Within Security Markings
Why the Cutler Twining Security Marking Looks Wrong
The 1954 Cutler-Twining memorandum uses security wording that archivists say did not match National Security Council practice of the period.
On this page
- What marking appears on the memorandum
- What NSC and Eisenhower Library archivists reported
- Why the mismatch matters for authenticity
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The Cutler–Twining memorandum, dated 14 July 1954 and referring to an “NSC/MJ-12 Special Studies Project”, has an unusually concrete authenticity problem: its security marking appears not to fit the National Security Council (NSC) practice of the period. The National Archives records the disputed wording as “Top Secret Restricted Information” and says the NSC’s Freedom of Information Office reported that this marking did not enter NSC use until the Nixon administration. The Eisenhower Presidential Library separately confirmed that the particular marking was not used during Eisenhower’s presidency.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
That objection is stronger than simply saying the document “looks unusual”. Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10501, already in force by July 1954, had reduced ordinary defence classifications to Top Secret, Secret and Confidential. Contemporary implementation instructions also explicitly discontinued “Restricted” as a classification and “Security Information” as a notation.[ucsb.edu]presidency.ucsb.eduThe American Presidency ProjectExecutive Order 10501—Safeguarding Official Information in the Interests of the Defense of the United Stat…
There is, however, a genuine wrinkle. Later General Accounting Office research reportedly encountered period documents described as “Top Secret Restricted”, giving MJ-12 defender Stanton Friedman grounds to challenge overly broad claims that such words never appeared together anywhere in government. That does not resolve the narrower and more important question: whether the full marking on the Cutler–Twining memorandum was appropriate for an NSC document supposedly created in July 1954.
What marking appears on the memorandum
Published reproductions of the Cutler–Twining memorandum show its heading as separate lines containing “TOP SECRET”, “RESTRICTED” and “SECURITY INFORMATION”. The National Archives’ own MJ-12 reference report compresses the relevant wording into “Top Secret Restricted Information”. The distinction is worth preserving because arguments about the document sometimes turn on whether “Restricted” is being treated as a second classification, a handling restriction or merely part of an old-style stamp.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
The date is crucial. Executive Order 10501 was issued by President Dwight Eisenhower on 5 November 1953 and took effect on 15 December. Section 1 restricted ordinary national-defence classification to three categories: Top Secret, Secret and Confidential. It further provided that no other designation was to be used to classify defence information, except where expressly authorised by statute.[The American Presidency Project]presidency.ucsb.eduThe American Presidency ProjectExecutive Order 10501—Safeguarding Official Information in the Interests of the Defense of the United Stat…
That change displaced an earlier system in which “Restricted” had been a legitimate classification. Contemporary government records show the transition happening explicitly. A December 1953 Army document stated that Executive Order 10501 eliminated “RESTRICTED Security Information” from 15 December 1953 and provided procedures for reviewing older material still bearing the superseded marking.[nsa.gov]nsa.govREF ID:A58004April 13, 2026… A later Department of Defense security review likewise described “Restricted-Security Information” as a category used before Executive Order 10501 and eliminated by that order.[nsa.gov]nsa.govREPORT OF REVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY SECURITY PROCEDURES AND STATUSMarch 26, 2018…
The disappearance of “Security Information” is equally important. A CIA notice implementing the new order told employees that those words, which had previously followed classifications, would no longer be used. It went so far as to direct offices to remove “Security Information” from existing rubber stamps and obliterate the words on pre-printed forms as supplies were used up.[CIA]cia.govSAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)… Another contemporary intelligence record summarised the new position succinctly: there would be no further use of either “Restricted” or “Security Information”, and classified information would instead fall into the three categories Top Secret, Secret and Confidential.[CIA]cia.govNIS COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 158 | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.govNIS COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 158 | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov
Those instructions make timing the central issue. Genuine documents from before the December 1953 change can readily display combinations such as “Top Secret” and “Security Information”. For example, an official State Department historical edition identifies a June 1953 intelligence document as “Top Secret. Security Information”.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the Historian Historical Documents An NSC memorandum of 25 September 1953 likewise visibly carries “TOP SECRET” and “SECURITY INFORMATION”.[Wikimedia Commons]upload.wikimedia.orgOpen source on wikimedia.org. Such examples demonstrate that the terminology itself is historically real; they do not explain its appearance on a document supposedly created seven months after the terminology was discontinued.
