The Kinross Incident

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The Kinross Incident

In 1953, a UFO was detected on radar near Kinross AFB, Michigan. A Northrop F-89C Scorpion (assigned to the 433rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Traux Field, Madison WI) was scrambled from Kinross AFB and sent to intercept and identify this target. Radar controllers watched as the F-89 closed in on the UFO, and then sat stunned in amazement as the two blips merged on the screen, and the UFO left. The F-89 and it’s two man crew (Pilot First Lieutenant Felix E. Moncla, Jr, and Radar Observer Second Lieutenant Robert L. Wilson) were never found, even after a thorough search of the area.


F-89C Scorpion

The Air Force description of the crash is as follows (from their Accident Report, sent via FOIA to CUFON)



Aircraft took off at 2322 Zebra 23 Nov 53 on an active Air Defense Mission to intercept an unknown aircraft approximately 160 miles Northwest of Kinross Air Force Base. The aircraft was under radar control throughout the interception. At approximately 2352 Zebra the last radio contact was made by the radar station controlling the interception. At approximately 2355 Zebra the unknown aircraft and the F-89 merged together on the radar scope. Shortly thereafter the IFF signal disappeared from the radar scope. No further contact was established with the F-89. < Approximately 16 characters followed by one whole line (of approx. 83 characters including spaces) excised > An extensive aerial search has revealed no trace of the aircraft. The aircraft and its crew is still missing.


First, the account given is that the UFO was a Canadian airliner, a DC-3 to be exact.

However, they then later (in a separate page from the official report, sent along with the Air Accident Report) assert that the UFO was now identified as an RCAF C-47 :



The unknown aircraft being intercepted was a Royal Canadian Air Force Dakota (C-47), Serial No. VC-912, flying from Winnipeg to Sudbury, Canada. At the time of interception, it was crossing Northern lake Superior from west to east at 7,000 feet.

The pilot and radar observer were assigned to the 433rd Fighter-interceptor Squadron, Truax AFB, Wisconsin. They were on temporary duty at Kinross AFB, Michigan, while the base’s regularly assigned personnel were firing gunnery at Yuma, Arizona. The pilot had a total of 811:00 hours of which 121:40 hours were in F-89 type aircraft. He had 101:00 instrument hours and 91:50 hours night time. The radar observer had a total of 206:45 hours of which 11:30 hours were at night.

Search for the missing aircraft was conducted by both USAF and RCAF aircraft without success. Although 80 per cent area coverage was reported, heavy snows precluded effective land search. All civilian reports of seeing or hearing the aircraft were investigated with negative results.


The full reports can be read here: (they also include a detailed account of the search effort)
www.cufon.org...

However, when contacted by NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena), the RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force) denies they had any such plane intercepted by the USAF (United States Air Force).


Royal Canadian Air Force letter denying involvement, to NICAP.



"Thank you for your letter of April 4 requesting information regarding an 'Unidentified Flying Object' on November 23, 1953.
"A check of Royal Canadian Air Force records has revealed no report of an incident involving an RCAF aircraft in the Lake Superior area on the above date." (Flight Lt. C. F. Page, for Chief of the Air Staff, RCAF, to Jon Mikulich, 4-14-61).


So the USAF claims the UFO as an RCAF plane, even identifying a specific craft, but the RCAF flatly denies any such incident in the area. Also, the USAF fails to acknowledge just how such an identification was made, since there is no radio confirmation of this. While it is conceivable that the F-89 crashed, and for any variety of reasons, it is indeed strange that this crash happened at the exact moment of the blips merging on the radar screen. Also, it’s even more strange that such an exhaustive search effort would fail to turn up the missing plane and/or men, or even signs of a crash, such as debris, oil slick, etc.

Here is a map showing the locations involved. However, please read the following text, as it corrects the map somewhat. I could not locate a corrected map.


Map of the incident.



