.html

18. Source: archives.gov
Title: Guide to Senate Records: Chapter 4 | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-04.html

19. Source: archives.gov
Title: 2012 quarter 2
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/accessions/2012-quarter-2

20. Source: archives.gov
Title: 2007 quarter 4
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/accessions/2007-quarter-4

21. Source: archives.gov
Title: Pentagon Papers | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers

22. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/mccarthy-telegram

23. Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2008/nr08-89

24. Source: wypadki.ies.gov.pl
Link:https://www.wypadki.ies.gov.pl/index.php?catid=10&id=94&view=article

25. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Certifying a document
Link:https://www.gov.uk/certifying-a-document?source=post_page—————————

26. Source: archives.gov
Title: 2011 quarter 3
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/accessions/2011-quarter-3

27. Source: archives.gov
Title: 2011 quarter 2
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/accessions/2011-quarter-2

28. Source: archives.gov
Title: 2013 quarter 4
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/accessions/2013-quarter-4

29. Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/154832

Published: July 28, 1995

30. Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Title: Skeptical Inquirer SKEPTICAL
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/03/Issue-02-12.pdf

Published: June 27, 2006

31. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/current-study-questionable-reliability-photocopied-documents

32. Source: jfde.org
Link:https://jfde.org/index.php/jfde/article/view/3617

33. Source: jfde.org
Link:https://jfde.org/index.php/jfde/article/view/247

34. Source: inquiry201.rssing.com
Title: Skeptical Inquirer
Link:https://inquiry201.rssing.com/chan-16157765/all_p1.html

35. Source: aafs.org
Title: AAFS 2019 J13
Link:https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2019-J13.pdf

36. Source: questioneddocuments.com
Title: Norwitch Lab Photocopy Forgery
Link:https://www.questioneddocuments.com/questioned-document-overviews/photocopy-forgery/

37. Source: cdn.centerforinquiry.org
Title: Center for Inquiry SUN #58
Link:https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/docs/SUN/SUN58.pdf

Published: December 6, 2024

38. Source: en.ikwipedia.org
Title: Philip J. Klass
Link:https://en.ikwipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass

39. Source: journal.asqde.org
Link:https://journal.asqde.org/48/volume/24/issue/2

40. Source: nij.ojp.gov
Title: overview questioned documents
Link:https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-questioned-documents

41. Source: gao.gov
Title: gao 12 175
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/gao

42. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/guidelines-forensic-document-examination-part-4

43. Source: gao.gov
Title: ggd 98 99r
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/ggd-98-99r

44. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/library/publications/who-wrote-it-steps-toward-science-authorship-identification

45. Source: gao.gov
Title: nsiad 95 153
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad

46. Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/t-aimd

47. Source: gao.gov
Title: nsiad 95 95
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad

48. Source: gao.gov
Title: nsiad 95 84
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad

49. Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/t-rced

50. Source: gao.gov
Title: nsiad 95 82
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad

51. Source: gao.gov
Title: ggd 95 106
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/ggd

52. Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/hr

53. Source: gao.gov
Title: ggd 95 61
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/ggd

54. Source: ojp.gov
Title: AG E OF A DOCUMENT | Office of Justice Programs
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/age-document

55. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/obtaining-exemplars

56. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/guidelines-forensic-document-examination-part-3

57. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/computer-assisted-identification-color-photocopiers

58. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defect-marks-and-identification-photocopying-machines

59. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/laboratory-examination-counterfeit-and-fraudulently-altered

60. Source: ojp.gov
Title: fraud photocopy
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fraud-photocopy

61. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/who-wrote-it-steps-toward-science-authorship-identification

62. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/identification-photocopiers-fusing-roller-defects

63. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/process-handwriting-comparison

64. Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/daubert-inspired-assessment-language-based-author-identification

Additional References

65. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SRw231njD8

66. Source: youtube.com
Title: Can Forgery Be Proven Without The Original Document?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMNyQshdK4s

67. Source: nist.gov
Link:https://www.nist.gov/osac/standards-library?page=12

68. Source: nist.gov
Link:https://www.nist.gov/osac/standards-library

69. Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/95

70. Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/truman-papers/white-house-central-files-presidents-personal-file

71. Source: nist.gov
Link:https://www.nist.gov/osac/registry

72. Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/97-138

73. Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/97-139

74. Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/2009-1536