UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 27

08-12-96: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:23:37 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 04:29:49 -0500
Subject: 08-12-96: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

I am taking this opportunity to address both the new MJ-12 papers as
promoted by Robert and Ryan Woods and the initial batch of MJ-12 papers
with another common problem they both have: the continuous position by
Stanton Friedman that TOP SECRET documents do not have to have control
numbers. This was discussed at lenght in 1996 and I am reposting the
data that Stan Friedman apparently has forgotten.

On the Art Bell Dreamland Radio Show, 1/10/99, towards the end and top
of the first hour:

Stanton Friedman:

     It is true of classified material that sometimes it has got a life
on it. That is, ten years later it will automatically be downgraded from
secret to confidential and five years after that to declassified. The
whole security system is a conglomeration. That is, the CIA and the DOD
and the other organizations, State Department for example, all deal with
classified material but the rules are different. And people, you know, I
get so urked when people want to pull things like "Well that isn't the
way this was done." One example, the MJ-12 documents, the original ones
the Eisenhower briefing documents, so for, someone complained that:

          "They obviously must be fraudulent because they don't have top
secret control numbers on them."

     Well, I did a lot of checking and I also pointed out to the person
that in my final report on operation Majestic 12 back in 1990 I had
published five formally Top Secret documents that didn't have control
numbers on them.

Linda Howe:

     Right!

Stanton Friedman.

     But, he insisted and I checked with the Eisenhower Library. I
checked with the Marshall Archives. The archivist at the Marshall
archives said:

          " Stan, if they had of used control numbers on everything we
still be fighting World War II." (A Friedman Sniker)


Art Bell:

     There you are. We are at the top of the hour...
--

First of all, the above only shows the level of Stanton Friedman's
ignorance on the handling of classified materials.  That is
understandable since Stanton Friedman _never_, repeat _never_, held a
TOP SECRET clearance or handled TOP SECRET documents in his life and
from the reposted message attached it is obvious that until I brought
the subject up in 1996 on this mailing list, Stanton Friedman was
unaware of any security regulation responsible for the handling of TOP
SECRET documents at all!

That was then in 1996, but now in 1999 we hear differently. He projects
himself once again as a security expert and he says that for the CIA,
the DOD, and the State Department that:

	"the rules are different"

That is fantastic to learn! The above implies that since they are
different and now that Stanton Friedman tells all of Art Bell's
listeners that they are different, he must have researched them and
discovered the differences!

Could you please share those differences in the regulations with us and
point us to the proper source regulations that do not address the need
for TOP SECRET control numbers and registers on TOP SECRET documents?
You obviously did not have the time to do so during the Art bell show.

I have shown in the past that DOD does require control numbers on TOP
SECRET documents. And when documents come under the control of DOD, as
the alleged MJ-12 papers, initial and new, would have of necessity,
those would have had control numbers assigned at that time.

I would like to point out that all the agencies Stanton Friedman
mentioned on the Art Bell Show as having different rules and implied as
having been researched by him were under the executive branch and
subject to the same executive orders by the President of the United
States. Each agency would have to implement the same directions outlined
in the appropriate executive order. In my 1996 post reproduced below, I
listed those executive orders.

Also, please provide the name of the archivist at the Marshall library
that said TOP SECRET control numbers were not required? Wait a moment. I
see that you quote this "source" as saying:

	" Stan, if they had of used control numbers on everything we
still be fighting World War II."                    *************

On everything? I thought the point of discussion was only on TOP SECRET
documents. So, what is it that this individual said and the proper
context and what was he refering to? And who was the person? I would
very much like to correct myself if there turns out to be different
rules for the handling of TOP SECRET documents within the executive
branch of our government. Apparently, you have come across a very
knowledgeable source of information that "knows" stuff not readily
apparent to the present and past members of the executive branch of our
government.

While we wait for Stanton Friedman to verify his research notes, please
read the following repost of 8/12/96 made in direct response to Stanton
Friedman since he was totally unaware of any regulation requiring TOP
SECRET control numbers at that time. Of course now we know differently.
That he is aware of the regulations and that there are "several" with
relevant differences. As soon as he reveals those to us, we all will be
much enlightened due to the diligent and heroic archival research that
Stanton Friedman performs.

In case Stanton Friedman is unable to locate his research notes and
unable to substantiate the allegations he once more made on the Art Bell
show, maybe the MJ-12 promotional team of Woods and Woods would like to
enlighten us as to the lack of control numbers on their alleged MJ-12
papers? They are also on record as performing diligent and heroic
research on the new MJ-12 papers.

