Talk:Majestic 12/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restored error in date format

I restored the erroneous comma in the date 24 September, 1947 in the second paragraph, since the original is this way, and that is some of the evidence of a hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

National Archives

The information on the NA document is rather lacking. Although it goes into great detail about the investigaion into the authenticiy of the document, it doesn't really seem to discuss how the NA think they ended up with a fake document. If I was part of the NA, I would be quite worried that we had a fake document. It seems rather odd to me that this isn't a major issue, but then I'm not American so perhaps it's usually for your NA to have fake documents? Nil Einne 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling errors in original

At least some of the spelling errors in the documents that were corrected on November 14, 2005 were in the original source. Should these be restored to the original, with [sic] after them? Bubba73 [[User_talk:Bubba73|(talk)]] 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Without looking at exactly where these happened...are they in direct quotes, or are they in paraphrases? If they're in quotes, they need to be exact quotes, errors and all (preferably with [sic] inserted after each error so well-meaning folks don't think we've totally lost it).--chris.lawson 22:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I've restored all the spelling errors that were put in before 14 November. Were they *all* present in the original documents? I thought some were errors of transcription. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. If some are transcription errors, we need to account for that.--chris.lawson 13:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that balloon was misspelled as baloon [sic] in the original. Other errors may have been in the original or may have been transcription errors, I'm not sure. I'd need to get a better copy of the original to check it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed a spelling error... skeptics was spelled "skepticts" Jhayes94 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

54/12 Group

I'm surprised the article so far doesn't contain any reference to the '54/12 Special Group' subcommittee of the National Security Council created by President Eisenhower in 1954 (hence the name). Granted, that's after 1947, but the hypothetical MJ-12 and the very real 54/12 group are often linked in the UFO underground literature, and it seems plausible to me that if any US Government group in the 1950s were interested in the UFO phenomenon from a national security viewpoint (whether or not they believed there was any substance to the reality of sightings) it would be 54/12. Like the NSA, the existence of 54/12 was initially secret but later became known. I'll try to add what I can but I agree this article should be reformatted to try to separate out the various elements of the MJ-12 mythos and what documents/authors they arise from. Natecull 10:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

54/12 Group article added. Natecull 14:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference section is very bad and needs editing

The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.

The way to do this is as follows.

(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.

"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman emperor Nero is 92. , a view that is also supported by Elvis ."

This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

You might want to see how these changes look on Unidentified flying object (Simonapro 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

References

Formatting & Aesthetic Issues

I've gone in and done a major reformatting (tables, etc.) of the Eisenhower briefing document featured on the page, plus the two others (Truman and Cutler memos). But in general, the page could really use some clean-up, especially near the top. I noticed slight typographical errors in the MJ-12 documents, which someone might want to go through more closely. Misplaced commas are important on this particular topic!

In general, it'd be good to move a lot of the stuff at the top lower on the page, into the History section, and just have a shorter, overarching summary before the page nav.

Kosmocentric 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Text section

The section should be moved to wikisource if liscensing permits. PoptartKing 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

—I don't see why not...there's no licensing. They're alleged to be government documents; nobody owns a copyright. 66.155.208.3 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's because this sort of thing doesn't belong in an article. Move them to Wikisource, and leave a link to that at the bottome of the article. --InShaneee 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Canadian documents

Since the Canadian documents are apparently unquestionably authentic, more attention needs to be paid to them. They aren't really discussed much other then in the mention in the overview and a few brief mentions elsewhere. A quick study suggests all the really reveal is that the at least one Canadian, Wilbert Smith was convinced UFOs existed and the USA was studying them. This doesn't of course prove they do or that the USA was, Wilbert could simply be nuts, confused or have been mislead. However they do seem an important part of this puzzle since clearly they provide a very early link of many of these names to supposed studies of UFOs. Nil Einne 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, and what's relevant is that Wilbert Smith was informed that Dr. Vannevar Bush was heading up a small group to deal with the UFO issue, which was classified "higher than even the H-bomb," and Bush, of course, was one of the supposed heads of MJ-12--a small group allegedly set up to deal with the UFO issue. For more on Smith and the MJ-12 connection, go here. Kosmocentric 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Majestic Documents merged into Majestic 12

The Majestic Documents article lacks enough substance to merit its own place in Wikipedia it could just as easily be covered in a Sub Heading in this article.--Matt 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I think this is a good article - I have enjoyed reading it. I am pretty skeptical about this sort of thing, but can't help noticing that the 'against' section, particularly the parts that list the flaws in both documents, mentions no sources. Please add some citations! This section would be much more valuable knowing who did the research. Just Another Fat Guy 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur w/ JAFG. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OSI

Could someone clear this up for me, in favor of the MJ-12 case the article notes that UFO researcher/skeptic Brad Sparks came across evidence implicating a branch of the CIA which the article calls Office of Scientific Investigation. Acronym OSI. However, several sources I have come across suggest OSI stands for Office of Scientific Intelligence. Which is correct? Are they two different branches or what? Is it the same thing as the The Directorate of Science and Technology? I'm very confused on this matter. 72.49.194.69 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Obviously they cannot be the same because the Directorate of Science and Technology was only founded in 1952, whereas the OSI of which Mr. Sparks' was speaking of, according to Sparks himself, "for choosing the CIA OSI to provide it with all intelligence, beginning in Jan 1949 right after OSI's founding." So OSI itself was either founded in 1948 or 1949. 72.49.194.69 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Correction, they appear to be the same "The earliest ancestor of DS&T was the Office of Reports and Estimates, which in December 1948 merged with the Nuclear Energy Group of the Office of Special Operations to form the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI). The latter would remain the CIA's principal scientific research laboratory until 1962." 72.49.203.96 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Startling New Evidence

This site has some great new UFO Video Evidence that must be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arltomem (talk • contribs) 04:58, August 20, 2006

I am pretty positive that that is swamp gas. 76.199.5.48 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Eric Ferguson

Article bias

This article is biased in the extreme (repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is one example), full of factual errors (e.g. MJ-12 was allegedly established in 1947, not 1952), and is far removed from the usual accounts about MJ-12. Where does all the junk about the Illuminati, Masons, and world domination come from? No sources are provided. Why is the garbage about Dan Burisch thrown in there? That too is far removed from the usual accounts. Who says the President is still in charge and is codenamed Majesty? Where did they get the list of the later MJ-12 group? Again no sources. Certainly none of this rubbish comes from the listed sources at the bottom, such as FBI's FOIA page and majesticdocuments.com, or traditional treatments such as Stanton Friedman's Top Secret/Majic.

The proper and more neutral way to write this up is to give the history and contents of the various "documents" that led to the theory of MJ-12 and the various disputes concerning their authenticity. Much more should be given on the men cited as the original MJ-12 and the historical circumstances that allegedly led to the establishment of MJ-12. All the rest about Illuminati, Masons, Burisch, world domination, etc. is crap and should be dropped altogether or lumped into a subgroup of fringe MJ-12 theories, with sources of the theories properly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.135.19 (talk • contribs) 19:18, May 24, 2005

whilst this may be true in one sense, one cannot help but find the 'Arguments Against' section lacking and much more circumstantial than anything else. It is my opinion that the whole article needs to be re-written by a neutral source in a neutral fashion. Jonomacdrones 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this whole MJ-12 is actually entertaining... but of course, sources for everything is needed in order to back up the facts. In my opinion, if MJ-12 was and is real, of course, the government is not going to allow books or any source to come out on it. And of course, there could be people out there who were there and know Mj-12 and the facts, but to many of us, that source is not reliable. Right?

