The Kinross Incident

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
hey gaz, to tag along behind your "aside"...have you read "left at east gate" by larry warren regarding rendelsham?




posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I'm familiar with Warren's account, but I don't think I've read that particular book. I've read excerpts from it though. I may make a library trip before the Rendlesham post, but I've already found and written up plenty... It's pretty cool, mind-blowing stuff....



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
i really appreciate all the work you've done with roswell and rendelsham....the book can be difficult to find, so....if you want to read it, i COULD send it to you.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm looking forward to Rendlesham as well.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Ummm...El Cid...can we...ummm...get back on topic if that would be alright with you?...Hmmmm...

I'm on it like a mad dog & can't let go of this interesting topic...

After doing a little more probing on the 'net, I found some interesting info.

It seems that the F-89A/B/C series of aircraft also had some engine problems as well as the previously mentioned wing oscilation & attachment problems. The engines were changed & upgraded several times during the short production run. It wan't until production blocks -35 & -40 series of the aircraft that the improved Allison J35-A-33A engine was used not only because of increased power, but it also had a redesigned inlet, deicing equipment, inlet guide vanes, and redesigned forward engine mounts.
Obviously, inlet icing was also a concern for this aircraft for this improvement to be implemented- which the ill fated 'Kinross mission' F-89C (tail # 51-5853-A in the reports) may have run into with the winter weather over Lake Superior at the time of the incident. Another possible problem?
This particular aircraft # falls into the -40 production block, in fact it is the 3rd from the last F-89C made- the last production F-89C of production block -40 was # 51-5856. So it obviously had the latest improvements of the C model produced.
Don't forget that if icing conditions were present, it would also be possible for the winlet addition to the wingtip external tanks that was installed to help counter the oscillation problem of the wings to also be suspectable to an icing condition that might render the added winglet inneffective against what it was designed for- so icing could lead back to a wing oscillation & flexing problem again.
It should also be noted that it took about 14 months for Northrop to fully retrofit the F-89C's with the strengthend wings, improved high-strength steel root-edge wing mountings, and the external wing-tip fuel tanks with winglets designed to help control oscillations. It wasn't until late '53 that all of the F-89C's were retrofitted if you do the math from Oct '52. Usually when aircraft are sent for such 'emergancy' modifications, they are sent back in order of serial#...which also means that this particular aircraft was also likely one of the last to recieve the mod. being a late tail #(even if the logbook write-ups omit this)- if it actually recieved it at all before it 'disappeared'.

Also some interesting info from www.virtuallystrange.net... that suggests that some pieces of wreckage of an F-89C may have been in fact found. It's an interesting insight on this webpage. Check it out!

A few other sources of interest:
home.att.net... A very informative site that also includes the serial numbers and manufacturing blocks of the F-89C.
www.avpilot.com... Also a nice info site about the F-89C

...So that seems to leave us with why the Air Force covered up some of the facts of this planes 'disappearance'. Whatever did happen, why does that seem to steer towards a UFO encounter just because the Air Force 'droped the ball' over facts & the failure of the search??

Since two F-89C's were actually scrambled together to intercept, but one aircrew decided to return to base and leave the other plane to its ill fate- maybe the outcome would have been much different if there were two planes that made the intercept instead. At least then there would have been a greater chance for a surviving witness...or at the very least, better informantion of the occurance.
But unfortunetly, fighter pilots being who they are (much less military officers in general) I'm sure some personal pride was on the line from the young Lt. pilot that might have had something to prove- both personally & professionally, and also proving the worth of the aircraft to its mission as designed as an all-weather interceptor. Maybe that is one reason that he continued on the intercept when the other aircraft turned back.

Whew...just had to get that out to 'stir the pot' some more...

So there!

T.S.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Excellent research SkiFreak!



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
First- Thanks PB&JTime!

Now...I'll admit that I overlooked something kind of important.

