| FSPLANET.COM. The best files for FS98/FS2000/FS2002/FS2004. Updated daily!!! |
|
  Visited by over 35,000 Flight Sim lovers each day! Top Quality FS site since 1997... |
 |
 |
|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Advertise Here
#1 worldwide
 
Despite the immediate negative reply the AARTCC was persistent: 5:40:26 AARTCC - Jal1628 heavy, sir, we do have military ah, at Eielson, 40 miles away. I can put them up and let them check the traffic for you.At this time a military aircraft referred to as TOTEM, which was not a fighter aircraft but was already in the air, offered to check out the traffic. The transmission was somewhat garbled, however, and the AARTCC controller thought he was hearing JAL1628. JAL1628 was also confused momentarily: 5:40:44 TOTEM - Anchorage Center, you have TOTEM 71 up here. We might be able to get close to him.(This last statement seems to make no sense in the context of the conversation. Perhaps Mr. Tamefuji did not correctly understand what the AARTCC had said.) It was now one minute since the AARTCC had been directed the plane to fly directly to Talkeetna. At that time, 5:39:10, the plane was about 1/3 of the way around the circle. Finally at 5:42:04 the plane responded. By this time it was 3/4 of the way around the circle. 5:42:04 JAL1628 - Anchorage Center, JAL1628. Confirm direct to Talkeetna three one zero.While the plane was being directed to Talkeetna the AARTCC and the ROCC continued discussing the radar targets. 5:41:51 AARTCC - Where's that, ah, are you still painting a primary, ah, by that JAL flight?While this conversation was going on Capt. Terauchi was looking to his left and backwards. It was there again! 5:42:35 JAL1628 - Ah, we have...Anchorage Center, JAL1628. We have in sight same position, over.This statement, made as the plane was just coming out of the turn to head southward from near Fairbanks toward Anchorage, indicates, as described previously that the "mothership" may have followed behind the plane. The captain remembers the events this way: "The consumption of fuel during this flight was almost as expected but there was only 3,800 pounds left and as such was not enough for extra flying for running around. We have got to arrive at Anchorage." At this point from in his testimony the captain recalled the direction from the AARTCC to proceed directly to Talkeetna. But he thought that the plane had initiated the request. He continued, "We checked behind us again. The ship was in formation and ascending with us. We wondered and feared as to their purpose." The word ascending should have been descending (the plane never ascended during the sighting according to the tracking data) and furthermore, it is in the wrong temporal location in the testimony because the descent occurred before, not after the turn. (The captain incorrectly recalled the descent as occurring after the turn.)
His testimony continues at this point with his recollection of the query about a scramble of a military jet. But according to the transcript, the discussion of a scramble came before the plane completed the turn rather than after, as the captain recalled. About a minute and a half later the AARTCC decided to find out whether or not the traffic was still with the plane. 5:44:07 AARTCC - JAL1628, sir, do you still have the traffic?Captain Terauchi recalled the reappearance of the "mothership." "We flew toward Talkeetna at an altitude of 31,000 ft. The spaceship was still following us, not leaving us at all." By this time the plane was completely out of the turn and headed southward toward Talkeetna. At about 5:40 a United Airlines passenger jet took off from Anchorage and headed north to Fairbanks. Several minutes later it reported being at 29,000 feet and on a 350 degree (magnetic) heading. The AARTCC controller decided to ask the UA pilot if he could see anything behind the JAL flight. At 5:44:43 he called the UA pilot to say that the JAL flight was in his 11 o'clock position and 110 nm north "and he has traffic following him, sir. It's unknown traffic... I want you to see if you see anything with him." The UA pilot said he would look when he got closer. The controller asked the JAL flight to stay at 31,000 ft and the UA flight to stay at 29,000 ft. He then directed the UA flight to turn some more so that the planes would pass within five miles of one another. 5:46:48 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy. Maintain flight level three one zero.Several minutes later the planes were much closer together and closing on one another rapidly (the separation was decreasing at rate between 15 an 20 nm per minute). 5:48:16 UNITED 69 - Can you please point the traffic out again please?As the planes approached each other in the dark sky the "mothership" apparently dropped back, allowing the JAL plane to get far ahead. Of course the 10 miles distance was only the pilot's guess. The object was too far back to be detected on the airplane radar, which would give an accurate distance. The United pilot asked the AARTCC to have the JAL pilot flash the headlights on the JAL aircraft so he could locate the plane. At 5:49:45 the JAL pilot did that. At this time the planes were about 25 miles apart.