Ed Stewart

ps. not that it will even be read or noticed, but a cc to Art Bell sent.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something         |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
   Going On!       ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
Salvador Freixedo  ( O O ) |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
---------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960812160716.0067ac30@ultratech.net>
X-Sender: tomt@ultratech.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:07:16 -0400
To: ianr@global-data.com
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ebk@nobelmed.com>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

From: egs@netcom.com (Edward G. Stewart)
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation
To: ebk@nobelmed.com (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)


Regarding: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca

> I just wish Ed would put some data on the table... like documented
> protocols about TS documents requiring control numbers.
> Stan Friedman

It appears that nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman, the original
Roswell researcher with decades of unprecedented personal archival
research, as well as substantial archival research in conjunction with
co-researchers, is having difficulties accepting a simple statement
of fact made by me in an earlier missive to this list. This is good. No
claim should be accepted at face value. Just as healthy skepticism is
good for science (pay close attention to that process with the current
news breaking Mars-life claim for insights into the process as scientists
examine the claims for compelling evidence of direct linkage), the process
is also healthy and desperately needed within the world of Ufology.

Please note the following:

     AR 380-5 Chapter VII Access, Dissemination, and Accountability
              Section 3 Accountability and Control

More specifically the above states:

     "AR 380-5 7-300. Top Secret information
     "DoD activities shall establish the following procedures:

     "b. Accountability

     "2. Serialization and copy numbering. Top Secret documents
         and material shall be numbered serially. In addition,
               each Top Secret document shall be marked to indicate its
               copy number, for example, copy -1- of -2-copies. Top Secret
               documents will be numbered in sequence as they are received
               in a calendar year series. This number will be posted to
               the document and control register. Changes to controlled
               documents will be assigned the same control number as the
               basic document, except that a suffix (such as ""Change 4'')
               will be added. The change will be incorporated immediately
               into the basic document; a notation will be added to the
               description block on the document register."

Also,     "AR 380-5 7-300. Top Secret information
     "DoD activities shall establish the following procedures:

     "c. Inventories. All Top Secret documents and material shall
               be inventoried at least once annually. Within Army, TSCOs
               will conduct a monthly 10-percent inventory of Top Secret
               documents. The inventory shall reconcile by the tenth
               month, the Top Secret accountability register with 100
               percent of the Top Secret documents or material on hand.
               At such time, each document or material shall be examined
               for completeness..."


Please note also that "AR 380-5  Appendix F Program Evaluation Guide"
asks the necessary questions for proper evaluation of existing
documents to see whether or not they are in conformity with existing
security protocols? There are hundreds of questions that need to be
addressed and too long for me to post all here. But of immediate
relevance are the following:

     AR 380-5 F-6. Classified information access, dissemination,
             and accountability

              " r. Are copies of classified documents subjected
                         to the same controls as the originals?
              " y. Are all TOP SECRET documents numbered serially?
              "ab. Is the two person rule followed in areas where
             TOP SECRET and Special Access Program (SAP)
                         information is stored and accessible?
                    "ad. Has an exception to policy been submitted and
                         approved for TOP SECRET and SAP areas where the
                         two-person rule cannot be implemented?"

The "Program Evaluation Guide" shows that the self-evaluation questions
are applicable not only to TOP SECRET documents, but also to
TOP SECRET (SAP) documents. And no where does it ask if an exception to
policy has been submitted and approved for not serially numbering all
TOP SECRET (SAP) documents. Whereas the two-person rule for SAP can
be excepted under exceptional circumstances, not so for the
serialization marking requirement to the actual document and copies of
TOP SECRET documents. Even though AR 380-381 ((C) Special Access
Programs (U)) is a CONFIDENTIAL classified regulation, DA Pamphlet
380-381 (Security for Special Access Programs)is not, as neither is
DoD Directive 5205.7 (Special Access Programs (SAPs)). A Special Access
program is any program imposing need-to-know or access controls beyond
those normally required for access to Confidential, Secret, or Top
Secret information.

Programs which fall under SCI and COMSEC guidelines
have separate classified regulations detailing additional security
procedures, but the rule of thumb is the higher the security requirement,
the higher the control, the higher the accountability. Never is it less
control, less accountability. Please note:

     AR 380-5 1-205. Sensitive compartmented and
               communications security information.

           "a. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and
                           Communications Security (COMSEC) Information
                           shall be handled and controlled in
                           accordance with applicable national directives
                           and DoD Directives and Instructions. Other
                           classified information, while in established
                           SCI or COMSEC areas, may be handled in the
                           same manner as SCI or COMSEC information.
                           Classification principles and procedures,
                           markings, downgrading, and declassification
            [my emphasis] [*********]
                           actions prescribed in this Regulation apply
                           to SCI and COMSEC information."