From what I read, and of course could be real or just crap, MJ-12's primary goal was to cover up the truth that the government had contacted aliens, called The Grays. There was a meeting in which these "aliens" made a contract saying that they could abduct people in exchange for technological advances. Thus giving us all these technologies. And at that time, they developed time travel, using gravity since it was the only force that could slow time down and speed up the speed of light. CRAZY!!! If this is real, I can't wait till someone comes forward with it and exposes the truth. :) Aye aye folks. Good luck editing this article. Pinoybouy87 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't write speculations on wiki unless put in a special sextion called speculations. But a section called that is useless as anyone could just come in and write random mumbo jumbo about pasketti monsters. THerefor only information which has clear sources should be written on wiki, and the mason/illuminati does not belong here since they have there own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.206.20 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: National Archives issue

With regard to Nil Einne's assertion about NARA and document tampering, this is an unfortunate truth of any large, heavily used archives. NARA (like many large archives) is concerned about this practice and undertakes measures to minimize it. However, unethical researchers with historical or political agendas do remove, tamper with, and falsify documents. Anon 14:32, 03 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I added NPOV to the article - it is far from neutral. Bubba73 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite specific passages that are non-neutral? Better yet, would you be willing to propose ways these sections could be better?--chris.lawson 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not specific passages, but overall, basically:

• All nine of the sources given are pro-MJ 12.

• There is overwhelming evidence that the whole MJ-12 is a fake or hoax, yet little is said about this. The article basically says that the government denies it and that the FBI concluded that the papers were fake, that's all. No details are given.

• the non-encyclopedic nature of the article. Would a legitimate print encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica publish something this one-sided? I don't think so. Bubba73 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be fairly thorough discussion of the FBI investigation and multiple mentions that the whole thing is thought to be a hoax or fake. If you think this article is so non-encyclopedic, I would encourage you to nominate it for deletion on Articles for Deletion.--chris.lawson 01:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added what I think should go in there. I think I overreacted originally. I probably shouldn't have called it NPOV, but I didn't know a better term. All of the sources I knew were on the pro side. All of the stuff from the National Archives really applies to just the Cutler memo - not the main papers; and that was all there was in the "arguements against" I thought the main papers needed to be addressed specifically. I wanted more than just saying that the FBI says that it is fake, I thought details should go in there - why it is thought to be a fake. The article may be too long now because I included the text of the documents - perhaps that should be in a different article. It also needs to be cleaned up and there are some redundancies. Bubba73 (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"There is overwhelming evidence that the whole MJ-12 is a fake or hoax"...What evidence? Or do you actually believe the lies and crap the Northerner government churns out? -Alex, Confederate. 12.220.157.93 02:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

I just stumbled across this page while wiki-wandering and the style in which this article is written makes it all read like Mel Gibson in that conspiracy movie he made a few years back. Rather than defining what "Majestic 12" is, the whole article seems to go into great detail about why it's real and who said what to whom and which bits of disinformation came from what government agencies, etc. The whole article could be cut down to 1/10th the size it is currently without significantly affecting the content. The lists of "proofs" and alleged members and such should be better left to some Majestic-12 dedicated website, IMO, rather than a Wikipedia article that should merely be describing Majestic-12. All the additional material just makes it ramble and detracts from actually finding out what it's supposed to mean. 216.134.222.166 (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

POV-check template

I am a casual editor to this article. I've seen different edits in between which i am not sure about their verifiability. Most i consider them ok but not all. The article's page history says a lot about that. I have concerns about its neutrality as well. Please consider me neutral but my concern is why let this valuable article suffer from poor edits and probably POV ones. Please discuss. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a cleanup tag and it needs a lot of content removal which, I imagine, will be contested angrily by conspiracy theorists. It rambles on and on and on, on weird, irrelevant-sounding tangents that might make sense to someone who had written a book about the subject. This is an encyclopedia and this article needs to be concise if it is going to be useful to the layman. Tempshill (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please edit a couple of entries stating L.B. Johnson as being president in 1947. If I recall it was H. Truman who would be the one that should be mentioned re Majestic 12. LBJ was a couple of decades later.Random 62 (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Servizio Informazioni del Vaticano

There are rumours about the existence of an organization called the Servizio Informazioni del Vaticano, which would have supposedly been tied to the Majestic 12 project. However, it is rather difficult to prove the existence of this organization, and up to now there are not enough sources to validate these claims. [1] ADM (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some series issues with this claim. Not least is the Holy See itself mainly uses Latin for its most important official documents, which are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Yet this organisation uses Italian for its name. The Document is letterd witgh inacuracies (some of which a jesuit would never make, others of a more mundane kind).Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual errors

1 James Francis McIntyre whilst indeed Bishop of Los Angeles was at the time a cardinal (and had been for about a year).

2 Muroc Airfield was renamed in 1949, not after 1954. Thus at the time of this alleged encounter it was called Edwards Air Force Base before that it had been called Muroc Army Air Field.

3Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli is the correct spelling, only 1 S.

4 He was known as POPE JOHN XXIII No blessed in the title.

Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

13?

Under the list of purported M-12 members, there are 13 men listed. Was one of these a replacement or a later addition? If so, shouldn't this be specified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.196.248 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

The passage The W-2 tax document provided by Bob Lazar in support of his claim to have worked briefly for classified UFO-related analysis projects at the Nevada Test Site included the interesting and otherwise unlikely OMB number of E-6722MAJ, implicitly for "Majestic". is not referenced, in breach of WP:V.Autarch (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruppelt quotes

The phrase "More and more work was being pushed off onto the other investigative organization that was helping ATIC [Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson AFB]." is quoted in the article as having italics - do these exist in the orginal? Likewise, while “The only other people outside Project Blue Book who have studied the complete case of the Lubbock Lights were a group who, due to their associations with the government, had complete access to our files. ...they were scientists—rocket experts, nuclear physicists, and intelligence experts. They had banded together to study our UFO reports because they were convinced that some of the UFO’s that were being reported were interplanetary spaceships...” may have been shortened for brevity, but does the way the passage is quoted change meaning or emphasis?Autarch (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As the one who put the quotes in there to begin with, I'll comment. Regarding the second quote (in Ruppelt's "Lubbock Lights" chapter [2]), it reads in full: "The only other people outside Project Blue Book who have studied the complete case of the Lubbock Lights were a group who, due to their associations with the government, had complete access to our files. And these people were not pulp writers or wide-eyed fanatics, they were scientists, rocket experts, nuclear physicists, and intelligence experts. They had banded together to study our UFO reports because they were convinced that some of the UFO's that were being reported were interplanetary spaceships and the Lubbock series was one of these reports."

So, no, I don't think the meaning or emphasis has been changed by shortening the quote.

Regarding the first quote (from Chapter 3[3]), it is not in italics in Ruppelt's book. I don't think I put it in italics in the article. Could have been done by somebody else later in the course of millions of edits.

Ruppelt also references the "other group" earlier in the chapter: "All during 1948 contacts in the Pentagon were telling how UFO reports were rolling in at the rate of several per day and how ATIC UFO investigation teams were flying out of Dayton to investigate them. They were telling how another Air Force investigative organization had been called in to lighten ATIC's load and allow ATIC to concentrate on the analysis of the reports. The writers knew this was true because they had crossed paths with these men whom they had mistakenly identified as FBI agents. The FBI was never officially interested in UFO sightings."