Terauchi says that at about the time that his plane headed toward Talkeetna after the 360 turn, "a United Airline passenger jet which left Anchorage to Fairbanks flew into the same air zone and began communicating with Anchorage center. We heard them transmitting that there was an object near JAL1628 and requesting for confirmation. We heard the Anchorage Center was saying to the United Airline aircraft that JAL1628 was at an altitude of 31,000 ft and therefore the United aircraft should maintain 33,000 ft." (Actually the transcript shows that the UA altitude wa 29,000 ft.) "It sounded as if Anchorage Center had the United Airline aircraft fly above the spaceship. We were flying the east side of Mt. McKinley. The United Airline aircraft came close to us. The United Airline aircraft requested us to flash our landing lights for visual confirmation and we both confirmed our positions visually. The United Airlines aircraft was coming close to us. We knew that they were watching us. When the United plane came by our side the spaceship disappeared suddenly and there was nothing left but the light of the moon." When the planes were about 12 miles apart and still approaching one another, the UA plane reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else. By this time the "mothership" had apparently disappeared: 5:50:35 UA69 - UA69 heavy. We've got the Japan Airliner in sight. I don't see anybody around him. He's (referring to the "spaceship") at his seven o'clock position, huh?The above conversation appears to confirm Terauchi's later recollection that the object disappeared when the two planes got close to one another. The copilot used the word "distinguishing" and followed this with "I guess 12 o'clock below you." Previously he had used the word "distinguished" when he meant "extinguished," or no longer visible, because the object had disappeared shortly after the 360 turn began (see 5:38:57 and 5::39:04 above). Apparently he meant "extinguishing" or "extinguished" at this time as well. Furthermore, if the object had been still visible he would not have said "I guess 12 o'clock below you." because the captain would have been able to see where the object was relative to the UA jet. Thus it appears that the object/light had disappeared by 5:51 when the planes were still about 12 miles apart.
It is also interesting to note that the copilot used the words "below" you which suggests that at that time the JAL flight crew thought that the UA plane was above their altitude. This is as the captain remembered it. Perhaps they did not hear the controller tell the UA plane to maintain 29,000 ft. At 5:51:32, after the planes had passed one another, the UA plane reported being able to see the JAL plane silhouetted against the sky. The UA captain could see the contrail as well as the jet but nothing else. The controller responded, "We got just a few primary hits on the target and then, ah, we really haven't got a good track on him, ever," meaning that the radar never showed a continuous track (a continuous series of "blips") of primary-only radar targets associated with the unusual "traffic." After the UA plane had passed the JAL flight at a point about 60 nm
south of Fairbanks at 5:53:10 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, descend at pilot discretion. Maintain flight level two five zero (25,000 ft).During the next several minutes TOTEM viewed the JAL plane but couldn't see any other traffic. JAL1628 proceeded to Anchorage and landed at 6:20 PM. The Fantastic Flight was over, but the seeds of controversy had been sown. They would bear sometimes bitter fruit about a month and a half later.
