From: hugger@gonzo.Colorado.EDU () Subject: MJ-12 Documents Phony? Truman Signature Analyzed! You decide... Date: 12 May 1996 06:32:22 GMT
Everyone in this forum seems to blindly agree that the MJ-12 documents, which were "leaked" to Stanton Friedman, have been sucessfully PROVEN by Phil Klass to be fake. Most of you sheep who BLEAT this notion over and over have absolutely NO IDEA *why* or *how* Klass debunked the MJ-12 documents, you just repeat what you're told. BAAAAA! BAAAA!
So, where's the beef? How did Klass *PROVE* that MJ-12 was fake?
Well, he started comparing signatures! And you'll NEVER guess what he found! Of the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of examples of Harry Truman's signature on record in the national archives, Phil Klass alleges to have found a *PERFECT MATCH* between one of the MJ-12 documents and an unrelated Truman memo in the archives. And since we ALL know that no one ever signs their name the same twice, one of the signatures is a DUPLICATE of the other, right? WOW! That Klass sure is LUCKY, aint he? What an amazing stroke of good fortune to have found that match! What do you suppose the ODDS are against that single match being found? Probably pretty astronomical! (pun, heh:)
Except...oops. They don't match after all. Not really. I mean, they LOOK alike, but one's bigger. DAMN, SO CLOSE!
Oh wait. What if we say that the size difference is caused by photocopying? Yeah, that's the ticket.
So, that's the allegation. But do you know how Friedman responded? Class? Klass? Is ANYONE aware of how Friedman DEMOLISHED this claim? Well, here you go.
WHY THE TRUMAN - FORRESTAL MEMO IS NOT A FAKE
"One of the most serious charges made by Klass towards the end of 1989 and in early 1990 was that the signature on the Truman-Forrestal (TF) memo is identical to that on a brief letter from Truman to Bush (TB) on October 1, 1947. The reasoning is that no two signatures are identical. If they are, one is a forgery of the other. In some of his writing, he admits that the Truman-Forrestal signature is 3.2% longer (hardly identical) than that on the Truman-Bush memo, but explains it away on the basis that it would have taken three xeroxings to get the fake done. In a Skeptical Inquirer article (Ref.17) he shows part of each memo even including the measurements of the lengths of different portions of the signature as done by William L. Moore, but only for the Truman-Forrestal memo. He doesn't show the ones for the Truman-Bush nor the top portions of either which include the letterhead markings of White House, Washington, and he also doesn't include the date on the Truman-Forrestal.
Frankly this is deceptive on Klass' part because, if he had included the measurements on Truman-Bush and the ratios of the lengths on the Truman-Forrestal to those on the Truman-Bush signatures, the reader would know that Klass had apparently misrepresented the facts:
(1) The signatures are clearly NOT identical. Klass says hold them up to light. I did. They DO NOT MATCH.
(2) The ratio of the lengths of the "Harry" portions is only 1.012 while it is 1.032--1.04 for the "Truman" portions and most important, EXACTLY 1.000 for the letterhead portions.
(3) Clearly, xerox stretching has to be by the same ratio on all parts of a sheet of paper.
(4) Klass provides no comparisons or even a claim that a comparison had been made between other pairs of Truman signatures. Clearly, Truman would have signed a great many letters, memos, etc. If there are other pairs equally similar, then the similarity between the Truman-Forrestal and Truman-Bush signatures means nothing.
(5) Klass makes a big deal about the slip of the fountain pen to create a little extra line at the upper right portion of the "H" on both signatures, though of different thickness. He doesn't bother to point out that there are at least three other signatures in our posession showing the same kind of extra mark.
(6) Klass also claims that a forensics expert (a former CIA man at that!) says the type is that of a Smith Corona typewriter not available until the mid-1960's. This is a very difficult call and other examiners disagree. There seems to be no doubt, however, that the typwriter used for the "24, 1947." portion of the date does predate 1947. Surely if a forger had such an old typwriter, why would he use it only for that portion of the date instead of for the whole memo? This makes no sense at all.
[The typewriter issue has since been resolved. Other White House memos from the same era have been found with the same type font and style.]
(7) Klass appears to be guilty of misrepresentation in his writings about the signatures and other aspects of the MJ-12 documents. He speaks of a "smoking gun" in both a Sept. 20 1989, "White Paper" and an article "New Evidence of MJ-12 Hoax" in the Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1990). I am preparing a detailed critique but wish to emphasize certain points here in addition to those noted above. His seemingly impressive scholarly reference is the book "Questioned Documents" by Albert S. Osborn, 1978, from which he extracts this sentence: "The fact that two signatures are nearly alike is not alone necessarily an indication of forgery of one or both but the question is whether they are SUSPICIOUSLY alike." (his emphasis).
End of transmission