It has been speculated who the "other investigative organization" being referenced by Ruppelt might have been, e.g., A.F. Officer of Special Investigation (counterintelligence), whose agents would have been dressed in plain clothes and resembled FBI agents. Or maybe not. Whatever, Ruppelt was definitely saying there were other secretive groups, that he would not name, besides the official public A.F. investigation looking into the matter, although again whether they were directly linked to the alleged MJ-12 group is still speculative. Hope this helps. Dr Fil (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Motive

Following the fascinating discussion about the content of the Wikipedia article it seems to me there needs to be some balance in a different dimension: that of motive. All the discussion seems to center around determination of what is fact or interpretation of agreed-upon facts, with believers and skeptics presenting and interpreting facts as they see it. If the documents are now a 26-year old hoax that no one has taken credit for, what is the motive for such an elaborate hoax? What would someone have to gain by spending the time to fabricate an elaborate well-thought out hoax? Has this been investigated?

I especially ask this of skeptics. If they are correct that this is indeed a hoax, and no one has stepped forward to brag about it which is usually what happens if it's not a policy, what does it say about the content of what is being discredited by such a hoax?

Thanks, 75.173.91.201 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)JNailen

Wikipedia is for reliable sources, not original research. anyway, Isn't the purposes of the hoax obvious? i.e to encourage belief in UFO conspiracy theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive use of fringe unreliable sources

I'm sure this must have been addressed before, but why are self-published conspiracy websites allowed as sources here? We're not supposed to host OR here. We're supposed to use reliable secondary and third party sources. I know that such websites are allowed in articles about themselves, but not elsewhere. What's up here? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Title change to Majestic 12 conspiracy theories

In keeping with our standard naming conventions for other conspiracy theories, I think the title should be changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this unless "Majestic 12 conspiracy theories" is also the preferred label outside of Wikipedia, which it's not. I could support "Majestic 12 (conspiracy theory)" for disambiguation if there were also an article for "Majestic-12 (web crawler)" at some point in the future. Maghnus (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This move makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

William Moore

In the "Pratt documents" section the wording would lead one to think that Moore was a member of AFOSI along with Doty, while Moore's wiki article indicates that as a ufologist he merely worked *with* that agency in exchange for information. Can someone with more expertise in this field than me clear this up and perhaps change the wording if needed? Cerdic (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another argument for?

I have been reading the article and it is very well written and researched. Personally i believe the documents are fake due to the stated reasons of typewriters used being sold long after the alleged dates. That seems to be pretty obvious.

However, what caught my interest is that for a fake this seems to be nearly too well researched. I find it noteworthy that the person who authored the fake documents obviously had a really good knowledge of the Persons, places, organizations and their interactions of the time.

I mean even today when you have internet and can really easily research stuff it would be hard to even get "on par" with this. I mean in internet times this would have been a troll who "did it for the laughs", but for 1984 this must be the work of a madman. Researching all the facts, people and such in 1984 must have taken weeks if not months, especially if you look how much that person tried to make letters, notes and documents look authentic, even forging signatures, headers, stamps and so on.

Also slipping a fake document into the national archives is something an ordinary "troll" would barely think of.

Whoever made these documents had much time and much knowledge about high ranked persons in the government and secret service of that time.

As i said - i believe these are fake. Still it puzzles me how anyone could be able to pull off something like this. For just some private person who is a bored troll this seems just way too much. The really interesting question is not "fake or real" but "What motives had the person making these?".

And to get back to the original topic (see my title) - i would add one argument for the "pro" section (Although i am rather contra): The story just looks very real as all the persons, departments, places and facts mentioned are either real or "hard to prove being fake".

I did read a bit about Menzel as i thought he'd be the main proof that the documents are fake as i read he wrote several books debunking ufos. What however surprised me was that he - an astonomer - worked together with the navy and department of defense. From his biography it was just studying aurora effects. But anyways, if it was also something else i think he might not have been allowed to talk about it anyways. You could put him as pro or as contra, holding it as you want. Contra: He wrote books debunking ufos. Pro: Being a member of the group it might have been his job to convince the public that "There is no ufos".

On the first sight it seems to be "a dumb faker mistake" to add Menzel to the whole puzzle, but looking deeper into it Menzel is not that much of a proof that the documents are "a quick and dirty fake". Menzel actually even told about his own "ufo experience" and later debunked it as a "mirage of sirius". I originally thought I'd read about Menzel and come to the conclusion that his alleged involvement in MJ12 is the final proof that it "is a bad fake written by a troll in the bathtube", but the more you read about Menzel the shadier he looks. Strang!

I still claim its a fake, but so well made, that should be mentioned as a "pro". How could anyone research the people of that era in 1984 with no internet and still pick so wisely? Whoever wrote this knew a lot and was pretty intelligent. If its just the work of some bored "troll" then this must the the troll of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.166.232 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Maybe another argument "pro" (I was originally trying to find some "contra" arguments... <.<)... But i have been thinking about it. What would be the alleged cost to make this? I think in 1984 these might have been pretty high. I just imagined what the eprson writing these documents must have been going through:

- Buying books about the topics or going to libraries reading them, researching about government, CIA and military people. Taking loads of notes of dates, places, names, meetings and such. Finding out which books reveal such information might even have taken much more time. In 1984 i guess you would have a hard time without google, so how would you find a book listing people who worked in the CIA, military, government and so on? It must have taken much time to gather so much info.

- Getting old typewriters. As i see it at least several typewriters were used. While these were probably the poorest part of the story (mostly models from the 60s while the fake documents claim to be from 40s and 50s) the person probably used several rather old typewriters from the 60s. Maybe from a garage sale, so not really the top investment.

- Getting official government documents. Signatures seem to be at least partially photocopied from government documents, so that person must have gotten and copied such documents. Probably from the national archives or so, at least i cant imagine where else you would get these in 1984. Style, header and wording are copying the official documents remarkably well, so that person must have searched, found and studied quite a lot of official documents.

- Writing the story. The documents are not just lose fragments without any or with cryptic meanings, they all fit pretty well in some "Big picture". So the author must have written some real story about MJ12, their actions, efforts, persons and plans. This is far beyond some simple "12 people meet and do mysterious things" stuff like you see it on sci-fi TV series or so. That guy must have written a real plot, defining each person and their responsibilities, taking into account the biographies and backgrounds of real life persons of the era. I think the character descriptions, creating the associated documents and plot would already span a whole book.

- Forging the documents. Yeah in windows with word that's pretty easy. But in 1984 on an old typewriter that must have taken quite a while. If you ever used such a typewriter you know you have to restart from beginning if you make one single mistake. At least for someone unskilled like me it would have taken ages and the outcome would be worse. Makes me think whoever made these was a secretary or someone at least pretty skilled with typewriters.

- Faking stamps, signatures and letter heads. Without photoshop i imagine this was probably quite time consuming in 1984. Getting or making a "TOP SECRET" stamp ain't so hard or expensive, but some smaller stuff like a Truman signature show some passion i guess. Who buys a "Top secret stamp"? Or did that person already have one? And why? Anyways, much love is put into some small details

- Smuggling a document into the national archives, making sure it is found, writing letters to people. Even if you have a USPS flatrate (Just kidding) it would be still much work. Not even accounting postage and such. Even if i lived next to the national archive i would not come to the idea to smuggle a document in there for a "prank" (?).