What the archivists reported
The strongest criticism comes from the institution holding the document rather than from later UFO writers. The National Archives’ MJ-12 reference report says its staff asked the National Security Council about the disputed marking. According to the Archives, the NSC Freedom of Information Office advised that “Top Secret Restricted Information” did not come into use at the NSC until the Nixon administration. The Eisenhower Presidential Library also confirmed that the particular marking was not used during the Eisenhower administration.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
This is a narrower and more useful finding than the sweeping proposition that no US government office ever put “Top Secret” beside some form of “Restricted” during the 1950s. The archival claim concerns NSC practice and this particular marking. That matters because the memorandum presents itself as presidential national-security correspondence: it is ostensibly from Robert Cutler, Eisenhower’s Special Assistant to the President, concerns an “NSC/MJ-12” project and purports to alter arrangements for a White House briefing.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
The classification anomaly also does not stand alone in the Archives’ examination of the document. The Cutler–Twining sheet was found in Record Group 341, entry 267, a series filed by Top Secret register number, yet the memorandum itself bears no such number. No other “NSC/MJ-12” material was found in its folder. Searches of related records at the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force and NSC produced no corroborating documentation.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
That filing anomaly is especially relevant to the marking question. A security heading is not simply decorative typography: classified paperwork normally existed within systems of registration, accountability, distribution and later declassification. Here, the wording at the top of the page and the absence of the register number expected in the surrounding record series both create friction with the administrative environment in which the memorandum supposedly operated.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
The National Archives nevertheless makes an important distinction about what its custody proves. It states that certification under the Archives’ seal means a reproduction is a true copy of a document in its custody; it does not authenticate the document or the information it contains. Finding the Cutler–Twining sheet in the National Archives therefore establishes provenance to an archival box, not that Robert Cutler or the NSC genuinely created it in 1954.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
The “Top Secret Restricted” counterargument
The security-marking objection is not entirely uncontested. Stanton Friedman, one of the principal defenders of the early MJ-12 documents, argued that government records existed with “Top Secret Restricted” markings from the relevant period. He cited notes produced during the General Accounting Office’s 1990s Roswell investigation. A surviving reproduction of those notes says that, during a 7 December 1994 examination of Air Force atomic-energy and weapons-requirements records covering 1948–56, GAO investigators noticed “Top Secret Restricted” on several documents and specifically remarked that they had previously been told such a classification was not used during that period.[GBPPR]gbppr.netOpen source on gbppr.net.
Friedman consequently argued that the National Archives objection had been disproved. He maintained that the GAO personnel had seen the period examples themselves and that the underlying documents remained classified, preventing him from supplying copies.[GBPPR]gbppr.netOpen source on gbppr.net. This is a relevant counterargument because it cautions against treating bureaucratic marking systems as perfectly uniform or claiming that the words “Top Secret Restricted” could never occur together in a 1950s federal record.
But it does not neatly authenticate the Cutler–Twining marking. The GAO records in question concerned Air Force atomic-energy and weapons requirements, not demonstrated NSC memoranda. That distinction matters because nuclear information had its own statutory terminology. “Restricted Data” was a specialised category governing atomic information and could legitimately be combined with a normal classification — official historical records, for example, describe documents as “Top Secret, Restricted Data”.[Office of the Historian]history.state.govOffice of the Historian Historical DocumentsOffice of the Historian Historical Documents The available GAO note says “Top Secret Restricted”, but without the underlying classified documents it is difficult to establish exactly what markings those records bore or what “Restricted” meant in each case.
More importantly, even proof of genuine 1954 Air Force documents bearing “Top Secret Restricted” would answer only the broadest objection. It would not by itself overturn the National Archives’ specific report that the NSC did not use the Cutler–Twining marking during the Eisenhower administration. Nor would it explain the residual “Security Information” wording, which contemporary implementation documents say was discontinued when Executive Order 10501 took effect.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
The counterargument therefore narrows the conclusion rather than eliminating the anomaly. It is unsafe to reason, “the word Restricted appears, therefore the memorandum must be fake”. The better test is institutional and chronological: does this exact combination, on this kind of NSC-originated memorandum, fit documented NSC practice in July 1954? On the presently available evidence, the archival answer remains unfavourable.
Why the mismatch matters for authenticity
Security markings are useful authentication evidence because they are mundane. A fabricated secret document can imitate names, dates and dramatic language from public history, but administrative conventions change over time and differ among agencies. A convincing period document must reproduce not only what officials might have said but also how their office classified, registered and handled what they wrote.
The Cutler–Twining memorandum falls awkwardly across a well-documented transition. “Restricted” and “Security Information” are not invented phrases; both belonged to earlier US security practice. The problem is that Executive Order 10501 had already replaced that system before the memorandum’s supposed creation. Contemporary implementation records show agencies actively removing the obsolete wording from stamps and forms.[archives.gov]archives.govNational Archives TRANSFORMINGNational Archives TRANSFORMING That makes an old-style-looking marking in July 1954 more significant than a mere variation in punctuation or formatting.