AR 380-5 derives its authority through DoD Directive 5200.1: DoD Information
Security Program, which implements Presidential Executive Orders on National
Security Information. Applicable Presidential Executive Orders which
have governed the classification program have been:

     Executive Order 12958, 1995, Clinton
     Executive Order 12937, 1994, Clinton
     Executive Order 12356, 1982, Reagan
     Executive Order 12065, 1978, Carter
     Executive Order 11652, 1972, Nixon
     Executive Order 10964, 1961, Kennedy
     Executive Order 10501, 1953, Eisenhower
     Executive Order 10290, 1951, Truman
     Executive Order 10104, 1950, Truman
     Executive Order  8381, 1940, Roosevelt

The last significant change on National Security Information occurred
when Truman in 1951 discarded references to congressional authority and
in essence vested authority solely onto the Executive Branch and brought
control of the classification system under the President and the White
House, a power that to this day is still solely vested in the President
of the United States.

As shown above, not only are control numbers required markings on
TOP SECRET documents, but control numbers are also required on TOP
SECRET Special Access Program (SAP) documents, TOP SECRET Sensitive
Compartmented Information (SCI) documents, and TOP SECRET COMSEC
documents.

Not only are all TOP SECRET documents tightly controlled, but they are
also systematicaly inventoried and validated for completeness every
10 months. The guidelines re-emphasize that one of the items
requiring re-verification every year is that all TOP SECRET documents
have a serialized control number marking on the document and reconciled
with the TOP SECRET control registry.

An alleged TOP SECRET document or manual created in the 40s/50s would have
been systematicaly inventoried and validated for completeness well over
forty/fifty times since then. The fact that none of the alleged MJ-12
documents have serialized control numbers strongly suggests that they
were never brought under proper control as required by regulations and
directives under the authority of Presidential Executive Orders. This
suggests that the alleged MJ-12 documents were never under the control
of the President of the United States and the Executive Branch of
the United States and are simply bogus.

Ed Stewart


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - |	So Man, who here seems principal alone,
"There is                     |	Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
 Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
 -Salvador Freixedo-  ( O O ) |	'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------


___________________________________
Errol Bruce-Knapp  (ebk@nobelmed.com)
UFO UpDates - Toronto - 416-932-0031
The OnLine Information List Service of MUFON Ontario
Your participation is encouraged and appreciated

MUFON Ontario's Home Page:
http://www.interlog.com/~epona/mufonont.html

The Canadian Ufologist - A MUFON Ontario Publication
http://www.interlog.com/~lourenco/ufologist.html





Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:23:37 -0800
From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
To: updates@globalserve.net
CC: artbell@aol.com
Subject: Repost #3   MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation


I am taking this opportunity to address both the new MJ-12
papers as promoted by Robert and Ryan Woods and the initial
batch of MJ-12 papers with another common problem they both
have: the continuous position by Stanton Friedman that TOP
SECRET documents do not have to have control numbers. This was
discussed at lenght in 1996 and I am reposting the data that
Stan Friedman apparently has forgotten.

On the Art Bell Dreamland Radio Show, 1/10/99, towards the end
and top of the first hour:


Stanton Friedman:

It is true of classified material that sometimes it has got a
life on it. That is, ten years later it will automatically be
downgraded from secret to confidential and five years after that
to declassified. The whole security system is a conglomeration.
That is, the CIA and the DOD and the other organizations, State
Department for example, all deal with classified material but
the rules are different. And people, you know, I get so urked
when people want to pull things like "Well that isn't the way
this was done." One example, the MJ-12 documents, the original
ones the Eisenhower briefing documents, so for, someone
complained that:

"They obviously must be fraudulent because they don't have top
secret control numbers on them."

Well, I did a lot of checking and I also pointed out to the
person that in my final report on operation Majestic 12 back in
1990 I had published five formally Top Secret documents that
didn't have control numbers on them.


Linda Howe: Right!


Stanton Friedman:

But, he insisted and I checked with the Eisenhower Library. I
checked with the Marshall Archives. The archivist at the
Marshall archives said:

"Stan, if they had of used control numbers on everything we
still be fighting World War II." (A Friedman Snicker)


Art Bell: There you are. We are at the top of the hour...

--

First of all, the above only shows the level of Stanton
Friedman's ignorance on the handling of classified materials.
That is understandable since Stanton Friedman _never_, repeat
_never_, held a TOP SECRET clearance or handled TOP SECRET
documents in his life and from the reposted message attached it
is obvious that until I brought the subject up in 1996 on this
mailing list, Stanton Friedman was unaware of any security
regulation responsible for the handling of TOP SECRET documents
at all!