So would it be possible to estimate the cost in work hours and dollars? I'd really like to know how much it costs to pull off such a good "prank". And I'm still wondering why anyone would do that. I mean today you could read about the reaction in forums and such, getting a few cheap laughs. But in 1984 that seems to make limited sense. For a cheap prank it is just pretty well made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.166.232 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it actually possible that there are people who have never heard of "white out" or "scissors and glue" and who actually believe that it takes a computer to fake a document?

Even today you can buy rubber-stamp kits at office supply stores to make a rubber stamp that will say whatever it is you want it to say. Of course, they're likely to be less than perfect, just as the rubber stamp in this phony document was. But crazy UFO true-believers will grasp at any straw to validate their delusions. Yep, super-secret gubmint pro-ject, but they were too cheap to have the base training-aids office whip 'em up a proper rubber stamp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.199.155 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1954 manual

The primary new MJ-12 document is a lengthy, linotype-set manual dating from 1954. It deals primarily with the handling of crash debris and alien bodies. Objections to its authenticity usually center on questions of style and some historical anachronisms.

I wonder if we should elaborate further on this? I'm sure there are more, but one of the biggest flaws I noticed while reading this is the suggestion that agents should attempt to hide/deceive by issuing a report of a downed satellite. Given that this was 1954, before even Sputnik had been launched or indeed either the Soviets or the Americans had announced plans to launch satellites (see satellite), this is just plain silly. Some defenders have pointed out that science fiction authors had discussed artifical satellites before but this is besides the point. Reporting a downed satellite when as far as everyone was concerned there were no artifical satellites nor any attempts to make them would be a thing sure to draw the attention of everyone. Nil Einne 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I came across this page which summarises nicely the flaws:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-008.shtml Nil Einne 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)http://web.archive.org/web/20090228124911/http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-008.shtml

Actually, these errors have long since been taken into consideration by the MJ-12 proponents such as Stanton Friedman in the past. None of these arguments have proved to be detrimental to the validity of the operations manual, only to those of whom do very litte research to verify such questionable arguments.

Another obvious concern was the mention of "downed satellites" on page 8 as one of several acceptable "Deceptive Statements" to distribute to help provide cover. Considering that the first Sputnik wasn't launched until 1957, was this a goof by a forger? I dug out some pre-1954 books about space flight and checked back issues of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature for uses of the term satellite. I found several articles that used the term for a manufactured object in orbit around the earth prior to April 1954. There had also been an active program led by Clyde Tombaugh, who had discovered Pluto as a very young amateur astronomer in 1930, to search for artificial satellites near earth.

And the manual used the term UFOB, instead of UFO, for unidentified flying object. I checked some old government documents and found that in 1954, UFOB was used, even though it was out of favor within a short time.

Source of quote: TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman, Chapter 9 "The Majestic-12 Operations Manual," page 164, paragraphs 2 and 3.

71.225.20.130 19:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Um did you read what I said? 'Some defenders have pointed out that science fiction authors had discussed artifical satellites before but this is besides the point. Reporting a downed artificial satellite when as far as everyone was concerned there were no artifical satellites nor any attempts to make them would be a thing sure to draw the attention of everyone.'

Let me repeat that for a third time in case there's still any confusion. Reporting a downed artificial satellite when they didn't yet exist and weren't going to exist for 3 years (regardless of whether the name existed and the theoretical possiblity was out there), was not a way to avoid attention which was the purported purpose of making something up. It was instead a way to guarantee large amounts of attention, nearly as much as reporting it as a UFOB. In fact, the possibility that the artificial satellite may be of extraterrestrial origin would surely be considered so you've hardly helped yourself. (I presume Clyde Tombaugh was similarly looking for artificial satellites of extraterrestrial origin. Either way, if he had really found an artifical satellite, there's a good chance he would be known for this more then being known for having discovered Pluto.) The fact that it's a satellite doing some evil stuff on behalf of the extraterrestrial overlords rather then an extraterrestrial ship up to evil stuff may have slightly lessened the interest, but not that much. And I wonder if an extraterrestrial satellite would really be the biggest concern. In those days, the evil commie bastards having a satellite which we didn't know about until it crashed would easily have been a bigger worry to many Americans. ETs may have seemed just too distant a threat compared to the red scare. (And let's not forget the Sputnik crisis after the Soviets really did launch a satellite before the US. And that was one they actually told everyone about, not one they had managed to sneak by presumuably from the American POV doing goodnessknowswhat evil deeds while no one noticed.)

Now there may be better defenses for the satellite bit I'm not really interested enough to look in to them, but as I said in my first post, the fact that satellites existed in the literature already is clearly not it (and if that is the best defence defenders can come up with, it does suggest they haven't thought things through at all).

P.S. I see the link I gave above which admitedly is far from an RS nicely summarises the same flaws.

P.P.S. I just relooked at the document I'm referring to with the downed satellite bit and it's even more funny. The same section which suggests 'downed satellite' itself acknowledges the risk of reporting it as an experimental or secret military aircraft. Basically reading between the lines it says: Woah be careful about reporting it as a secret or experimental military plane, the American or foreign press may be curious! But reporting it as something which as far as anyone knew, neither us or the Soviets had build and launched yet (and despite appearance in the literature was likely not something many had really thought about)? No risks there mate. Why would either the American or foreign press be curious about that?

Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Very Suggestive, Biased Material with Obvious Factual Errors

Breifing Document and Truman Letter

1:The typewriter used

-The typewriter used for the Truman letter was a Smith Corona model which did not exist until 1962 - fifteen years after the document was allegedly written.

Issues with the typeface are nothing new. Here is an example of the ignorance and lack of thorough research by MJ-12 debunkers as Phil Klass paid the price ($1,000) for making an unsubstantiated proclamation about the typeface of the Cutler-Twining Memo:

Academics have found it necessary to jump into the fray as well, often without benefit of any research. For example, Carl Sagan (Ref.10) said "The Air Force says the documents are bogus. And UFO expert Philip J. Klass and others find lexicographic inconsistencies that suggest the whole thing is a hoax." He seemed to be unaware of the fact that Klass had paid me $1000.00 for providing more than fourteen documents done in exactly the same Pica typeface as the Cutler-Twining Memo though Klass, on the basis of nine Elite Typeface documents (obtained by him by mail, he had never been to the Ike Library) of the 250,000 pages of NSC material at the Ike Library, had insisted the CTM should have been done in Elite! Some lexicographic research! Our correspondence and a copy of his check to me are in Ref. 2. [my emphasis]

Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/mj12_update1.html, about half way down.

Tytell, the original typewriter expert making this false proclamation had MANY arguments against the documents, but demonstrated his bias from the start. He wouldn't even prepare a formal statement because he wanted to be paid to do so.

Tytell demonstrated his ignorance and bias with the following statement: "It was just perfect because the whole thing of the twelve pages or however many pages it was. Most of the pages were just blank pages with just five words written on them, like Top Secret or Appendix A or something like that." The fact of the matter is there were eight pages, not twelve, and only one of them, the missing page 7, had "APPENDIX A" on it as well as security markings.

James A. Black, another typewriter expert was paid to perform a professional analysis of the typeface of the MJ-12 documents. In November 13, 1998, Black said, "My knowledge of typewriter fonts permits me to conclude that the letter was likely to have been typed by an Underwood Standard typewriter. The portions of the type font of the letter that can be clearly visualized match those of a typewriter exemplar of an Underwood Standard typed in May 1940."