At the same time, the marking should not be treated as a mathematical proof of forgery. Old forms and stamps could survive administrative changes; federal security practice was not necessarily uniform; specialised statutory markings such as Restricted Data existed outside the ordinary three-level scheme; and the later GAO observation shows that “Top Secret Restricted” appeared somewhere in period Air Force holdings. Those qualifications are sufficient to reject the simplistic claim that the individual words were impossible in 1954.[GBPPR]gbppr.netOpen source on gbppr.net.
They do not, however, supply the evidence needed to make the Cutler–Twining usage normal. The strongest authentication evidence would be a securely proven Eisenhower-era NSC document, created after 15 December 1953, carrying the same “Top Secret Restricted Information” or equivalent marking under comparable circumstances. The National Archives reports the opposite institutional finding: the NSC told its archivists that this marking belonged to a later period, while the Eisenhower Library said it was not used during Eisenhower’s administration.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
That leaves the disputed marking as a substantial authenticity warning rather than a stand-alone verdict. Its importance comes from the convergence of three specific points: the formal classification rules had changed before July 1954; contemporary agencies were explicitly retiring “Restricted” and “Security Information”; and archivists checking the very institution from which the memorandum purportedly came reported that the marking did not match Eisenhower-era NSC practice.[ucsb.edu]presidency.ucsb.eduThe American Presidency ProjectExecutive Order 10501—Safeguarding Official Information in the Interests of the Defense of the United Stat…
For the Cutler–Twining memorandum, that is the key evidential distinction. The question is not whether authentic US documents can be found somewhere with superficially similar words. They can. The question is whether the complete security treatment makes sense on this document, from this office, on 14 July 1954. The available official evidence gives good reason to doubt that it does.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why the Cutler Twining Security Marking Looks Wrong. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States...
Top Secret/Majic is the result of nuclear physicist and renowned UFO investigator Stanton T. Friedman's twenty-one year search for the tr...
UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry
Governments around the world have had to deal with the UFO phenomenon for a good part of a century. How and why they did so is the subjec...
Secrecy: The American Experience
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senior U.S. Senator from N.Y., here presents an eloquent & fascinating account of the developme...
The UFO Files: The Inside Story of Real-life Sightings
'What does all this stuff about flying saucers amount to? What can it mean? What is the truth?' Winston Churchill, prime minister's perso...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos
Source snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024...
Published: June 25, 2024
2.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives TRANSFORMING
Link:https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/recommendations/transforming-classification.pdf
3.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-04718a000800290035-6
Source snippet
SAFEGUARDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)...
4.
Source: nsa.gov
Link:https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/friedman-documents/panel-committee-board/FOLDER_380/41764399080352.pdf
Source snippet
REF ID:A58004April 13, 2026...
Published: April 13, 2026
5.
Source: nsa.gov
Link:https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/friedman-documents/reports-research/FOLDER_051/41708959074831.pdf
Source snippet
REPORT OF REVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY SECURITY PROCEDURES AND STATUSMarch 26, 2018...
Published: March 26, 2018
6.
Source: cia.gov
Title: NIS COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 158 | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-05597a000400030043-3
7.
Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian Historical Documents
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/ch1?start=121
8.
Source: upload.wikimedia.org
Link:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Report_to_the_National_Security_Council_by_the_Continental_Defense_Committee_on_Continental_Defense%2C_Part_5of_7-DPLA-_68f81c3b20144966beb27f4fdf98665a.pdf
9.
Source: gbppr.net
Link:https://www.gbppr.net/ufoupdates/pdf/1999-12.pdf
10.
Source: gbppr.net
Link:https://www.gbppr.net/ufoupdates/pdf/2002-12.pdf
11.
Source: history.state.gov
Title: Office of the Historian Historical Documents
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v19/d87
12.
Source: uscodeweb1.house.gov
Link:https://uscodeweb1.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title50-section3161
13.
Source: fam.state.gov
Link:https://fam.state.gov/FAM/11FAM/11FAM0520.html
14.
Source: fam.state.gov
Link:https://fam.state.gov/fam/12fam/12fam0270.html
15.
Source: fam.state.gov
Link:https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fam/05fam0480.html
16.
Source: declassification.blogs.archives.gov
Title: the weapons systems evaluation group
Link:https://declassification.blogs.archives.gov/2018/03/07/the-weapons-systems-evaluation-group/
17.
Source: legislation.gov.au
Title: document 1
Link:https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04868/2017-12-13/2017-12-13/text/1/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html
18.
Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/assets/a250725.html
19.
Source: cia.gov
Title: NATIONA L SECURITY INFORMATION | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp87b01034r000200050009-9
20.
Source: gao.gov
Link:https://www.gao.gov/products/154832
21.
Source: cia.gov
Title: LETTE R TO WILLIAM J. CASEY FROM EDWARD P. BOLAND | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84b00148r000200570006-7
22.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v19/ch1
23.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v19/d87
24.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/ch1?start=211
25.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v19/ch1
26.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/ch3
27.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/ch1?start=151
28.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/ch2?start=61
29.