The F-89C aircraft Serial No. 51-5853-A would indicate (the addition of the -A) that there was a significant modification to the airframe at some point. 'A' being the first modification series, 'B' being the second modification...etc.
So it would appear that the 'missing' F-89C aircraft did in fact recieve the wing strengthening & winglet addion modification. This aircraft would have been fairly fresh from its modification done at Northrop and would have likely recently been returned to duty since the very last airframes to be completed occured at about Nov '53 and this was the 3rd from the last airframe produced...and the aircraft 'went missing' in Nov. 23 '53...so...

But that still doesn't resolve the question if the pilot may have still overflown its imposed safe flight limits found from research in regard to its inherant design flaws that made the modification mandentory to safely fly it.. What about the question of possible icing on the wings that may have contributed to rendering the added winglets incapable of stabilizing the oscillations?...Or the possible icing of the engine inlet since there was a concern about this as well that was attempted to correct with the change in the -35 & -40 manufacturing blocks with the newer improved engine package?

Ok, that's all for now...
T.S.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Are you sure that field change A was the wing mod? The Navy equipment I work on gets modded all the time. The A cmod could have been something as simple as a stronger latch on the cockpit canopy or a larger set of tires.



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   


Also some interesting info from www.virtuallystrange.net... that suggests that some pieces of wreckage of an F-89C may have been in fact found. It's an interesting insight on this webpage. Check it out!


Yep, read that, but it seems such debris would be easy to match (via serial numbers on parts, recorded on inspection reports, maintenance reports, etc.) to the craft in question, and if such a match was made, the Air Force would LOVE to put an end to this case once and for all....

So why no match? Why no wreckage? And what exactly was the UFO that caused the flight in the first place? Where's the bodies? Etc.

It's because these questions remain unanswered, that this remains an intriguing case....



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
More info:

Since learning the identity of the radar operator, I've had the chance to pose some questions to him, which he has answered. Now, as he has chosen to be called only John C., I will respect that wish, and add only that I have great trust in the source of this confirmation. However, to you, the reader, I can only offer it as additional info to those wishing more information on this case.



I got a chance to ask him some of the questions you had for my dad. He does not remember what type of radar they were using at Battle Creek. He said he never heard anything about a Canadian plane, and was present during the entire incident. Everyone present in the control room were told not to speak of the incident as well.

He also added a new piece of information, I guess talking about it stirred his memory a bit. He said that they were first alerted to the target by a station to the north of his position, one of the SAGE radars in northern Michigan I am assuming. He said they turned the radar on to long range and tracked the target which was moving at a considerably faster speed than aircraft of that time.

The target moved to a position and stayed there for 10 minutes in a stationary position, at which point it was intercepted by the fighter. He said that when fighters were scrambled, the planes were in the air in about 2 minutes and he used this to guestimate the approximation of 10 minutes.

I did not ask him if we could use his name on the message board, and to be honest I am uncomfortable with the idea. The reason is when [censored by request] I was almost immedietly contacted by one Gordon Heath. He attacked the veracity of my story and also the anonymous nature of my "source."

When he did a little digging and found out that there really were two fighters dispatched initially and that the source was my old man he changed his attitude. Apparently until [censored by request] everyone assumed that only a single plane had been dispatched to intercept.

I am worried that people may harass him if we use his name. I suppose that I am being over protective, so if you want you can identify him as John C. I believe he was a staff seargent. (not positive that was his rank at that time)

I would appreciate it if you do not mention [censored per request]. I do not advertise it any longer. If you think of anything else, just let me know. I can tell you this though, that incident convinced my father that ufo's are real, and are being intelligently operated. He has cited the Kinross incident as proof in his eyes my entire life.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
wow, they never found the guy??



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
To all who have done the research, great job!


I know it was late in the year, but I wonder if atmospheric conditions and a flock of birds could have been the cause of the accident. Birds, on a radar would appear stationary, or at least move real slow. Supposing the flight crew flew into the blip (flock of birds), looking for the contact, a massive bird strike could have disabled the aircraft and crew (no time for maday call). Loseing the engine power, or, even a wing to massive bird strikes, could have put the plane into a spin, allowing it to merge and disappear off of the radar. I know it's not really a conspiracy oriented solution, however, the truth could be simpler than imagined.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Interesting case. This is very similar to the Frederick Valentich case in Australia. No wreckage, event traced on radar, distress call cutting in and out,.....



