It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Kinross Incident (crew's bodies)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
L3X

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I've found www.ufobc.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink">This and this one about the Kinross Incident and is very intersting stuff but there is only one particular that apparently slip me out: The crew's bodies has been found?
I've read that the cockpit was still intact so, if they weren't where should be, an UFO connection is more plausible
so, i repeat the question: The bodies has been found?




[edit on 1-9-2006 by L3X]




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Guess we won't know till they are able to explore it with cameras, etc.

Even if they do though, the basic fact is that they were investigating a UFO tracked on radar, and sent specifically to intercept it, then perished.

Also, the Canadian airliner theory has been thoroughly discounted by the Canadians themselves.

Interesting update though.


L3X

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Guess we won't know till they are able to explore it with cameras, etc.

Even if they do though, the basic fact is that they were investigating a UFO tracked on radar, and sent specifically to intercept it, then perished.

Also, the Canadian airliner theory has been thoroughly discounted by the Canadians themselves.

Interesting update though.


in two words the plane can't be recovered from lake's bottom in such way to verify if there are the bodies ?

[edit on 1-9-2006 by L3X]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
No here is the REALLY super cool part, Radar data says the two images merged around 7,000 feet at an airspeed of roughly 500knotts.

So lets say mid air collision, 500 knotts, 7,000 feet over a lake, we know the plane lost one whole wing and ended up in the water......

At the bottom almost intact.....

500knotts, 7,000 feet up, missing one wing.... at the bottom of the lake intact.....

Doesnt that just send alarm bells off in your head.

Canopy closed and intact.....

no attempt to eject

no major fuselage damage... even after impacting the water after dropping from 7,000 feet.....


L3X

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
No here is the REALLY super cool part, Radar data says the two images merged around 7,000 feet at an airspeed of roughly 500knotts.

So lets say mid air collision, 500 knotts, 7,000 feet over a lake, we know the plane lost one whole wing and ended up in the water......

At the bottom almost intact.....

500knotts, 7,000 feet up, missing one wing.... at the bottom of the lake intact.....

Doesnt that just send alarm bells off in your head.

Canopy closed and intact.....

no attempt to eject

no major fuselage damage... even after impacting the water after dropping from 7,000 feet.....



so the plane could be beamed up there?

however the ufo or whatever before the "collision" was a single image on the radar's screens?

[edit on 2-9-2006 by L3X]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
If anything fell from 7000 feet on a lake, it would shread apart like a lime in a blender.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
No here is the REALLY super cool part, Radar data says the two images merged around 7,000 feet at an airspeed of roughly 500knotts.

So lets say mid air collision, 500 knotts, 7,000 feet over a lake, we know the plane lost one whole wing and ended up in the water......

At the bottom almost intact.....

500knotts, 7,000 feet up, missing one wing.... at the bottom of the lake intact.....

Doesnt that just send alarm bells off in your head.

Canopy closed and intact.....

no attempt to eject

no major fuselage damage... even after impacting the water after dropping from 7,000 feet.....


There were at least 3 or 4 radar stations in Michigan which were tracking the F-89 and unknown on radar. They had altitude tracking radar and were able to track the altitude of the unknown and the F-89. If F-89 collided with the unknown, they should have been able to track the F-89 wreckage to the lake surface on radar. If the F-89 hit the lake at the same coinciding position as the unknown, they should also have observed the plummetting altitude on the F-89 before it hit the water.

I agree with your basic observations. If the F-89 had been involved in a collision, there should have only been pieces of the F-89 on the lake bottom. Refer to the following web link: www.ufobc.ca...

They don't know if the bodies of the crew are in the F-89 but the cockpit and canopy are apparently intact. They might not be able to see into the canopy if it is no longer transparent. The bodies of the crew (if they are in there) would be well preserved as there is minimal oxygen at this depth (at least this is what I have been told).