Black, however, seems to take issue with the Truman signature as well, which brings me to my next point.

2: The Truman Signature

-The signature of Harry Truman on the alleged letter to Forrestal is identical to the one known to be authentic on a letter to Vannevar Bush on October 1, 1947. The one on the briefing document is 3-4% larger and bolder, but this is explained by the fact that photocopiers don't reproduce things at exactly the same size. They match when the size is corrected and one is laid over the other.

-Both signatures show a unique slip of the pen when starting the "H".

-The "T" in the October 1, 1947 signature intersected the final "s" in "Sincerely yours". The same point on the Forrestal letter is slightly thinner, as if the intersection with the "s" had been modified with liquid paper or the like before photocopying.

-This shows that the authentic Truman signature from the letter to Bush was copied onto the bogus letter to Forrestal, which was then photocopied.

First of all, it should be noted, that the document that is allegedly a perfect match was unavailable when the MJ-12 documents were found and the similarities were FIRST pointed out by Stanton Friedman, NOT debunkers!

The two signatures were NOT identical. Segment lengths did not have the same length ratio. When held up to a light one behind the other, as Phil Klass recommended, they do not match. Even if the signature was supposedly "stretched", the Truman-Forrestal Harry is 1.012 longer than the Truman-Bush Harry, the Truman-Forrestal Truman is 1.032-1.04 times longer than the Truman-Bush Truman. At the same time, however, the letter head is identical. If it was photocopied, the typed text would have to be stretched by the same ratio on all parts of the paper. The thickness of the ink mark by the H in each memo is different. In addition, Stan has copies of at least 3 authentic Truman signatures that all have the same kind of mark by the H.

Truman signed thousands of letters, memos, and documents. In a family letter after his election, Truman noted that he was signing thank-you notes at the rate of 500 an hour. If there are other signature pairs that are very similar, then the closeness of the Truman-Forrestal and Truman-Bush signature means nothing. Albert S. Osborn was an expert referred to by Phil Klass to attempt to debunk the documents. Klass used many excerpts of the book Questioned Documents. Klass quotes, "The fact that two signatures are very nearly alike is not alone necessarily an indication of forgery of one or both, but the question is whether they are suspiciously alike [Klass's emphasis]." Later Klass quotes, "It should be understood that suspicious identity [Osborn's emphasis] is that which suggests the tracing process and which is not inconsistent with the theory of tracing." (Provided information in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Truman signature can be verified in Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 4, pages 84 and 85.)

Klass ignored the footnotes to the sentence he quoted, to legal references from 1903, 1904, 1900 and 1879. The first one deals with four identical signatures on a will by a man more than 80 years old! None of this has to do with legitimate signatures by people who sign loads of documents every working day.

Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 4 "Authenticating the Majestic-12 Briefing Documents", Page 85, Paragraph 3

Osborn even admits, on the SAME page that Klass quoted from, "In some cases such [identical] signatures can be found" [Osborn's emphasis]

3: Date Format and Name Format in the Briefing Document

-The dates have a superfluous comma after the month, e.g. "18 November, 1952". A comma is not used after the month in this date format. Every date in the briefing document has this error.

-Days of the month with single digits have a zero prepended, e.g. "01 August'". This was not common practice in the military until years later. Every single-digit day of the month has this erroneous format.

-No known authentic letters or memos from Hillenkoetter has the error of the superfluous comma and none used the prepended zero.

-All known authentic Hillenkoetter letters and memos use "R. H. Hillenkoetter" as the author's name, whereas the briefing document uses "Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter".

Fist things first, it should be noted that Stanton Friedman has collected MANY documents with the SAME formatting errors.

You raise the query that the prefix "0" as in "02 July 1947" was not used until modern computer technology was developed. I beg most strongly to differ. Certainly my experience in wartime in the Navy was that the "0" was a vital prefix whether in the date as in "02 July" or the hour as in "0300." I should think such methods were still used in NATO.

NATO documents always used the "0" in front of single-digit figures in my day, but I do not know when it started.

Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 7 "The MJ-12 Debunkers", page 122, paragraph 2 and 3 quoting Tim Good in his book Above Top Secret

One such government document found with the SAME inconsitencies was written by Hillenkoetter himself! Another reference to authentic government documents with the SAME style and formatting inconsistencies can be found in the Alsos Mission by Colonel Boris T. Pash on pages 84 and 98. There are also numerous examples of the MJ-12 date format in Ewen Montagu's book The Man Who Never Was and declassified files of the Canadian Defence Research Board. Also, Nick Redfern has found numerous examples of "nonstanard" date formats, including the same format in the briefing documents.

Randle claims that the most convincing reason for saying the EBD is a fraud is the fact that it lists "Briefing Officer: Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter." But RHH was only a rear admiral and certainly would never have called himself Admiral, Randle claims. Randle admits that generic titles (General for Brigadier, Major or Lieutenant General; Colonel for Lt. Colonel and Colonel, etc.) are used, but surely not in this instance! However, in a group of half civilians and half military (Army and Navy and Air Force), rank would not matter. MJ-12 member Sydney Souers was listed as Admiral, but was not as a full Admiral. Generals Twining, Vandenberg, Montague and Smith were all called General, but none had four stars in l947.

An earlier complaint by Philip Klass about Hillenkoetter was that he is listed as Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, but that he signed his letters RH Hillenkoetter (which I had supplied him) and didn't like the name Roscoe. The Truman Library had sent me several pages from the White House Appointment Logs. The name Roscoe is very prominent. On some of the same log entries, it says Admiral, rather than Rear Admiral, Roscoe Hillenkoetter. If it is good enough for the White House, a copy one-of-one TOP SECRET/MAJIC EYES ONLY Briefing for the President Elect can also say Admiral in a rank-doesn't-matter situation. Surely one wouldn't single out only one man for use of real, rather than generic, ranking? Ike himself often used generic ranks in his writing. At least Kevin no longer asks for me to supply "other" instances where RHH signed his name Admiral, since there is no RHH signature in the EBD.

Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html, 3/4 of the way down, "ADMIRAL HILLENKOETTER'S RANK"

-James Mosley, who personally knew alleged MJ-12 member Menzel found evidence that Menzel and alleged co-member Hillenkoetter did not know each other.

Actually, there are ties between Menzel and ALL of the alleged MJ-12 members. See Chapter 2 of Top Secret/Majic, "The Double Life of Dr. Menzel".

In the Air Force files it clearly indicates that Menzel had a copy of Project Blue Book Special Report 14, but he never once mentioned it publicly or in any of his three books or numerous papers. Also, there is proof that Menzel did highly classified consulting work for federal intelligence agencies, primarily the NSA and more than 30 other corporations. Surely, you don't need top secret clearance to be an astronomer at Harvard!

Speaking of the NSA and it's predecessor U.S. Navy agency in an August 13, 1960 letter, Menzel said, "I have been associated with this activity for almost 30 years and probably have the longest continuous record of association of any person in the country. I still keep my close association with them. Properly cleared to one another, I should be able to help in this sensitive area." And, as stated previous, and I can prove this again if needed, the NSA has a very strong UFO connection.

In reality, there are proven authentic letters between Hillenkoetter and Menzel. There may be no proof as of yet that they met personally, but obviously this is not to say that they never did. One thing we do know for certain is that Menzel did associate with Hillenkoetter through a series of letters.

The document uses "media" instead of "press", "extra-terrestrial" instead of "alien", and uses "impacted" as a verb--these words were not in common use until the 1960s.

