Within Truman Memo
Does the Signature Size Difference Weaken the Case?
A small size mismatch does not rule out copying because repeated photocopying can enlarge an otherwise matching signature image.
On this page
- How large the reported difference was
- Why photocopying can alter image scale
- What happened when the signatures were rescaled
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The roughly 3.6 per cent size difference between Harry Truman’s signature on the alleged 24 September 1947 Truman–Forrestal MJ-12 memorandum and his signature on an authentic 1 October 1947 letter to Vannevar Bush does not by itself defeat the copying hypothesis. The key reason is mechanical: photocopying can change scale, and repeated copying can accumulate small distortions. Modern forensic research confirms that photocopiers can alter both the size and shape of handwriting, particularly across successive generations.[JASQDE]journal.asqde.orgJune 1, 2017…
That does not mean Philip J. Klass’s original numerical explanation — roughly three photocopying stages at about 1.2 per cent enlargement each — should be treated as a universal law of photocopiers. It was a proposed reconstruction of this particular discrepancy. The stronger point is narrower: once reproduction-induced scaling is allowed for, a few per cent difference in overall dimensions is not evidence that two otherwise closely corresponding signature images must have independent handwritten origins.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
How large was the reported difference?
Klass’s 1990 account put the central discrepancy plainly. He reported that the Truman signature on the alleged MJ-12 memorandum was approximately 3.6 per cent longer than the signature on the genuine Truman–Bush letter. He initially attributed that difference to optical distortion arising during the several copying operations that, in his reconstruction, would have been required to manufacture the disputed document.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
The difference was real enough to become an important part of the defence against Klass’s copying argument. William L. Moore wrote to Klass in September 1989 insisting that the signatures were not identical. Moore supplied measurements of individual features: for example, he gave the cross-stroke of the capital “T” as 48.8 mm on his enlarged measurement of the Truman–Forrestal specimen versus 47.1 mm on the Truman–Bush specimen, while his measurement from the top of the “r” to the top of the final “n” was 29.7 mm versus 28.6 mm. He also argued that parts of the signatures differed in line weight and positioning.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
Those measurements established an important qualification: an unadjusted overlay of the two available reproductions did not simply produce a perfect one-to-one match at their existing sizes. Stanton Friedman similarly wrote that he could not make the September 24 and October 1 signatures match perfectly on his light table.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
But that observation does not settle whether one image was derived from the other. Both sides were working with reproductions rather than two pristine original ink signatures. Moore himself stressed that his Truman–Forrestal specimen was a print from the original negative while the Truman–Bush comparison was a first-generation copy; he believed Klass’s copies were still further removed from the originals. In other words, the very evidence offered to show a dimensional mismatch also documented a reproduction chain capable of introducing dimensional differences.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
Why photocopying can alter image scale
A photocopier is not necessarily a geometrically perfect camera producing an exact 100.000 per cent replica of every mark on the platen. Klass reported being told by the document examiner he consulted that contemporary copiers commonly omitted a narrow outer border and compensated through a small enlargement. Klass gave a figure of roughly 1.2 per cent per copying operation. On that model, about three copying stages could account for a signature approximately 3.6 per cent larger than its proposed source.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
The arithmetic should be understood as approximate. Three exact 1.2 per cent enlargements compound to about 3.64 per cent rather than exactly 3.6 per cent:
1.012 × 1.012 × 1.012 ≈ 1.0364.
That happens to sit remarkably close to the reported discrepancy. It made Klass’s reconstruction mechanically plausible, but it did not prove that precisely three copier generations occurred, nor that every copier involved enlarged images by precisely 1.2 per cent.
Later questioned-document research provides stronger support for the underlying mechanism than for that exact historical reconstruction. Robert Gervais’s 2017 peer-reviewed study for the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners tested handwriting through as many as twenty successive copying generations on different analogue and digital machines. The study found changes in both size and shape, with the magnitude and direction depending upon the machine and even the position of material on the platen. Some areas could enlarge while others reduced.[JASQDE]journal.asqde.orgJune 1, 2017…
This distinction matters for the MJ-12 dispute. Photocopy distortion need not behave as a perfectly uniform “zoom”. Horizontal and vertical magnification can differ, and local distortions can accumulate. Material in the Moore correspondence likewise recognised that copying devices could have differing horizontal and vertical magnifications, so measurements of differently angled parts of a signature need not all yield precisely the same scale ratio.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
Successive copying also changes line quality. A 2021 study of 2,550 genuine signature samples followed through five photocopying generations found progressive effects including line widening, merging, breaks and loss or alteration of fine stroke characteristics; distortion became more troublesome in later generations.[JASQDE]journal.asqde.orgDecember 1, 2021… This is relevant because the MJ-12 argument concerns not simply the dimensions of a clean digital image but reproductions whose history included photography and copying.
