Talk:Majestic 12

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)

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Miller_Montague Walter form the B.M.R.F. (talk) 22:26, 4 May 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 [1]. 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)