The Fantastic Flight Ends And The Controversy Begins: The First InterviewBecause of the report of unusual traffic the crew was interviewed immediately by FAA official Jack Wright and by agents James Derry and Ronald Mickle. Wright recorded the following information: [14]I received a call from Dick Powers concerning a JAL flight which the Captain had stated he was being followed or shadowed. I observed the aircraft land at 1820 hours (6:20 PM). No other aircraft was noted. The B747 taxied into the international ramp area. I interviewed Capt. Terauchi and the crew of two. The captain stated that this was the first time that anything like this had happened to him. He stated that approximately five nm after passing the Canadian/Alaskan border at 35,000 ft something appeared five to seven nm in front of the aircraft. It had lights, four to five in a line (refer to captain's drawing) and said it was bigger than they were (B-747). At times the object woud be to the captain's side of the aircraft [left]. Never the other side [right]. He referred to the dark side. After passing Fairbanks area he requested to fly parallel to course and this was granted. When he turned to the right and flew parallel, the object was gone. (In all cases weather radar was also used to identify the object and the five-to-seven nm distance was taken from the radar dislay - 20 nm range.) They returned to course and the captain said "There it was, as if it was waiting for me." At approximately the Talkeetna area the object took off to the east and was gone. A United flight departed from Anchorage and was requested to check if they could see anything but it was gone before United got there. Nothing different with the cargo except some expensive wine. The captain and crew were shook-up but professional. James Derry interviewed the crew at JAL operations. Capt. Terauchi had asked AARTCC if they were picking up two targets and was told "just one." The total time was approximately 55 minutes. A new crew took the flight on to Tokyo. Capt. Terauchi and the crew were to be in Anchorage a few days before any additional flights. James Derry requested that the tapes and any other information be saved [10].The sparse amount of information contained in this initial report indicates that Wright did not carry out an extensive interview of the pilot and crew. It also indicates that he did not learn exactly what happened, probably because of one or more of the following reasons: (a) he may have failed to ask for a minute-by-minute history of the flight; (b) Terauchi may not have been able to recall the events accurately and in the correct order, and (c) it may have been difficult to communicate (Japanese-English translation). Special Agents James Derry and Ronald Mickle also participated in the interview. However, as will be seen, they did obtain more information. Both Derry and Mickle made notes. Agent Derry recorded the second interview as follows [14]: On November 17 I responded to a call from the ROC reference an incident involving unidentified air traffic (UAT) following JAL flight 1628 into Anchorage. I asked Agent Mickle to meet me at Anchorage Airport. Upon arriving at the ANC I met Agent Mickle and Inspector Wright who had been at the aircraft. All three of us then proceeded to JAL operations to interview the crew. At JAL operations we met with [the crew] and Mr. Shibashi, JAL operations manager at Anchorage. The three crewmen stated that just after passing POTAT intersection inbound to Anchorage on J529 (an air route) they observed strange lights ahead of the B747. These lights changed position after two minutes but remained in front of the aircraft for another 10 minutes, then moved to the left side of the aircraft. They stated that all they could see were the lights and at no time could they see the craft. However, they did show an object on their WX radar at 7 miles. The lights were yellow, amber and green, but no red. The lights were in two separate sets which changed position relative to one another. The crew said that they contacted AARTCC (and the AARTCC) confirmed that they also had it on radar.Special Agent Ronald Mickle recorded the interview as follows [14]: As per telephonic request from (Wright), the following are the events which took place on November 17, 1986 and were taken from my personal notes during the interview. I went to the Japan Airlines station office as instructed by the Manager (Derry). Myself (sic) and Jim Derry interviewed the crew of JAL Flight 1628, which reported the sighting of unidentified air traffic. The flight crew consisted of (Terauchi, Tamefuji and Tsukuba). Captain Terauchi stated he first sited (visually) the unidentified air traffic (UAT) in the vicinity of POTAT intersection and the ADIZ. The aircraft he was piloting (B747) was at flight level 390, airspeed 0.84 Mach. Captain Terauchi indicated that the UAT was in front of his aircraft at a distance of approximately seven to eight nautical miles for approximatey 12 minutes. Captain Terauchi stated that while he had a visual on the UAT he spotted yellow, amber and green lights and a rotating beacon but