The important forensic lesson is therefore not that “all photocopiers enlarge by 1.2 per cent”. They plainly do not. It is that small dimensional differences cannot safely be interpreted as proof of independent handwriting unless the reproduction history has been controlled. Gervais specifically warns that in suspected cut-and-paste or traced-signature cases, photocopies of unknown generation can make a straightforward superimposition look less convincing even where the images are related.[JASQDE]journal.asqde.orgJune 1, 2017…
What happened when the signatures were rescaled?
This is where the 3.6 per cent objection loses much of its force. According to Klass, the professional document examiner he consulted made transparencies of the two signatures and enlarged the authentic October 1 Truman–Bush signature by approximately 3.6 per cent before superimposing it on the disputed MJ-12 signature. Klass reported that the examiner then characterised the MJ-12 specimen as a “classic signature transplant” — in other words, a signature image reproduced from another document rather than a separately written signature.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
The reported comparison went beyond overall length. Klass had already drawn attention to a small extraneous mark associated with the “H” in “Harry”, which appeared in corresponding positions in both specimens. His examiner also focused on the top of the “T” in “Truman”. In the genuine Bush letter, that stroke intersected part of the typed closing “Sincerely yours”. According to Klass’s account, the corresponding portion in the disputed signature appeared slightly thinned, consistent with somebody removing the surrounding typed words with correction material while retaining the signature.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
That feature is more significant than the raw 3.6 per cent measurement because it concerns the proposed history of the image. A copied signature can become larger or smaller during reproduction while preserving distinctive internal relationships between its strokes. If material adjoining the source signature has also apparently been removed at exactly the place where it intersected the handwriting, the hypothesis becomes not merely “these signatures look alike” but “one reproduced image may have been prepared from the other”.
The contemporary debate nevertheless contained genuine disagreement over how convincing the match was. Moore maintained that the later portions of “Truman”, especially the “man” and final “n”, showed discrepancies and argued that multiple photocopying normally degraded fine lines. He also disputed Klass’s interpretation of the small mark near the “H”, citing other Truman signatures with superficially similar marks.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
Bruce Maccabee’s analysis likewise became part of the dispute over whether dimensional ratios established non-identity. A subsequent critical commentary argued that comparing individual segments without adequately correcting for potentially different horizontal and vertical magnification factors was methodologically unreliable. The disagreement therefore shifted from the simple observation that the signatures differed in size to the harder question of whether those differences exceeded what their separate reproduction histories could produce.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
By May–June 1990, the International UFO Reporter was publishing sharply divided assessments of the broader MJ-12 controversy, but one contributor explicitly accepted Klass’s conclusion that the Truman–Forrestal signature was a photocopy forgery derived from a genuine document. That contemporary response shows that the copying interpretation was not confined to Klass’s own publication, although it remained disputed by MJ-12 defenders.[Center for UFO Studies]cufos.orgCenter for UFO Studies I nternational UF O ReporterCenter for UFO StudiesI nternational UF O ReporterNovember 2, 2025…
Does the signature size difference weaken the case?
It weakens only the simplest version of the copying claim: that two photocopies placed together at their existing dimensions should overlay perfectly without adjustment. Moore and Friedman were correct that the specimens they examined did not do that.[Project Aquarius]projectaquarius.mufon.comProject Aquarius
It does much less damage to the more realistic claim that the Truman–Forrestal signature image descended from the Truman–Bush signature through a reproduction and paste-up process. There are three reasons.
First, the disputed difference is small — about 3.6 per cent — rather than a wholesale change in proportions. Second, both the historical correspondence and modern forensic experiments establish that photocopying can introduce dimensional distortion, and repeated generations can compound it. Third, after compensating for the reported scale difference, Klass’s examiner said the signatures could be superimposed closely enough to identify what he considered evidence of transplantation at the “T”.[Skeptical Inquirer]skepticalinquirer.orgSkeptical Inquirer
The modern research also suggests caution about making the historical reconstruction too neat. It would be an overstatement to say that a 3.6 per cent difference proves three successive enlargements of 1.2 per cent. Copier distortions vary by machine, generation, orientation and location on the platen. Gervais’s experiments expressly found both enlargement and reduction, as well as non-linear distortion.[JASQDE]journal.asqde.orgJune 1, 2017…
The defensible conclusion is therefore narrower but stronger. The 3.6 per cent size difference is not a reliable objection to common image ancestry. It is compatible with a signature that passed through several reproductive stages, and the fact that the two images become much more closely comparable after scale correction is precisely what would be expected if copying altered the dimensions of an otherwise related image.