Note that the map shown…. ((above) shows the
correct and incorrect) location for the site where the F-89 disappeared over
Lake Superior. It seems that an earlier investigator misread the
geographical coordinates for this site "48 00 N 86 49 W" as "45
00 N 86 49 W". The coordinates "4800N 8649W" appear in telexes
and the RCAF Search and Rescue Report that are in the USAF
Accident Report files from the incident. This location over
Canadian waters of Lake Superior is also the location where
433rd FIS Base Commander Lt. Col. Harry Shoup is pointing to in
a photograph that was published in the Madison, Wisconsin
newspaper the day after the F-89 was lost over Lake Superior.

www.virtuallystrange.net...


According to Appendix A of the Report, the weather wasn’t exceptionally hazardous…



The weather conditions existing over eastern Lake Superior at the time contact was lost with the missing F89, was forecast to be the following. A generally solid deck of Stratocumulus base from 2-3000 and top at 6-7000 feet. A broken Altostratus layer, base 10,000 to 14-15000 feet. The visibility was generally 10-12 miles falling to 1-2 miles in isolated snow showers. The freezing level was at the surface to the west, rising to 800 - 1000 feet in the east. Analysis of the Sault Ste Marie Radio Sonde Run for 2100Z (1600E) indicates that moderate to heavy icing could occur from the cloud base to 7000 feet. The air was quite stable and rime ice should have predominated. No turbulence or other hazard would have been encountered. The winds were light south-easterly at the surface shifting to west aloft.

APPENDIX "A" TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4) DATED 18 DEC 53

Regardless of what happened this night, there are still a lot of mysteries to be solved regarding this incident.

The Air Force suggestion is that the pilot suffered vertigo and crashed into the lake. One has to wonder how likely this is, when flying on instruments though, as official records state he was.
Why did the USAF claim an RCAF plane as the UFO, when the RCAF states it wasn’t there? Perhaps the most curious question is why no acknowledgement of the radio conversations for the incident? Surely, if such an identification (of an RCAF plane) was made, or if the pilot had trouble, the radio conversation would have conveyed this and been released to put the incident to rest?

A little searching around dug up the following testimonial. A note of caution here, I have as of yet been unable to verify the identity of the one cited. I am attempting to do so. The following is from a radar operator during the incident (allegedly)



"....I'd like to fill in the gaps in the UFO "anomoly" incident over Lake Superior in 1953. I was stationed in Battle Creek Michigan at a radar AC&W (Air Craft Control and Warning) and was on duty when the incident took place. When we were notified of the "bogey" to the north of us, we increased our radar range. We spotted the target, which was stationary (suddenly a plane seems more unlikely, if this account is correct and legit), by a bright blip on the screen over the east end of the lake. Two F-89"C" interceptors were heading west from Kinross AFB. One of the F-89's had to abort the flight because of mechanical problems. The pilot, aborting, asked the other pilot if he wanted to return home or wait for another wingman. He (Moncla) said "Negative" to both and continued to intercept. I was watching it unfold and was able to monitor the transmissions from the aircraft to his ground controller. The transmission was something like this:

The first report from the pilot "No Joy" (No Contact) On the scope he was closing in on the bogey. As he got closer he announced (slight static) "I have an eyeball on the target, am going in for a closer look." (more static) Each time he transmitted the static became more and more unintelligable, the static louder each time he transmitted. As his aircraft converged with the target, there came steadier and louder static each time he transmitted until they merged. Then all was silent. From my position the now merged blip started northwest for a short time and then disappeared. The strangest thing about the incident was the closer he got to the bogey, the fewer words were heard due to the increase in static. The static was present only when he transmitted. A word here and there was heard - as the targets merged there was a long blast of static. His last transmission???"

www.subversiveelement.com...

I suppose we’ll never know with certainty what happened that night, nor the fate of the two airmen involved. If I can learn more about the radar operator quoted above, I’ll post an addendum with that info. I just thought this was a pretty interesting case, and wanted to point it out to those not familiar with it.

Thanks.