This is another false claim. Take a look at any Oxford Dictionary of the time period and you will see that the words in question were infact in use in the time the documents were supposedly written. This is also stated by Stan Friedman in the afterword of Top Secret/Majic.

The typewriter ribbon was worn and the keys were dirty. Truman documents from the period that are known to be authentic used fresh ribbons and clean keys.

This statement is also false. This claim was made by infamous debunker Phil Klass as one of many arguments presented regarding the MJ-12 documents -- all of which were easily disproven. Klass was proven wrong about almost all of his petty arguments in which he presented and as pointed out before even cost him $1,000 based on a challenge he issued after doing very little research. The statement that all Truman documents from the given time period used fresh ribbons and clean keys is false!

5: Record searches. Other than the questioned Cutler memo, no other document mentioning MJ-12 has been found (not even the original briefing document).

And your point is... they don't exist? Well, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of documents yet to be released to the public or even submitted to government archives this statement means absolutley nothing!

-The National Archives found no record of a NSC meeting on July 16, 1954. A search of all NSC meetings for July 1954 did not find any mention of MJ-12 or Majestic.

-A branch of the National Archives searched NSC records for any listing of MJ-12 or Majestic and found none.

Of course it wouldn't find any mention of MJ-12 or Majestic. You can't be serious? A Top Secret group such as this would NEVER be listed!!!

Former CIA Chief of Operations Richard Bissell, for example, commented, "The document certainly looks authentic. On the basis of the material you have sent me, I personally have little doubt that it is authentic." Others who seem to concur are former Truman administrative assistant David Stowe and former National Security Council planning and board member Robert R. Bowie.

UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973, Chapter 3, "Saucers in the Skies: 1947", Pages 45 and 46.

Phil Klass actually challanged Friedman to produce authentic White House letters or memos by Cutler or Lay between 1953 and 1955 which used the typeface indentical in size and style to the Cutler-Twining memo. Klass offered Friedman $100 for each verified document, to a maximum of $1,000. Friedman immediately found and mailed twenty, then another fourteen the following month. He received his $1,000.

UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973, Chapter 3, "Saucers in the Skies: 1947", Page 49, last paragraph.

I also contact Stanton Friedman regarding Wikipedia's misrepresentation of the MJ-12 documents. He had this to say:

Thanks. I wondered who was repeating these old chestnuts. Should have known it was Wikipedia. Their article about me also has many mistakes. I did a quick look and found many many errors in this one.. some, I am sure you will note, that I discussed. Some are treated in my 106 page "Final Report on Operation Majestic 12" published back in 1990 and including, for example, many secondary documents that didn't appear in TOP SECRET/MAJIC. I will try to go through it and comment.Sounds like CSICOP's Joe Nickell repeating false Phil Klass arguments and his own false arguments.. Guess I am going to have to contact Wikipedia. Stan Friedman

It was also claimed that the Cutler-Twining Memo was a fake because Robert Cutler was out of the country at the time it was sent. However, coincidentally there is no signature and no /s/ (original signed by) on the memo. Robert Cutler was out of the country on July 14, 1954, so a signature or /s/ would have meant the document was a fraud. So then, if this was a Cutler memo, but Cutler was not in the country, who wrote it?

Cutler sent a detailed memo to James P. Lay, Executive Secretary of the NSC, to keep things moving out of his in-basket while he was gone to Europe. Stan was able to obtain Lay's July 16, 1954 memo to Cutler while Cutler was in Europe. The last paragraph states, "Hope you will recuperate, rest, and enjoy yourself for few days before returning. Will try to have everything tidy and not too much pressure upon you when you arrive." Obviously Lay was taking care of things for Cutler during Cutler's absence.

Stan then discovered that Lay had met with Ike in the early afternoon on July 14, 1954 at the White House and there had been a brief telephone conversation after 4:30 P.M. It is probable that this is when the change of plans for the special meeting of which the original CT memo was meant for took place. It was up to Lay to contact Twining under Cutler's name to inform him of the change in plans, hence the lack of a signature. Lay and Cutler worked very closely together, each usually getting copies of the others memos. They sat next to each other at NSC meetings. George Elsey said that of course Lay would have notified Twining. This would account for the absence of a signature or /s/. Lay, as Executive Secretary of the NSC (having been groomed by and succeeding Admiral Souers in that post), would have had clearances, as would Cutler, for just about everything at the White House.

... the CT memo is an original sheet of onionskin paper -- the only original paper MJ-12 document available. If you hold it up to the light at the National Archives, you can see a Dictation Onionskin watermark from the Fox Paper Company. Fox indicated many years ago that the paper was made in bid lots only, between 1953 and the early 1970s, and that the government bought lots of it. It was not available in stationery stores. Furthermore, the original has a slant red pencil mark through the security marking. I was told, after seeing a number of such marks at the Eisenhower Library, that it was standard practice for declassifiers to do exactly that (mark a slant red pencil mark through the security marking) when they were marking original documents for declassification. How many hoaxers would have obtained the proper paper and known about the slant red pencil mark? At first the Eisenhower library had claimed that all of Cutler's onionskin copies were made on onionskin with an Eagle watermark. This was corrected by them when I showed copies in the files made on onion skin with either different or no watermarks. Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html, about 80% of the way down about 1/4 of the way through the 4th paragraph from the bottom, under sub category "CUTLER-TWINING MEMO".

It is also interesting to note that the last sentence of the CT memo is "Your concurrence in the above change of arrangements is assumed". This is strikingly similar to the last sentence of an authentic TOP SECRET memo from Robert Cutler, found in General Twining's papers in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division (not available in National Archives): "It is understood that in the absence of contrary word your concurrence in the above arrangements is assumed." General Twining's pilot (also his aide) later confirmed that the comment was a typical one that meant no reply was required, if this meets with your approval.

References for Cutler-Twining Memo Info:

Top Secret/Majic, by Stanton T. Friedman http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/mj12_update1.html http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html

Obviously, I could go on and on regarding other errors and facts not pointed out. Things like Top Secret Restricted etc. Your sources, whoever they may be, seem to be ill-informed and as a result this article has fallin victim to very poor research... I have seen this article listed various times on numerous websites and forums across the web claiming to be proof of an MJ-12 hoax despite all the discrepencies. I am not attempting to be overly harsh or critical or putting out personal attacks, I am only attempting to provoke future change in the article for the better so as not to misinform the public regarding the controversial MJ-12 documents. The documents should certainly not be written off without a second thought as being a hoax until all supporting arguments are efficiently refuted, which they are not.

How can I contact you? You didn't sign your writings? 72.49.194.69Joshua

"sheer speculation"

"suggesting this Canadian document is in some way evidence of "MJ-12" is sheer speculation" says this article's lede. In the absence of good sources making this connection, all this material should be excised then ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity debate

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Majestic 12, the Authenticity debate section needs to be completely reworked in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cherry-picking primary source material to form an argument is a kind of original research that violates WP:SYNTH. - Location (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, an editorially synthesized list of "arguments for and against" isn't appropriate for WP:REDFLAG claims of government conspiracy to hide evidence of space aliens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this content is not suitable for use here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

I do not wish to start an editing war with another "TheRedPenOfDeath" (whom has been in editing wars with others over other topics recently) over content that pertains to this articles such as alleged documentation known as the Majestic Documents. These documents are the ones in question in the article that are either true or false and would allow the reader to form their own opinion without a biased point of view. If anything it is further documentation on the group the Majestic Twelve. Here's the addition: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 September 2014‎

<--Massive wall of text copied from http://www.majesticdocuments.com/ redacted as breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump ->

Firstly, the material you have posted is copy-pasted from another website - one which asserts that it holds the copyright to the text. Accordingly, I have redacted it in its entirety. You must not post copyright material on Wikipedia talk pages - do so again and you may find yourself blocked from editing.

