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


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:37:43 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: MJ-12 And Truman's Signature


>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>>Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:50:01 EDT
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: MJ-12 And Truman's Signature

 Hello, list,

  <snip>

>Kevin Randle's response was:

>>The dates on the documents in question, if I remember correctly
>>is September 23, 1947, and October 1, 1947, which means, that it
>>is unlikely that both documents were signed at the same time so
>>that the signatures would match. Both are letters or
>>correspondence that was of a perishable nature. They would have
>>been signed and then sent on, so that you wouldn't have had the
>>September 23 memo setting around for five or six weeks.


>My gut reaction is that the MJ-12 document isn't real. However,
>Mr. Deardorff brings up an interesting notion. As far as the
>dates are concerned, the difference between September 23, 1947
>and October 1 1947 is only 7 days, not five or six weeks. 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....

First Roger is absolutely right when he said the difference
would have been a few days rather than weeks. I don't know where
my brain went on that one.

Second, 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.

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.

>Moving on, Kevin opined:

>>Second point is, again if I remember correctly, that when the
>>October 1 document was found, the MJ-12 proponents suggested
>>that it proved the authenticity because it was an exact match.
>>When they learned that no two signatures from the same hand
>>should match exactly, Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera went to a
>>great deal of trouble to prove that they weren't an exact match.
>>That should rule out the multiple pens trick.

>Hmmm.


>Maybe, maybe not. Having played with one of the darned things,
>I can tell you they don't work as well as you might expect. One
>of the things that must be realized is that, since no two
>signatures are expected to be identical, then the device wasn't
>required to produce that exact a replication. What makes a
>signature official is WHO signed it, not the actual details of
>the signature itself. For example, auto giant Henry Ford was
>totally illiterate his whole life and signed everything with an
>"X" in front of witnesses. When a repeating device like the one
>mentioned above was used with Truman, there was always a witness
>present to testify to the signature process, for obvious
>reasons!

Tell that to the MJ-12 proponents who seem to have lost sight of
reality in their quest for belief.

>>Finally, a questioned document expert in New York City
suggested>>that the October 1 "donor" signature had been
slightly modified>>so that it would fit onto the memo. The
stroke on the T in>>Truman had been shortened. Truman also
signed his documents so>>that the T extended into the body of
the text but on the MJ-12>>document, it was
uncharacteristically low. Both of these things>>suggested that
the signature had been lifted from an authentic>>document and
applied to the memo. That meant the memo was a>>fake.

 <snip>

>I don't know. Do we dispute the signature because it's too
>identical or not identical enough?

>I think that, even in consideration of the "repeating device"
>mentioned above, 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.

>Truthfully, I would have bet a lot of money against it, but I
>can't deny what I see with my own eyes!

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.

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. The
proponents said that the signatures were an exact match proving
the documents were authentic and then said that they weren't
when they learned that an exact match, especially when the donor
document had been found, proved it to be a hoax.

During the last go around, Stan Friedman said that two
questioned document experts had said the memo and the signature
were authentic, but he never would identify those experts. He
said he never talked to them but he did talk to a third. He
never seems to remember that he was told the signature was a
fake and the memo is a hoax by that third whose initials are PT.

>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.

Again, irrelevant if the document is a fake. 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.

KRandle