[edit on 26-4-2005 by Gazrok]




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
That is an interesting case. I don't have time right now to read through the documents, but I didn't see anywhere in your post about diving attempts to try and find anything. I might have just missed it. You do mention no debris or oil slick; that isn't necessarily conclusive. Although improbable, it is possible for the plane to hit the water without breaking up. No debris or oil would be found. Anything that might have decomposed over the course of time could have washed on shore and written off by whomever found it.

Great post though Gaz; I love reading your stuff.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Search Efforts...(it was extensive)....



APPENDIX "C"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

AIRCRAFT DEPLOYED

USAF AIRCRAFT
057 Dakota
5286 SA16
7167 SA16
0849 B25
7163 C45
1620 C45
1616 C45
913 C45 Oscoda3961 H15? (helicopter)

US COAST GUARD AIRCRAFT
SA16

RCAF AIRCRAFT
653 Dakota
961 Dakota
641 Dakota
658 Dakota

CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Cessna 140 Civilian Air Patrol

SURFACE CRAFT EMPLOYED
US COAST GUARD
USCG "WOODRUSH"






posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Being a 'Michigander', I've heard this story before quite some time ago...but not nearly in this detail. Thanks for the links, you piqued my interest- I'll have to look into this & do a little reading now.
I had heard that there was a UFO intercept mission from Kinross during the 50's but I didn't know that the somewhat rare & ill-fated F89C attempted the intercept.

Hmmm...now wasn't there also another 'UFO intercept' mission using Kinross aircraft (or was it from Wurtsmith?...) during the '60's as well??

T.S.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I've heard of this case before, but I never knew this much detail about it. Great job researching Gazrok


This one is weird, but I don't see anything that points to aliens or flying saucers. There was something or radar, but it was stationary. The pilot claimed he saw whatever the object was, but his communications failed so we don't know what he saw. Then he disappeared and the radar return disappeared soon afterward.

I'd like to learn more about the radar returns. My first thoughts, based on what Gazrok has posted, is that there was some type of atmospheric condition that occured that caused the radar return. It also effected the pilot's coms and caused the static. For some unknown reason (mechanical failure, health problem, low fuel, etc.) the plane crashed and was never found.

I'd like to know if anyone has used MAD or a towed sonar to look for the plane on the bottom of the lake in modern times.

With the pilot's coms turned to static, there is no eyewitness report of a strange object, simply a radar return and a plane crash.

Personally I think this one deserves more research, if only to determine the fate of one of our brave men in uniform.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Another thing to note:

Lake Superior, at the time, was mostly covered with a good layer of ice. Yet after this incident, flyovers of the area showed no break in the surface of the ice. None. The plane had quite literally vanished into mid air.

One of the excuses given was that it was a collision with a Canadian plane. Such a collision would have produced a bright, visible fireball, and flaming wreckage strewn over a large area. Plus, Im sure the Canadians would have noticed one of their planes missing.

I highly doubt it was an "atmospheric phenomenon". Atmospheric phenomenon do not steal planes and people.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
i could imagine them being abducted, or attacked and the plane being covered in snow over time..



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   


This one is weird, but I don't see anything that points to aliens or flying saucers. There was something or radar, but it was stationary. The pilot claimed he saw whatever the object was, but his communications failed so we don't know what he saw. Then he disappeared and the radar return disappeared soon afterward.

I'd like to learn more about the radar returns. My first thoughts, based on what Gazrok has posted, is that there was some type of atmospheric condition that occured that caused the radar return. It also effected the pilot's coms and caused the static. For some unknown reason (mechanical failure, health problem, low fuel, etc.) the plane crashed and was never found.


Well, if a plane, as the USAF claims, it wouldn't be stationary. If a radar anomoly, it wouldn't be visible to the pilot. Can't have your cake and eat it too...
The pilot never claimed to ID it, just that he SAW it, and was moving in for a better look. As for nothing pointing to alien activity, the radio interference and proximity to the craft is pretty much textbook of such pilot encounters with UFOs. (admittedly, this is based on the so far, anonymous, radar operator testimony.)

Given the information at hand, and the years that followed, it seems VERY likely that they would have found the debris eventually, if the plane crashed. So, we're still left with a very big mystery....