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
To answer the Ranchman...

No, they never found either man (two person crew)...

To answer the following....


I know it was late in the year, but I wonder if atmospheric conditions and a flock of birds could have been the cause of the accident. Birds, on a radar would appear stationary, or at least move real slow. Supposing the flight crew flew into the blip (flock of birds), looking for the contact, a massive bird strike could have disabled the aircraft and crew (no time for maday call). Loseing the engine power, or, even a wing to massive bird strikes, could have put the plane into a spin, allowing it to merge and disappear off of the radar. I know it's not really a conspiracy oriented solution, however, the truth could be simpler than imagined.


There was also visual confirmation, and not of birds. Also, there is the issue of interference and static. If the plane crashed, wreckage should have been found in the rather extensive search effort (I listed all of the craft involved in it), or at least SOME signs that that indeed occurred. No such signs were found. I also have to reiterate that I have great trust in the source I recently quoted, i.e. the radar operator.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
It seems to me that in this case there are quite a few factors that possibly contributed to this aircrafts demise...

The weather pattern of the day...much less the unforgiving weather of Lake Superior in November.

The ongoing mechanical & design problems of the F-89C.

The abilities of the aircraft to actually operate effectively as an all-weather interceptor (as it was intended to do) under the adverse conditions of the day.

The operational readiness status of the radar stations- most of the 'Pine Tree' line of SAGE radar installations were not yet finished in construction & fully operational until after this incident. So there is come 'resonable doubt' concerning the acuracy of the radar used on that particular day.

The scramble of two intercepting aircraft...only to have one return to base & leave his wingman- leaving one plane & crew to intercept alone.

The weather & lake conditions during the subsequent recovery attempt.

Maybe there was an actual UFO there...maybe there wasn't. Difficult to really tell. This is the mystrious part to me...not the actual crash & disappearance of the plane. Something was there- but what was it??
I'm not all that convinced that 'whatever was there' contibuted to the aircrafts disappearance...the F-89C obviously had enough problems to do that on its own!

Maybe the UFO intentionally picked this particular spot to make itself known in order to demonstrate an obvious 'hole' in our developing defenses during the escalating cold-war at the time?? Notice how quickly the 'hole' got mended with different planes fielded, & the SAGE radar installations completed soon after this occurance...

T.S.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The fact remains...

1. The entire purpose of the flight, was to investigate a detected UFO. It wasn't a circumstance, it was the express purpose of the intercept.

2. Static was encountered as the plane neared the target, and there was a visual.

3. The plane vanished from radar, and no wreckage, or signs of it, were found, nor were the pilots.

Any way you slice it, it's a pretty important event....



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
(...)
Any way you slice it, it's a pretty important event....


Yeah, and that's precisely why it is not widely covered... People have been told to "shut it"...

[Edit]
BIG labsus...


[edit on 7-6-2005 by SpookyVince]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The fact that Lake Superior was covered in quite a bit of Ice at the time is also important. Had the plane descended and crashed into the lake, there would be the obvious punched hole in the ice. Or a major disturbance on it. Yet nothing. No oil slick, no flamming wreckage. The area where it disappeared over had alot of ice.

Another factor to consider.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Has any more modern aircraft been invesigating UFO's only to disapear?

I had some visions a F-14 flyby and I had some feelings that in a previous life I was investigating UFO's and that they took me onboard somehow.

I believe I was killed due to that experience.

I do know that F-14's have been gone missing without a good reason.

I know is this very much a "what if" scenario which I have no evidence for but a vision, a feeling and a feeling of fear for greys.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'm sorry to take this offtopic, but am i the only one who wonders why there is a town named "gaylord" (right bottom corner of map) in the first post )? Is this a real towns name or some kind of joke ?





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join