That was then in 1996, but now in 1999 we hear differently. He
projects himself once again as a security expert and he says
that for the CIA, the DOD, and the State Department that:

	"the rules are different"

That is fantastic to learn! The above implies that since they
are different and now that Stanton Friedman tells all of Art
Bell's listeners that they are different, he must have
researched them and discovered the differences!

Could you please share those differences in the regulations with
us and point us to the proper source regulations that do not
address the need for TOP SECRET control numbers and registers on
TOP SECRET documents? You obviously did not have the time to do
so during the Art bell show.

I have shown in the past that DOD does require control numbers
on TOP SECRET documents. And when documents come under the
control of DOD, as the alleged MJ-12 papers, initial and new,
would have of necessity, those would have had control numbers
assigned at that time.

I would like to point out that all the agencies Stanton Friedman
mentioned on the Art Bell Show as having different rules and
implied as having been researched by him were under the
executive branch and subject to the same executive orders by the
President of the United States. Each agency would have to
implement the same directions outlined in the appropriate
executive order. In my 1996 post reproduced below, I listed
those executive orders.

Also, please provide the name of the archivist at the Marshall
library that said TOP SECRET control numbers were not required?
Wait a moment. I see that you quote this "source" as saying:

"Stan, if they had of used control numbers on everything we'd
still be fighting World War II."    ---------------

On everything? I thought the point of discussion was only on TOP
SECRET documents. So, what is it that this individual said and
the proper context and what was he refering to? And who was the
person? I would very much like to correct myself if there turns
out to be different rules for the handling of TOP SECRET
documents within the executive branch of our government.
Apparently, you have come across a very knowledgeable source of
information that "knows" stuff not readily apparent to the
present and past members of the executive branch of our
government.

While we wait for Stanton Friedman to verify his research notes,
please read the following repost of 8/12/96 made in direct
response to Stanton Friedman since he was totally unaware of any
regulation requiring TOP SECRET control numbers at that time. Of
course now we know differently. That he is aware of the
regulations and that there are "several" with relevant
differences. As soon as he reveals those to us, we all will be
much enlightened due to the diligent and heroic archival
research that Stanton Friedman performs.

In case Stanton Friedman is unable to locate his research notes
and unable to substantiate the allegations he once more made on
the Art Bell show, maybe the MJ-12 promotional team of Woods and
Woods would like to enlighten us as to the lack of control
numbers on their alleged MJ-12 papers? They are also on record
as performing diligent and heroic research on the new MJ-12
papers.

Ed Stewart

PS. not that it will even be read or noticed, but a Cc: sent to
Art Bell . --

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:07:16 -0400
To: ianr@global-data.com
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ebk@nobelmed.com>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

From: egs@netcom.com (Edward G. Stewart)
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation
To: ebk@nobelmed.com (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 16:03:26 -0700 (PDT)


Regarding: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca

> I just wish Ed would put some data on the table... like documented
> protocols about TS documents requiring control numbers.
> Stan Friedman

It appears that nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman, the
original Roswell researcher with decades of unprecedented
personal archival research, as well as substantial archival
research in conjunction with co-researchers, is having
difficulties accepting a simple statement of fact made by me in
an earlier missive to this list. This is good. No claim should
be accepted at face value. Just as healthy skepticism is good
for science (pay close attention to that process with the
current news breaking Mars-life claim for insights into the
process as scientists examine the claims for compelling evidence
of direct linkage), the process is also healthy and desperately
needed within the world of Ufology.

Please note the following:

AR 380-5 Chapter VII Access, Dissemination, and Accountability
    Section 3 Accountability and Control

More specifically the above states:

"AR 380-5 7-300. Top Secret information
"DoD activities shall establish the following procedures:

"b. Accountability

"2. Serialization and copy numbering. Top Secret documents
and material shall be numbered serially. In addition,
each Top Secret document shall be marked to indicate its
copy number, for example, copy -1- of -2-copies. Top Secret
documents will be numbered in sequence as they are received
in a calendar year series. This number will be posted to
the document and control register. Changes to controlled
documents will be assigned the same control number as the
basic document, except that a suffix (such as ""Change 4'')
will be added. The change will be incorporated immediately
into the basic document; a notation will be added to the
description block on the document register."

Also,"AR 380-5 7-300. Top Secret information
"DoD activities shall establish the following procedures:

"c. Inventories. All Top Secret documents and material shall
be inventoried at least once annually. Within Army, TSCOs
will conduct a monthly 10-percent inventory of Top Secret
documents. The inventory shall reconcile by the tenth
month, the Top Secret accountability register with 100
percent of the Top Secret documents or material on hand.
At such time, each document or material shall be examined
for completeness..."


