Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Oct -> Re: MJ-12 And Truman's Signature

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:50:16 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 21:21:04 -0400
Subject: Re: MJ-12 And Truman's Signature


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:08:53 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 04:04:37 -0400
>Subject: Re: MJ-12 And Truman's Signature

Earlier, I pointed out:

>>Having
>>worked in a corporate environment, I can tell you that it is not
>>unusual for an executive to dictate a week's worth of letters
>>and sign them all at once at the end of the week, with different
>>dates atop each. In a rapidly changing political environment, it
>>is also not uncommon to dictate memos and hold them until
>>feedback on certain issues is obtained. Then, if necesary, the
>>memos could be modified to fit the needs of that memo's
>>particular goal. This would be especially true if Truman were
>>traveling a lot and generated correspondence on the road,
>>without benefit of his close advisers. I would be interested to
>>see what his travel agenda was for
> the week in question. Just a thought....

Kevin's response was:

>... the corporate environment has no relevance when
>discussing classified documents, and we all have been told,
>repeatedly, that the MJ-12 documents are highly classified.

To begin with, the issue of how anyone in a position of power
might handle sensitive correspondence, whether government or
business, is totally relevant to the discussion at hand. I used
the corporate environment because, in fact, classified documents
are produced on a daily basis and handled just as I described.
Obviously, Truman wasn't born as president of the United States.
Work habits developed within a business environment are quite
often carried into public office by government officials
(sometimes to ill effect!). It was merely my intent to show the
nature of how people in key positions don't always follow the
most intuitive path regarding timely dispersal of documents and
correspondence.

The following is good info:

>Second, something that hasn't been mentioned here is that the
>original MJ-12 document has not been found. We're working from
>Xerox copies from photographs so that the angle from which the
>photograph was taken, not to mention the stretching done by the
>copying process, means that there will be some physical
>differences between the Oct. 1 letter and the Truman memo.

So, is it your position that the differences are due to optical
distortions or due to forging? Obviously, it's awkard to
maintain that, without such distortions, the signatures would be
a perfect match thereby indicating forgery; that would be just
guessing. So how can anyone, pro or con, really make a judgement
on authenticity? I ask this, respectfully, because for every
MJ-12 advocate using the signature as evidence, there's also
someone claiming it to be fake using the very same evidence. It
sounds to me as if it would be a toss up, either way. So why
take such an intractable position if the evidence is as
unconclusive as you describe above?

Further, you pointed out:

>Let's not forget
>that Bill Moore said he was going to create a Roswell-type
>document in the months before he was sent the MJ-12 documents.
>True, he has denied that he faked them, but the early copies
>received anonymously by other researchers were made on the copy
>machine Moore used, the botched dating was one used by Moore,
>and he has admitted to "re-typing" other documents to make them
>clear including the Aquarius Telex which has been proven to be a
>hoax.

My feeling, also, is that the MJ12 document is a fake; it's
resurfacing is too convenient. However, I don't see what the
actions of Bill Moore has to do with anything. Certainly, he
wouldn't be doing himself a favor by telling the world of his
intent if he meant to fool anyone. Admittedly, the sequence of
events is highly suspicious. But, even if he 'took credit' for
forging the MJ12 document, I'd want proof to that effect.
Without proof, we really don't know just where the document came
from.

Further, you noted:

>Third, this really is a discussion that should never have
>happened. The Truman memo, based on the evidence presented over
>the years is a fake. Autopens, multiple pens, and the corporate
>world have nothing to do with this. It is only opening a thread
>that has, as Ed Stewart noted, already run its course.

Apparently not!

As I noted:

>>Steven Kaeser hit closer to the truth when he
>>pointed out in a previous posting that it is totally possible
>>to write two signatures exactly the same. After reading his
>>posting, I went through my files and found at least three of my
>>own signatures that were, for all practical purposes, exact
>>matches to one another when held to the light.

>>If Truman did sign a stack of documents all at the same time,
>>then that would increase the likelihood of a "duplicate"
>>signature, whether a 'repeater' device was used or not.

Your response:

>Again, irrelevant if the document is a fake.

Agreed. If the document is proven to be a fake.

And finally, you offered:

>The real point here, and not the red herrings thrown out, is
>that real questioned document examiners, when they studied the
>memo, said that they could see where the stroke on the T of
>Truman had been modified. That, to them, suggested a hoax.

Not to be argumentative, but a suggestion is hardly a fact.
Returning to the corporate environment, it is well known that
executive secretaries sign papers for their bosses all the time.
The amount of forging that goes on is unbelievable. Now, I'm
hardly suggesting that Truman's secretary forged his signature
on the MJ12 document. However, there are many viable
explanations that can account for variations in a persons
signature, even Truman's. Believers and debunkers see either too
many similarities or not enough.

But to cast all pro-signature theories into the catagory of "red
herrings" is to create a climate of adversity; i.e. 'us against
them'. It basically says that "we shouldn't even discuss it",
which in fact, is what you claim above. Again, I personally feel
that the MJ12 document is more than likely a fake. However, I'd
rather have the amount of discussion and research needed to
prove it as fake rather than risk assuming it to be one and be
wrong. I don't really feel that it is my place, yours or Ed's to
draw a line in the sand and claim "enough discussion" on any
topic, including MJ-12.

In reference to the above, perhaps a link can be offered where
people
can view the Truman memo for closer inspection?

Later all,

Roger Evans