Also referring to what might have happened to the aircraft after the theoretical "capture" by ETs - see here:
www.ufobc.ca... - scroll down to section titled "The F-89".
Note that I don't really know if many of these "past life memories" have any validity, especially those occuring after the incident. I do tend to place a higher degree of belief in earlier memories of mine from this life which may be related to the incident.

Note also that the missing horizontal stabilizer from the tail of the F-89 SEEMS CONSISTENT with the aircraft parts found near the shore of Lake Superior in October 1968 by two prospectors in the Alona Bay area.
www.ufobc.ca...
It seems the identity of the parts was never revealed to the public and the Canadian and US governments both claim they have no information on the parts found. (File misplaced, lost, or just classified?)



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yes, the two blips merged...

Here's more detail...

The Kinross Incident: A plane vanishes while investigating a UFO.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

PS - I believe that's a F-89 Scorpion in bluestreak's avatar....for a visual of the plane....


[edit on 6-9-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
PS - I believe that's a F-89 Scorpion in bluestreak's avatar....for a visual of the plane....


[edit on 6-9-2006 by Gazrok]


Yes. In fact it is an F-89 from the 433rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron based at Truax AFB in Madison, WI. The crew of the missing plane were from Truax and were in Kinross AFB in upper Michigan on temporary assignment at the time of their disappearance.

I believe the photo in my avatar was taken summer or early fall of 1953.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Here is a link to the company that found the wreckage!!

www.greatlakesdive.com...

Click on new projects then F-89. Nice sonar images of jet. It appears there is wreckage near the jet that can't identified. Is the UFO sitting down there also!!
They only speak of the mysterious wreckage but don't show any sonar images of it. This is definitly worth keeping an eye on!!



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Interesting pics...hope they can salvage that sometime...
How does it hit the water and remain that intact though?

It almost presents even more mystery than help....



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Update on the mysterious wreckage located near the F-89

www.ufodigest.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
interesting. if the mystery radar image collided with the plane but then flew off then what could this be? i wouldnt be surprised if this thing mysterously disappears.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
A plane in a collision isn't automatically going to shred. There have been planes involved in more violent collisions that landed in mostly one piece. I've seen pics of an F-15 with one wing missing that landed, F-18s missing big parts of the radome and damage to the wing (including missing wingtips) that landed intact.

As for the lack of an ejection the initial impact probably either killed, or knocked out the pilot.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   


A plane in a collision isn't automatically going to shred


No, but you'd think crashing through the icy lake would do it....

However, being more intact would explain why the extensive search didn't locate it...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
It really depends on HOW it hit the lake. Small planes have impacted the water pretty hard, and barely been damaged externally. But that would explain why they didn't find it for so long. They were probably looking for something small, and ignoring the bigger target.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
nevermind

[edit on 9/8/2006 by homeskillet]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It really depends on HOW it hit the lake. Small planes have impacted the water pretty hard, and barely been damaged externally. But that would explain why they didn't find it for so long. They were probably looking for something small, and ignoring the bigger target.


From what I know, the search was of the lake surface and shoreline of Lake Superior. It wasn't like the Air Force has ever conducted a side scan sonar search of the lakebed plus I doubt in 1953 this was really feasible because of the depth.

We still can't do much more than guess about what happened without having experts look over the wreck. Do any of you think this will ever happen?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Is it just me or do you all seem to be missing the point that the UFO is possibly sitting down there, 219 feet from the jet?

[edit on 9/9/2006 by Jeddyhi]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The "aircraft" that was struck by this was most likely a UFO. they have been known to collide with objects and still fly and simply pass directly though it.

As for the lack of bodies and the fact that no one ejected I have this theory:


Think of it as this.

You drive your car into a stell wall. Your car will enounter serious damage and you will most likely be killed.

At 500 knots, the plane may or may not experience structure damage, and could still retain shape on the side that it wasn't hit on. The pilots, experiencing such a sudden change in interia, were probably eviscerated and the fish ate there remains. Crappy theory, yes. Explanation, No. I still have know clue what could have possibly happened to their clothes, but I will keep thinking.

Ranchy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join