no red lights. The captain said there were two distinct sets of lights, but appeared to be joined together (as fixed to one object). Captain Terauchi ascertained through visual sighting and radar that the UAT was equal in size to a B747, possibly larger.A comparison of the above versions of the second interview shows that the full and accurate story that I have previously presented, as based on the transcripts of the AARTCC audio tape and the detailed testimony of the crew, did not come through in the initial interviews. Furthermore, the interviewers had somewhat divergent opinions on what the captain told them. Part of this problem may have been, literally, in the translation (Japanese to English), but part of the problem also is that different people react to and remember different elements of any story. It is interesting to note Derry's reference to NORAD being contacted and NORAD reporting that "they also had two targets on radar." Derry also indicated that Air Force Intelligence would get a report on the sighting. It is unfortunate that the interviewers did not think to tape-record
the conversations for later analysis but instead simply relied upon their
recollections and brief notes. Nevertheless, the The air traffic controller who was responsible for guiding the JAL
flight recorded his During the period of 2030 UTC (universal time coordinated), November 17, 1986, to 0430 UTC, November 18, 1986 I was on duty in the Anchorage ARTCC. I was working the D15 position from 0156 UTC to 0230 UTC, November 18, 1986. (This corresponds to 4:56 to 5:30 PM Alaska Standard Time, November 17, 1986.) At approximately 0225Z (5:25 PM) while monitoring JL1628 on Sector 15 radar the aircraft requested traffic information. I advised no traffic in his vicinity. The aircraft advised he had traffic 12 o'clock, same altitude. I asked JL1628 if he would like high/lower altitude and the pilot replied negative. I checked with ROCC to see if they had military traffic in the area and to see if they had primary targets in the area. ROCC did have a primary target in the same position JL1628 reported. Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic. JL later requested a turn to heading 210. I approved JL1628 to make deviations as necessary for traffic. The traffic stayed with JL1628 through turns and descent.Although the Anchorage FAA alerted the FAA Security Office in Washington, D.C., no further action regarding the reported traffic was taken. This is unfortunate since careful debriefing at the time of the event possibly could have uncovered details which had been forgotten by the time the crew was interviewed again in January 1987. The FAA "Sleeps" While The Presses RollIt is quite likely that the JAL sighting would never have been known to the general public, nor would it have been investigated, if it hadn't been for the interest by the American newsmedia in an odd story out of Japan. On December 29, 1986, the Kyoda Press in Japan published a news story about a Japan Airlines crew that had seen a UFO while flying over Alaska and that the UFO had been picked up by military radar. The Kyoda press got the story as a result of the air crew talking to their friends, etc., and someone alerted the press. On December 24 the Kyoda Press contacted the Public Information Officer at Anchorage, Paul Steucke. According to Steucke, as told to Walter Andrus of MUFON, "The first thing I got was a phone call from Kyoda News Service out of Japan. That was the day before Christmas, December 24. They sent a correspondent over and the correspondent said to me - you know that we've got some information on 'such and such'. Is it true? I said, well, yeah, and here's what we've got. On the 29th after the Christmas holidays that story must have been printed somewhere in Japan because United Press International picked it up. Then the United press reporter over here asked me the same question and I told him the same thing."UPI reporter Jeff Berliner broke the story in the United States on December 29. Numerous newspapers reprinted the story and the FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. learned about it from the press reports, especially the January 1 report in the staid (never report a UFO story, and, if you must, be sure it is unfavorable!) Washington Post. When the FAA headquarters called Anchorage for the full story, it learned that the radar data tape had been saved (which was unusual since the tapes were generally reused after 30 days). The FAA Wakes Up And InvestigatesThis information about the sighting must have come as a compete surprise to the FAA headquarters. On January 1 the FAA reopened its inquiry into the sighting. Capt. Terauchi was interviewed on January 2 [1], at which time he supplied his written testimony [2]. On January 4 the national press reported that the FAA had reopened the inquiry and numerous news stories followed.The FAA released portions of the information through Mr. Steucke as the information became available. Unfortunately the FAA did not have a complete and accurate story to report and consequently the early news stories contained errors. The