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This was an interesting read, nice work.

This sounds eerily similar to another case Foxtrot 94, which was posted by SpookyVince in his thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The pilot did report back after the incident, but was lost when ditching in the ocean.

I wonder how they explain the death of a pilot under these circumstanses to their families?

Edit: PeanutButterJellyTime, is it possible to determine the altitude with radar? I believe altitude is returned from the IFF transponder signal, is that right? If the anomoly was at the same altitude as the plane, wouldn't this be more evidence?



[edit on 4/28/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Ordinarily, I'd admit that a radar anomaly COULD have been to blame.

However, the interceptor was sent up to id what the operators deemed to be an inbound or stationary craft. Had it been such an anomaly, this would be the end of our story. Yet, we have one account of the pilot seeing the object (thus now discounting the anomaly theory), and we have the USAF stating the UFO was identified as a Canadian plane (also discounting an anomaly). Whichever story is right, we've got a visual and/or some type of confirmation of an object there.

The Canadians deny any such incident, so obviously if the object sighted was theirs, the confirmation wasn't done by radio, if it truly was a Canadian plane. Given the visibility in the area at the time (around 12 miles if I recall), and that the interceptor was likely at the same or similar altitude as the target (in order to make the ID), if it was truly a Canadian plane, then surely they would have spotted the American jet, both visually and on radar, and would have likewise seen any accident involving it.

But we DON'T have such an account, so logic says that the Canadian plane must have been where it was supposed to be (as stated by the Canadians), and that it didn't see the American plane or it's target. So then we're left with WHAT did the American plane then see, and WHY did the plane vanish from radar? If a crash, it would have been extremely easy to spot (just look for a smoking hole in the ice or shore, etc.), so why wasn't any evidence found of this? Even to this day?

I'm not saying the evidence PROVES abduction of the craft by aliens, just that it is a logical possibility that fits the facts involved, where mundane explanations fail at one point or another.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Just as an aside...currently working on a writeup of the Rendlesham case. That post will be fairly massive, maybe even a couple different threads, but still at the beginning research stage on that one....
Despite claims of lighthouses, or old beat up police cars, such explanations seem to crumble under the evidence, but I'll make the case for it in the threads.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
However, the interceptor was sent up to id what the operators deemed to be an inbound or stationary craft. Had it been such an anomaly, this would be the end of our story. Yet, we have one account of the pilot seeing the object (thus now discounting the anomaly theory), and we have the USAF stating the UFO was identified as a Canadian plane (also discounting an anomaly). Whichever story is right, we've got a visual and/or some type of confirmation of an object there.

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't questioning this case. I was asking if radar can determine the altitude of an unidentified craft (anomaly) as a general question. I should have posted it in the skeptics thread, which I was thinking of the JAL Flight 1628 incident.

Looking forward to the Rendlesham thread, should be a good one.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Just a few things to point out that may offer some other explanation to what may have happend.

(1) The F-89C was the first oprtational F-89 series to enter service- and it had its share of teething problems early on, mostly due to the wing design & the attaching root edge.
Exerpt taken from a historical page about the F-89:


The F89C had short and troubled service life. It was considered to be the first all-up operational model of the F-89. They were an improvement over the B model, but quickly replaced in line units by the much more potent D model. The C models were then sent to National Guard units.

The F-89C had uprated Allison J-35 engines. The allowable gross weight climbed to 42,827 pounds. Also, the elevators incorporated internal mass balances instead of the external balances on the B model and in May 1950 the Air Force placed an initial order for 63 F-89Cs.

The F-89C first flew in September 1951 and flight-testing ran concurrently with production. Northrop Grumman states that the production run amounted to 163 aircraft. Other sources have given the figure at 172. The first of the Cs reached the line units in February 1952, with the 176th FIS in Wisconsin being the first unit to re-equip with new model. The 176th received their first C on 8 February 1952. Over the next year and a half the 27th, 57th, 174th also flew the C model.