Source: georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov
Link:https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/text/history.html
30.
Source: uscodeweb1.house.gov
Link:https://uscodeweb1.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title5&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGU1LXNlY3Rpb245ODA3%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim
31.
Source: uscodeweb1.house.gov
Link:https://uscodeweb1.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title50-chapter44&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGU1MC1zZWN0aW9uMzA5Mg%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim
32.
Source: uscode.house.gov
Link:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=1999&req=granuleid%3AUSC-1999-title10-subtitleA-part1&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy0xOTk5LXRpdGxlMTAtc2VjdGlvbjMxMQ%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7C1999
33.
Source: uscodeweb1.house.gov
Link:https://uscodeweb1.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title20
34.
Source: uscode.house.gov
Link:https://uscode.house.gov/download/annualhistoricalarchives/XHTML/2018/2018usc50.htm
35.
Source: nsa.gov
Title: Panel Committee Board
Link:https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-Transparency-Initiatives/Historical-Releases/Friedman-Documents/Panel-Committee-Board/
36.
Source: nsa.gov
Link:https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-Transparency-Initiatives/Historical-Releases/Friedman-Documents/Correspondence/
37.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve02/d66
38.
Source: cia.gov
Title: cia rdp82m00097r000300070008 4
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82m00097r000300070008-4
39.
Source: cia.gov
Title: cia rdp82m00097r000300070010 1
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82m00097r000300070010-1
40.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-03921a000300220001-0
41.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v08/d625fn2
42.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p2/d125
43.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p2/d125fn5
44.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78-04718a000800290034-7
45.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p2/d88fn7
46.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p1/d53
47.
Source: history.state.gov
Link:https://history.state.gov//historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/d127fn7
48.
Source: presidency.ucsb.edu
Link:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10501-safeguarding-official-information-the-interests-the-defense-the
Source snippet
The American Presidency ProjectExecutive Order 10501—Safeguarding Official Information in the Interests of the Defense of the United Stat...
49.
Source: ufospotlight.org
Link:https://ufospotlight.org/category/spying/page/2/
50.
Source: phatsoheff.tripod.com
Link:https://phatsoheff.tripod.com/ufo.html
51.
Source: ro.scribd.com
Link:https://ro.scribd.com/document/472644084/196986
52.
Source: presidency.ucsb.edu
Link:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10964-amendment-executive-order-10501-safeguarding-official-information
53.
Source: presidency.ucsb.edu
Link:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10901-amendment-executive-order-10501-relating-safeguarding-official
54.
Source: majestic.fandom.com
Title: Special Studies Project
Link:https://majestic.fandom.com/wiki/Special_Studies_Project
55.
Source: en.wikisource.org
Title: Executive Order 10501
Link:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10501
56.
Source: en.wikisource.org
Title: MJ 12 Document
Link:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/MJ-12_Document
57.
Source: presidency.ucsb.edu
Link:https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-the-executive-order-prescribing-regulations-for-classifying-and-protecting
Additional References
58.
Source: youtube.com
Title: ADP: Kevin Randle Debates Stephen Bassett on MJ-12
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_Jkgz-Vvg
Source snippet
Majestic 12 Stanton Friedman [Cutler Twining memo]({{ 'cutler-memo/' | relative_url }}) Karl Pflock discusses The Cutler - Twining Memo...
59.
Source: trumanlibrary.gov
Link:https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/233/statement-president-upon-signing-executive-order-prescribing-regulations
60.
Source: congress.gov
Link:https://www.congress.gov/event/106th-congress/house-event/LC18962/text
61.
Source: intelligence.senate.gov
Link:https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2002/09/26/hearings-joint-inquiry-intelligence-community-activities-and-after-terrorist-attacks-september-11-0/
62.
Source: intelligence.senate.gov
Link:https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2008/05/08/publications-report-accompany-s-2996-intelligence-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2009-may-8-2008/
63.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Dr Kevin D Randle
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPohcz-7kD0
Source snippet
ADP: Kevin Randle Debates Stephen Bassett on MJ-12...
64.
Source: doczz.net
Link:https://doczz.net/doc/7514476/-material-received-too-late-to-be-included-in-the-origina
65.
Source: juris-codex.com
Link:https://juris-codex.com/supreme-court/1980/additional-commissioner-of-income-tax-gujarat-ahmedabad-v-surat-art-silk-cloth-manufacturers-associa.html
66.
Source: studylibpl.com
Link:https://studylibpl.com/doc/1493801/area-51-the-revealing-truth-of-ufos–secret-aircraft–cov
67.
Source: bcajonline.org
Link:https://bcajonline.org/journal_month/december/