most amusing of these was in the reported time of the sightings. For some reason someone had handwritten a a note on the master copy of the first FAA release, which was a summary of the AARTCC tape recording. The note indicated that the events had begun at 6:19 PM, even though the summary itself clearly said 0219 UTC which translated to 5:19 PM Alaska Standard Time. This time error was perpetuated in news reports even though the captain recalled the correct time and stated it during an interview with Larry King on January 2. While the press was having fun with the story the FAA continued its inquiry. The copilot was interviewed on January 5 [9] and the flight engineer on January 15 [10]. A complete transcript of the AARTCC tape recording, although with some errors, was completed on January 9 and the radar data tape recording was sent to a special FAA facility for analysis. The FAA announced that it would release the material it had collected after it complete the inquiry. CSICOP Leaps Into The BreachThe initial press stories in January treated this sighting as real news. No one contradicted the captain when he made his "outlandish" claims, the most outlandish being that he was followed by a UFO larger than his 747 jumbo jet. The press was yearning for an explanation, but there was none to be had as long as the FAA was still investigating. It was at this point that CSICOP decided it was necessary to fill the vacuum. On the 22nd of January CSICOP published a press release entitled "UFO Mystery Solved" [14]. The cover letter of the press release announced the "findings of the (CSICOP) investigation into the Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 UFO incident of November 18, 1986." The release itself stated that "according to a leading UFO investigator" (Philip J. Klass) "at least one extraterrestrial object was involved - the planet Jupiter, and possibly another - Mars." The press release asserted that at the time of the sighting (incorrectly given as one hour earlier than it actually occurred) Jupiter was "extremely bright" at a -2.6 magnitude and would have been about 10 degrees above the horizon on the left side of the aircraft where the pilot first reported seeing the UFO. Mars would have been slightly lower and about 20 degrees to the right of Jupiter. The press release stated that "Although the very bright Jupiter and less bright Mars had to be visible to JAL Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi, the pilot never once reported seeing either - only a UFO that he described as being a "white and yellow" light in his initial radio report to the Federal Aviation Administration controllers at Anchorage" [14]. The press release could have mentioned, but did not, that Terauchi did report seeing numerous stars in the sky, city lights and a glow of sunset in the west.The CSICOP explanation was based mostly on Phil Klass' analysis of an early version of the transcript of the audio tape. The radar tracking data were not made available at that time and so he could not have known the precise locations and flight directions of the plane at the times of the various sightings. Apparently he completely ignored the pictorial information (drawings by the captain) which had been widely publicized. Mr. Klass made a major error in not waiting for the release of the complete information package by the FAA because, if he had waited, he would have found that the publicized versions of the sighting were actually quite accurate in their descriptions of the lights. These descriptions, of course, rule out Jupiter and Mars as possible causes of the sighting. Without the FAA data package he did not know that initial drawings were made only about 2 hours after the event. Nor did he know that the other crew members, in separate interviews, supported the captain's report of the groups of lights that appeared in front of the plane. Nor did he know about the sudden rearrangement of the relative positions of the groups of lights from one above the other to one beside the other, a maneuver that Jupiter and Mars would have difficulty carrying out during the time of the sighting. Nor did he know that at the end of the sighting, while the plane was flying southward, roughly toward Jupiter and Mars, the pilot reported the "gigantic spacecraft" was behind and to the left, in a direction nearly opposite to the planets. The CSICOP press release discussed and rejected the FAA and Air Force radar detections. Curiously, however, it completely ignored the claim by the pilot that the airplane radar did detect a radar-reflective object at 7 to 8 miles in the direction of the UFO. Perhaps Mr. Klass rejected this claim, but if he had waited for the data package from the FAA he would have learned that the other two members of the crew confirmed the pilot's statement about the radar detection. In summary, the Jupiter-Mars explanation is contradicted by the
sighting directions to the UFO at various times, by the descriptions of
the crew members and by the airplane radar detection. However, the "gullible"
press did not know that at the time. The explanation was widely publicized.