Secondly, we aren't the slightest bit interested in what majesticdocuments.com has to say about these documents - such websites do not remotely meet Wikipedia guidelines regarding reliable sources, and we certainly wouldn't use their analysis of said documents even if it weren't copyright..

Thirdly, since majesticdocuments.com is not a reliable source, we have no means to verifify that documents hosted on that website are authentic. Accordingly, the meterial hosted there is likewise of no relevance to this article.

I suggest that you take the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies, rather than wasting more of your time (and ours) with irrelevant material. This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the promotion of conspiracy theories - if you wish to peddle such credulous nonsense, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur, they have been shown to be at least in part, a complete fabrication (I only had a chance to check the World War II items). Seaphoto^Talk 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with ATG and Seaphoto above and have marked as declined for sourcing. Sperril (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Confused

The earlier revision of this page actually had a better explanation of how the documents came into being. [4] Shii (tock) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Project Aquarius

Why Project Aquarius redirected to Majestic-12? Project Aquarius from Project Gleem (1953-1966) where it doesn't exist in wikipedia. Project Gleem became Project Aquarius. For Project Aquarius document you can see here (PDF): https://indocropcircles.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/project-gleem-1953-1966-became-project-aquarius.pdf Yudiweb (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Linkspam ?

A link to http://majesticdocuments.com in the "External Links" section has been removed on behalf of "Linkspam". Appearently, reading this Talk page, this is due to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." By removing this link I claim that it is Wikipedia who is misleading the reader, by not giving the choice of reading the documents and decide for themselves. Barry / Ichnaton. May 8, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichnaton (talk • contribs) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Majestic 12 was a hoax. Accordingly, a website which claims that 'documents' are real is misleading - and accordingly, it should not be linked. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of credulous bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Arguments For/Against

There use to be a pretty good section in this article that had (both) the pro and con arguments on MJ-12. Why was it deleted?Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.208.220.131 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No actually I don't. And I would prefer not to speculate.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Alejandro Rojas, Huffington Post blog

The encyclopedia gives weight to independent sources for opinions regarding fringe subjects. A blog post by Alejandro Rojas (a ufologist) isn't an independent or objective source, so changing the article to give primary weight to Rojas (and removing academic Robert Alan Goldberg published in Yale University Press) is grossly WP:UNDUE. Also bear in mind that a claim of a disinformation conspiracy by the US Air Force falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY.- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't the u.s gov and military have conducted several disinformation campaigns LordFluffington454 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

LinuxDude (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Why the heck isn't the computational linguistic testing done (paid for by Dr. Michael Heiser) by Dr. Carol Chaski included in this article? This work met evidentiary standards and highlights something factual about these documents?

Arguments For/Against Part II

I posted a question on this a few years back and have gotten no meaningful reply. If there are no objections.....I think I might restore this section.

Please say something if you object. I don't want to do it and then start arguing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to go back some years to find that section you’re referring to, but found it here: [5]. A major problem is that it is either uncited, WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARY sources, or cited to WP:FRINGE sources like “roswellproof.com”, “presidentialufo.com”, “virtuallystrange.net”, and other ufology proponents. We can’t give equal weight to fringe views per WP:GEVAL. The WP:RS which are independent of ufology contained in the article unanimously conclude the MJ-12 material was bogus, a hoax, i.e. not authentic. So there is no need to include an authenticity debate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole topic is kind of fringey as it is.....but Stanton Friedman makes similar arguments in his book(s) on the topic. If it was sourced to him....do you think such arguments could be present? We really don't go into detail much as to his argument. (And before you get the wrong idea...let me put my cards on the table and admit I think it's a hoax. But I always try to be fair here & edit with NPOV.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A fringy topic doesn’t mean we can use fringe proponents as sources in an effort to be fair and balanced. WP:FRINGE is pretty explicit about why the encyclopedia is biased in favor of the mainstream viewpoint. I don’t agree writings by ufologist Friedman need to be cited here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. It's just hard to find the "pro" side of this argument without getting to some irregular sources. If you don't feel the need for it's inclusion....will not write up anything now. (Unless other editors weigh in.) Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I feel bad that ufology and ufologists can't get the attention on Wikipedia they deserve for revealing all these government conspiracies to hide The Truth about aliens and the mysteries of ufos, etc. but our hands are tied here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

objections

Since my edit got was reversed, I make a point into calling attention to the most pressing issues. "He concluded that, rather than a hoax perpetrated by the UFO community" is not correct, no one knows the author to be able to bunch him into the UFO community (whatever that is) so the hoax was perpetrated to the UFO community (as it was intended to affect that particular subset of the public).

In "...in the 1980s when ufologists believed there had been..." is incorrect some ufologist still believe, even more that at the time since this type of information is slow to propagate (also more people and more mass media/globalization). The same goes to "and speculated some secretive upper tier of the United States government was responsible" not only in connection to the documents but it can be said to be almost a consensus on the ufo community, and based on facts that show that information was managed and altered by government officials whatever one chooses to believe happened.

"Their suppositions appeared" , I had changed that to theories since suppositions tend to be less based on facts, evidence and data and more around general speculation about unknowns (a theory at least gives and idea of an attempt to be rational and the subject has been put on wikipedia under conspiracy theories). On the same section I changed "appeared to be confirmed in 1984" to reinforced as to establish that the concept was not dependent exclusively on the set of documents nor would any perceived validity of the documents confirm anything until certified and acknowledged by government officials or irrefutably proven as a authentic leak (sourced).

There is also a need to make the text more clear that there is 2 sets of documents as is its extremely confusing to understand the sequence of events and distinct categorizations, this is even important to advance the notion of the later memo being part of some disinformation effort. --109.49.141.100 (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed your edits. You changed the tense of one sentence to render the grammar incorrect, and modified others so they imply something different than what is contained in the cited sources. I don't consider these improvements. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well some of the changes was not covered on the sourced content, it was only the way the editor chose to structure it (as I wrote above). In any case sources, especially in this subject, sources can be selected to shape the content as there is no authoritative discipline covering it. Not even historic records or governments agree or are transparent about much of it. Common sense should prevail even over the picked choices of sources.

Disregarding any grammar errors I made, some of the statements on the article are clearly erroneous. More than anything I just attempted to make it more neutral on what it presents. --109.49.141.100 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the edits improved the article LordFluffington454 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken as if you are to watch the movie 'Grey Lady Down ' with Charlton Heston, from the mid 70s, there is a reference to majestic twelve in the form of a sign hanging on a wall in the background of one scene showing a hierarchy of members. How could such a reference appear in a movie in the 70s if the document wasn't unearthed until 1984? 199.7.157.121 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point. (Do you have a pic of this by any chance?) I don't know if that is so remarkable though: MJ-12 supposedly contained a number of high ranking defense department & navy personnel.....so seeing a picture of them in a sub (in a movie in the 70's) isn't that strange (at least to me).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The Black vault

The Black vault is a disclosure forum for documents obtained via the freedom of information act. Anybody who looks into this will note that mj12 is documented in official documents hundreds of times throughout millions of documents. In correlation with many things not just UFOs. They are real organization, and possibly operate outside of the government. 2603:8080:F101:1D2D:9800:1A3D:C3BF:87B9 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice to know.