Just 23 days after receiving the planes, the 176th FIS suffered a loss when one of their F-89Cs shed a wing and spun in, killing the crew. Speed and G load restrictions were immediately imposed by the Air force. It was felt that the flight crew had pushed their new equipment too far. On June 18, 1952 another F-89C, this time from the 74th FIS was lost, just three days after the squadron was declared operational. Again the crew of two failed to survive. The loss was due to the same cause, and even stricter limits were imposed. Three more Scorpions were lost due to wing collapse in 24 days, between August 30 and September 22 1952. However the crew of the F-89 from the 74th FIS lost on September 22 was able to eject safely and vital new evidence surfaced. The F-89 fleet was grounded and investigation and solution proceeded hand in hand.

The root of the problem was multifaceted. Part of it was the fact that the aircraft was operating in an envelope where many of the factors were unknown. Another part was that new materials were being used and the testing process turned out to be tragically inadequate. The wings were being ripped off at the fuselage attach point. In an effort to make the broad, thin wing as light as possible, new alloys were being used. The wing attach point was made of an aluminum alloy, T75ST. The alloy promised high strength and light weight. Due to limitations at the Northrop facility during structural testing, the physical testing could be done only to 60% of the design stress. Enough information was derived from the testing that engineers felt that the rest of the range could be mathematically extrapolated from the initial results. After the losses, a new testing program was instituted. The program was moved to a facility that could adequately subject the plane to a full range of wind tunnel and static testing. When testing was resumed, it was found that the new alloy was failing catastrophically. The new alloy was extremely susceptible to fatigue at the high end of the testing loads. Also any machining errors such as nicks or gouges induced fast spreading cracks and centers of fatigue. This “notching” fatigue surfaced in other aircraft that also used the new alloy, such as the B-45 Tornado.

It was found that the wing wasn’t just failing. The thin wing under certain flight loads would twist and flutter before the pilot could realize what was occurring. Because the control system was hydraulically powered with no “feel” or feedback there was virtually no warning to the pilot. At the design limits, to which combat aircraft are normally flown, the large wing would behave in a springlike fashion, rapidly oscillating and twisting. This flutter occurred in a way that it interacted with the airflow that would increase the wing oscillation. Once it began it would rapidly increase in rate and violence. This in turn would exceed the strength of the attach fitting and the wing would separate at the root.

The entire fleet was remanufactured using a high strength steel attachment fitting, and the wing structure was beefed up and strengthened. Fins where also added to the aft portion of the tip tanks to use aerodynamic compensation to help counteract the tendency for the wing to oscillate. After the fixes the F-89 went on to achieve an admirable safety record.

I wonder if the F-89C aircraft in question from this event was 'remanufactured' & fitted with the stronger wing structure and attachment points?? Maybe the pilot overflew that restrictions placed on the aircraft by the Air Force?? What if something happend to the plane and it basically disintegrated in mid-flight??

(2) Also of note is the fact that Lake Superior rarely freezes completely over during the winter...much less before the night of November 23, 1953. Most winters this Great Lake won't begin to freeze until January- and if it's a particularly cold winter it may indeed become frozen over in Feburary.
So there had to be quite a bit of open water for whatever was left of the planes wreckage.
As any Great Lakes sailor knows...Lake Superior is not a place to be sailing on a ship after early November- much less try to conduct a comprehensive search. The 'November Witch' of Lake Superior is truly a bitch!! A search by air would have been possible if the weather was clear...and if the visibility was really good, something would likely have been found early on in the search. But if nothing of note gets found early, it would have been nearly impossible to find much else.
After ice begins to form on the lake, there are numerous ice flows- and even if the lake starts to become solid, many pressure cracks & upheavals.
No doubt, whatever wreckage & flotsam that may have existed that was not discovered- was effectively 'chewed-up' by the actions of the winter ice. Surely the heavy components of the airframe (engine...etc...) would have simply sunk into oblivion.
A sonar survey of the alleged wreckage area probrably won't reveal anything- remember, Lake Superior is a VERY deep lake with some area aproaching depths of nearly 1800ft. I don't know what kind of depths of water near the wreckage area, but I'm sure that they are none-too-shallow.