The explanation made the captain look like an idiot, but that's OK. Only
idiots In retrospect it appears that the CSICOP press release which was marked "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" should have been marked "FOR PREMATURE RELEASE." The Press Sleeps While The FAA AnalyzesJanuary went by and then February with still no word from the FAA. But then, on March 5, the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA "was unable to confirm the event" [15]. The event was unconfirmed because "a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747." In other words, the FAA couldn't confirm the sighting on radar because the "traffic" or "primary return" reported by the AARTCC controller at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set. Or so said the FAA! (Recall that the transponder return or "blip" is separate from the primary return blip. These two should be immediately adjacent or one-on-top of the other under ordinary conditions. What the FAA was saying was that because of a minor and temporary malfunction of the radar the primary return was separated in position on the radar screen from the transponder return, thus making look as if there were two separate radar-reflective objects in the sky.) The press release did not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying. The press release did NOT offer an explanation for the visual sighting, nor did it dispute the crew's claim that something unusual was seen. The press release just did not address the issue of the visual sighting.The March FAA release made a smaller splash in the press than had the original January stories about the FAA involvement. This may have been because the press misinterpreted the FAA statement combined with the "fact" that the sighting had already been "explained" by CSICOP. The general newsmedia concentrated on the FAA statement that it could not confirm the radar sighting and ignored the failure of the FAA to even mention the visual sighting. For example, NBC News incorrectly reported that "Terauchi's crewmates were not sure that they had seen a UFO" and that the FAA "concluded a three-month investigation saying there is nothing to substantiate the pilot's story." From this sort of press reporting one would get the impression that the whole sighting revolved around the Captain's story, which was not supported by the crew members. The NBS story failed to mention, probably because the NBC reporter didn't know, what you, dear reader, know: that the copilot and flight engineer had independently confirmed the pilot's report of seeing numerous lights appear in front and to the left of the aircraft and that the airplane radar had picked up a large target in the same direction as the UFO. After March 5 the press interest in this story essentially died, leaving the general public with the impression that once again an experienced air crew had failed to identify normal phenomena. (Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was subsequently "grounded" for a couple of years, evidently for his boldness in reporting what he and the others had seen.) PostscriptsThere are two postscripts to this story. One is that the Philadelphia Inquirer evidently took this sighting seriously because several months later in the Sunday Magazine they published a very detailed report on the sighting. The author did not support the conclusion that the lights could be explained.The second postscript is that CSICOP was not finished with the case. Evidently even Phil Klass could see that his Jupiter-Mars explanation had failed. In the Summer, 1987 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer he published a new analysis [16]. This time the lights were explained as reflections of moonlight from the clouds and "turbulent ice crystals." (Recall that the air crew reported thin clouds below them.) According to Klass the turbulent ice crystals "could have generated flame-colored lights" and "this would also explain why the undulating lights would periodically and suddenly disappear and then reapper as cloud conditions ahead changed. When the aircrft finally outflew the ice clouds and the initial "UFO" disappeared for good (the Captain) would search the sky for it, spot Jupiter further to the left and conclude it was the initial UFO." Klass attributed the airplane radar sighting to "an echo from thin clouds of ice crystals." KLASS's clever explanation would not explain the heat which Terauchi felt on his face. Nor would it explain the distinct arrays of flames or lights associated with two independently flying objects that appeared ahead of the plane and above for many minutes (the clouds were reported to be below the plane). Nor would it explain the sudden rearranging of these arrays of lights. He says this could explain the colors, but this woud occur only if the moonlight were "broken" into its spectrum by refraction. But the spectrum of white light contains more than just the yellow, amber and green which were reported. Blue and red should also have been noted if the air crew was looking at what would essentially be a "rainbow." The lights ahead of the aircraft were described as bright. The copilot compared them to headlights of oncoming aircraft. A reflection of the moon from thin clouds would cover broad areas of cloud and would be dim, rather than bright and point-like. Klass explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin. Would there be any return at all from such clouds? One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous "blobby" returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the "mothership" appeared to be. And, of course, Klass' explanation does not account for the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship." SIC TRANSIT GLORIA CSICOP.
Footnotes/References:  Interview of Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi, January 2, 1987. During the interview Capt. Terauchi reported two previous UFO
sightings. About five years before the present sighting he saw a "mothership"
shortly after taking off from Taipai, south of Formosa, but it was "so weird I ignored it." Then he saw, from his home during the daytime, bright lights that continued for about ten minutes. Although this was not Terauchi's first UFO, it was the first sighing of unidentified phenomena by the other two crew members. In January 1987 Capt. Terauchi had another sighting of a strange pheno- menon which he reported. He subsequently offered a satisfactory explanation for it. (From the FAA file on the JAL sighting)
Interview of Captain Kenjyu Terauchi by Dr.
Richard Haines (private communication).
FS98/FS2000 files
VIDEOS
 
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Join our mailing list!