Do you have any contribution to improving the article? That's what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with reliable secondary references, and not a "Conspiracy Theory" site. As above, the Talk page is for improving the article and nothing else. --David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Please look into the most recent knowledge available on this subject this subject.

There have been at least five references to majestic 12 that I'm aware of in documents that have been acquired through various freedom of information act requests. Going back many years. 2603:8080:F101:1D2D:708C:6AD5:B76D:E22 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

We need reliable sources saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Retitle to "Majestic 12 hoax"

Both ufologists and debunkers agree this was a hoax. Any objection to retitling as such? Feoffer (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. I think you will find it difficult to rename if a majority of WP:FRIND sources do not explicitly refer to MJ12 as a hoax (e.g. Googling "majestic 12 hoax" should turn up a half dozen hits - but it doesn't). Certainly the existing text and supporting citations make it clear MJ12 is a fabrication, folklore, and bogus. So IMO there's no need for a title change. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you make an excellent point -- "MJ 12 hoax" is out. I had no idea it was so uncommon. What about "Majestic 12 documents"? The documents exist and dates to the 80s, the organization which alleged dates to the 40s does not exist and never has -- but we kinda put the cart before the horse. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, in my opinion, the existing title doesn't need modification, but others may feel differently. BTW, if you've got energy to burn, why not work on some UFO article that leans toward credibility, like Falcon Lake Incident. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The existing title seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for feedback. Sounds like it was a solution in search of a problem. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

How does Robert M, fit in with the conspiracy

I'm not sure how he fits in. If I remember correctly He was just mentioned. Walter form the B.M.R.F. (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow....who is "Robert M"? Do you mean Robert Miller Montague? (He was a alleged member of MJ-12.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert M. Montague. also here is the link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Robert_Miller_Montague Walter form the B.M.R.F. (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A Glaring Inaccuracy

Believe what you want about the Majestic documents, but stating that Truman purportedly assembled the group in 1952 is far too late. That should be obvious by James Forrestal's inclusion in the listed twelve. Forrestal, at that time, had been dead for three years. GwydionRhys (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We report what the people who believe in this nonsense say. It's not true, and there is no reason why it should be consistent with facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this diff shows the error where the editor misinterpreted the sources, which are correctly cited in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The document itself acknowledges his death on 22 May 1949 (interesting the dates are written in this format) and was replaced by General Walter B. Smith on 01 Aug 1950. So no, not a glaring inaccuracy. Not saying anything about the veracity of the document, though. 86.149.165.204 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh and to add, the document states the group was formed 24 Sept 1947. It’s on page 2. 86.149.165.204 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

“Planted” document

“…obviously planted to bolster the legitimacy of the briefing papers". Does the source cited specify who could have planted a document in the National Archives, and how that would even be possible? I haven’t been able to find the quote either. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've not been able to find the actual quote in Goldberg's book either (archive.org has a copy available for short-term online loan), though it certainly seems to follow the gist of what he has to say regarding the document. I wonder if it is a quote from something he wrote on the topic elsewhere? It could be down to something as simple as sources getting confused during the ongoing article editing process. As for questions regarding who could have planted the document and how, it isn't down to us to speculate, though I'll note from my limited experience with archives elsewhere (UK), they aren't always as security-minded as one might expect, and they are generally more concerned with people removing documents than bringing them in. Not that it matters though since we base content on what sources say, rather than on what we'd like them to explain further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it’s not that I’d “like him to explain”; it’s asking about what he’s actually said (i.e. what a source said). I asked if he ever elaborated on that claim, especially considering that it seems that quote may have been fabricated. I don’t think it’s good practice to just make up quotes or include unsourced ones because someone thinks it fits the “gist” of something. I see it’s still included, I’m going to delete it.

I would be interested if there have been other cases where hoaxed documents have been planted in official government archives. That could be included in a “See Also” section. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it has happened before in the British archives [6]. Not sure if it has happened in the USA's archives. I remember Joe Nickell saying on a show on this subject that he thought it would be easy to smuggle a document into the archives. Saying they (i.e. the archive personnel) aren't worried about someone smuggling anything in....just anything out.

Since we are on the subject, I've always been curious if anyone is aware of any forensics testing on these documents. Unlike the rest of them (that were sent as a roll of film) , these are supposedly original documents.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve found the Zinoviev Letter Letter (which is what I think you’re alluding to) and the Pumpkin Papers, but neither one of those appears to have been entered into national archives; they’re just hoaxed documents of political significance.

I also found the Hottel memo in the FBI archives, which references a UFO crash. So as far as I can tell planting documents in the archives is extremely rare, and only relates to UFO hoaxes. That seems noteworthy to me. Can anyone else find anything? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• See Roswell incident#Majestic Twelve hoax (1987). Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, analysis has been done of the MJ-12 documents, and several articles published on the results, (see this list of articles by Philip Klass in Skeptical Inquirer) As for the the Twining memo being found in the National Archives, it was found by William Moore, who "released" the docs in April/May, 1987. Klass cites a July 1987 memo from the Archives, responding to numerous requests for the memo and related docs. Apparently, the "Twining memo" was indeed in the box/folder cited, but the memo notes many inconsistencies between the document and the other stuff in the box it supposedly came from. Thus NARA itself doubted the authenticity of the document. Rgr09 (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Right so there are the MJ12 documents, but are there any others, especially that don’t have to deal with UFOs? And was it ever discovered how these documents were planted? Or has that been speculated upon by anyone? How was it possible for someone to sneak in documents into a box in the official archives that otherwise had authentic documents within it?

And are we to believe that the only documents in history that have ever been planted exclusively have to deal with UFOs? Are there literally no other examples for any other subject?

It also should be noted that there are apparently two “Twinning” memos, one considered fake that has to do with MJ12, and one considered that’s just about UFOs generally that doesn’t seem to be disputed overall as authentic. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Here, I’ll make it simple: 1) are there any examples of planted documents in the National Archives in the US or that of other countries that don’t have to do with UFOs, 2) has there ever been any speculation or investigation as to how the planted documents were planted? The whole reason I asked was so that that could be included in the article. I haven’t been able to find anything, and I’m asking if other people have. So has anyone found anything? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors aren't investigative reporters. We can't trawl through the National Archives looking for documents that connect the dots to some angle you find interesting. All we can do is summarize what arms-length WP:SECONDARY independent sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I was asking for secondary independent sources. That’s it. A book. An essay. A commentary. Something that’s been reported on before. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the text in question does indeed reside in the cited source on page 205, Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, Robert Alan Goldberg, Yale University Press, 2002. On December 11, 1984, Jaime Shandera, a research associate of Stan Friedman’s and Bill Moore’s, received an envelope with no return address containing a roll of exposed but unprocessed black-and-white 35mm film. When developed, the film revealed eight pages, the most important of which were portions of an alleged briefing paper dated November 18, 1952, and prepared for newly elected President Dwight Eisenhower...In follow-up, the researchers (Moore, Friedman, and Shandera) received postcards with riddles whose solutions revealed the location of documents in the National Archives obviously planted to bolster the legitimacy of the briefing papers. Bill Moore, in secret communication with men claiming to be members of the U.S. intelligence community, was shown additional materials that testified to the papers’ authenticity.

The original text was attributed to Goldberg, Consequently, I am reverting this edit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)