Within the Truman–Forrestal signature dispute, the decisive question is consequently not whether the two available reproductions have exactly the same millimetre measurements. It is whether their distinctive stroke structure and apparent editing artefacts remain correlated once plausible reproduction distortion is taken into account. On that narrower question, the small size mismatch does not rescue the alleged MJ-12 memorandum from the signature-transplant objection; it is a feature that photocopy mechanics can plausibly explain.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Does the Signature Size Difference Weaken the Case?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
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...
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents
Disputed document inquiries encompass extensive and varied technical examinations, unique phases of investigation, and specialized legal...
Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century
Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century is designed as a resource for the forensic document examiners, and document examiner tr...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromTruman memorabilia oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Title: Skeptical Inquirer
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/03/Issue-02-12.pdf
2.
Source: projectaquarius.mufon.com
Title: Project Aquarius
Link:https://projectaquarius.mufon.com/wp-content/uploads/pcg-bill-moore-files-collection/TRUMAN-FORRESTAL-MEMO.pdf
3.
Source: journal.asqde.org
Link:https://journal.asqde.org/articles/10.69525/jasqde.237
Source snippet
June 1, 2017...
Published: June 1, 2017
4.
Source: journal.asqde.org
Link:https://journal.asqde.org/articles/279?_rsc=f6n96
Source snippet
December 1, 2021...
Published: December 1, 2021
5.
Source: cufos.org
Title: Center for UFO Studies I nternational UF O Reporter
Link:https://cufos.org/PDFs/IUR%20issues/IUR%20Vol.%2015%20No.%203%20May-June%201990.pdf
Source snippet
Center for UFO StudiesI nternational UF O ReporterNovember 2, 2025...
Published: November 2, 2025
6.
Source: journal.asqde.org
Link:https://journal.asqde.org/articles/10.69525/jasqde.296/
7.
Source: yumpu.com
Title: Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
Link:https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/10640303/journal-of-the-american-society-of-questioned-document-examiners
8.
Source: studyres.com
Link:https://studyres.com/doc/9009147/words—european-parliament
9.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Title: new evidence of mj 12 hoax
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/1990/01/new-evidence-of-mj-12-hoax/
10.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/authors/philip-j-klass/
11.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/category/special-report/page/6/
12.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/credulous-flying-saucer-expert-stanton-t-friedman-dead-at-eighty-four/
13.
Source: skepticalinquirer.org
Link:https://skepticalinquirer.org/volume/no-2-vol-14/
14.
Source: qdewill.com
Link:https://qdewill.com/articles.html
15.
Source: disclosdex.com
Link:https://disclosdex.com/people/philip-klass
16.
Source: holley.com
Link:https://www.holley.com/products/marine_and_powersports/marine/marine_ignition/parts/4255
Additional References
17.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecEY2xNFzPw
Source snippet
This in-depth analysis on shadow intelligence and the MJ-12 documents is relevant because it specifically investigates the historical con...
18.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Flying Saucers Are Real
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWyV6Go15-c
Source snippet
UFO Reverse Engineering, Crash Retrievals, and the Pentagon's New Files | UAP Gerb...
19.
Source: contactproject.org
Title: CARE T UFO Hoax: Why the Drone Images Appear Fake
Link:https://contactproject.org/caret-ufo-hoax-drone-images-fake/
Source snippet
Under those claimed circumstances, the automatic alignment of the source photographs is not credible as...
20.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Majestic 12 | Secret Documents Expose UFO Cover-Up Vol. 1
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9VoC8MoeUs
Source snippet
Flying Saucers Are Real - Volume 2 | Top Secret Majic | Stanton T. Friedman | Betty Hill | UFOTV...
21.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJplVuElLs
Source snippet
Majestic 12 | Secret Documents Expose UFO Cover-Up Vol. 1...
22.
Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00993-6
23.
Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/court-demonstration-charts-and-use-photocopier
24.
Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/decipherment-opaqued-writing-acetate-assisted-photocopying
25.
Source: ojp.gov
Link:https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defect-marks-and-identification-photocopying-machines
26.
Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/personal-papers/robert-l-dennison-papers