Please note also that "AR 380-5  Appendix F Program Evaluation
Guide" asks the necessary questions for proper evaluation of
existing documents to see whether or not they are in conformity
with existing security protocols? There are hundreds of
questions that need to be addressed and too long for me to post
all here. But of immediate relevance are the following:

AR 380-5 F-6. Classified information access, dissemination,
   and accountability

    " r. Are copies of classified documents subjected
to the same controls as the originals?
    " y. Are all TOP SECRET documents numbered serially?
    "ab. Is the two person rule followed in areas where

TOP SECRET and Special Access Program (SAP)
information is stored and accessible?
"ad. Has an exception to policy been submitted and
approved for TOP SECRET and SAP areas where the
two-person rule cannot be implemented?"

The "Program Evaluation Guide" shows that the self-evaluation
questions are applicable not only to TOP SECRET documents, but
also to TOP SECRET (SAP) documents. And no where does it ask if
an exception to policy has been submitted and approved for not
serially numbering all TOP SECRET (SAP) documents. Whereas the
two-person rule for SAP can be excepted under exceptional
circumstances, not so for the serialization marking requirement
to the actual document and copies of TOP SECRET documents. Even
though AR 380-381 ((C) Special Access Programs (U)) is a
CONFIDENTIAL classified regulation, DA Pamphlet 380-381
(Security for Special Access Programs)is not, as neither is DoD
Directive 5205.7 (Special Access Programs (SAPs)). A Special
Access program is any program imposing need-to-know or access
controls beyond those normally required for access to
Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret information.

Programs which fall under SCI and COMSEC guidelines have
separate classified regulations detailing additional security
procedures, but the rule of thumb is the higher the security
requirement, the higher the control, the higher the
accountability. Never is it less control, less accountability.
Please note:

AR 380-5 1-205. Sensitive compartmented and
communications security information.

 "a. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and
  Communications Security (COMSEC) Information
  shall be handled and controlled in
  accordance with applicable national directives
  and DoD Directives and Instructions. Other
  classified information, while in established
  SCI or COMSEC areas, may be handled in the
  same manner as SCI or COMSEC information.
  Classification principles and procedures,
  markings, downgrading, and declassification
  [my emphasis] [*********]
  actions prescribed in this Regulation apply
  to SCI and COMSEC information."

AR 380-5 derives its authority through DoD Directive 5200.1: DoD
Information Security Program, which implements Presidential
Executive Orders on National Security Information. Applicable
Presidential Executive Orders which have governed the
classification program have been:

Executive Order 12958, 1995, Clinton
Executive Order 12937, 1994, Clinton
Executive Order 12356, 1982, Reagan
Executive Order 12065, 1978, Carter
Executive Order 11652, 1972, Nixon
Executive Order 10964, 1961, Kennedy
Executive Order 10501, 1953, Eisenhower
Executive Order 10290, 1951, Truman
Executive Order 10104, 1950, Truman
Executive Order  8381, 1940, Roosevelt

The last significant change on National Security Information
occurred when Truman in 1951 discarded references to
congressional authority and in essence vested authority solely
onto the Executive Branch and brought control of the
classification system under the President and the White House, a
power that to this day is still solely vested in the President
of the United States.

As shown above, not only are control numbers required markings
on TOP SECRET documents, but control numbers are also required
on TOP SECRET Special Access Program (SAP) documents, TOP SECRET
Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) documents, and TOP
SECRET COMSEC documents.

Not only are all TOP SECRET documents tightly controlled, but
they are also systematicaly inventoried and validated for
completeness every 10 months. The guidelines re-emphasize that
one of the items requiring re-verification every year is that
all TOP SECRET documents have a serialized control number
marking on the document and reconciled with the TOP SECRET
control registry.

An alleged TOP SECRET document or manual created in the 40s/50s
would have been systematicaly inventoried and validated for
completeness well over forty/fifty times since then. The fact
that none of the alleged MJ-12 documents have serialized control
numbers strongly suggests that they were never brought under
proper control as required by regulations and directives under
the authority of Presidential Executive Orders. This suggests
that the alleged MJ-12 documents were never under the control of
the President of the United States and the Executive Branch of
the United States and are simply bogus.

Ed Stewart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - |	So Man, who here seems principal alone,
"There is                     |	Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
 Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
 -Salvador Freixedo-  ( O O ) |	'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
-------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------


Search for other documents from or mentioning: ianr

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com