Something to think about...
T.S.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Interesting info.

But it fails to solve some interesting problems.

1. If a plane malfunction, where's the radio transcript of it? Surely he would have mayday'ed....?

2. Surely the USAF would have much rather had it be a malfunction and crash than "unknown". So obviously no such mayday reported.

3. If the radio wasn't working, and the UFO was really the Canadian plane the USAF states, then surely the Canadian plane would have an idea what happened (given when and where the plane vanished from radar, and it's proximity to it....assuming of course, the USAF claim is legit). Why deny being in the area and off course? Unless of course, the Canadian plane WAS on course, and NOT in the area, just as they claim to be the case.


4. And after all these years and the activity in the area, still no wreckage or bodies turned up?

Indeed, the information regarding the plane needs to be considered, however if you check the link given:

www.cufon.org...

(Scroll down to Distribution B)

You can see all the aircraft inspection reports here.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This is a way interesting one, but no one seemed to notice that the initial reports don't conflict: a C-47 is simply the military version of the DC-3, and quite obviously they are rigorously exactly the same on the radar, unless one of them carries some special outside equipment.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
HAL9000
A plane's altitude is determined by a radar using trig. If you know the angle the return came in at, and the distance to the target, you can draw up a triangle and figure out the height. IFF will display altitude, but it wasn't used on civilian aircraft until the 60's. The military IFF was still crude until the mid to late fifties.

Gazrok
I'm looking forward to the Rendlesham research. That is one of the cases that I believe was 'real'. There's way too much data on that one. I don't buy the lighthouse theory either.

As far as this one, I think if it had happened before Kenneth Arnold, no one would think much about it.

I don't think it was a plane because it was stationary. The pilot claimed he saw something. Who knows what it was? Reflections on the cockpit windows, exhaustion, a plane that was far away, who knows. True, many UFO cases have instances where radios fail, but atmospheric conditions cause radio to fail to. I experience this all the time when I try to listen to Orioles games out of Baltimore. Sometimes I get the game on the radio, sometimes I don't. Surely UFO's aren't scrambling the Orioles broadcasts (although if the O's were using alien technology it would explain the way they've been playing this year
.

The weather reports also mentioned that it was snowing and visibility was poor at ground level. Certainly that would make the search difficult. If he crashed through the ice the chunks of ice would float back up to the surface and get covered with snow.

I don't buy the Canadian plane theory that the AF put out, unless the Canadian aircraft was on some kind of secret mission (testing new technology or a new device, for example), in which case the Canadian Gov would deny the aircraft was there.

That's all we have in this case is a stationary radar return and a pilot who saw 'something' and disappeared. I really don't think this would have been considered a UFO case before 1947, just a plane crash. After 1947, if it's odd and in the sky it is automatically a UFO.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
And missing craft and personnel don't forget, and actually sent up to intercept an Unidentified Flying Object....




This is a way interesting one, but no one seemed to notice that the initial reports don't conflict: a C-47 is simply the military version of the DC-3, and quite obviously they are rigorously exactly the same on the radar, unless one of them carries some special outside equipment.


The conflict is due to the initial claim to the press that it was a Canadian Airliner (civillian), and THEN later an RCAF plane. For me, the most important nugget here is that this confusion directly contradicts any claim that the unidentified craft was identified either visually or by radar, and instead that it was simply an ASSUMPTION, based on craft in the general area at the time, and made an easy scapegoat.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

For me, the most important nugget here is that this confusion directly contradicts any claim that the unidentified craft was identified either visually or by radar, and instead that it was simply an ASSUMPTION, based on craft in the general area at the time, and made an easy scapegoat.


Yeah, you're right. The radar return wasn't an aircraft, not with it being stationary all the time. But maybe the 'visual' the pilot had was one of those aircraft and for some reason he crashed while chasing it.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I have some confirmation of the radar operator's identity, and legitimacy, from a pretty reliable source. I'm checking further on this to see what information can be posted, etc. (possibly even in RATS if an issue, etc.). I'll let you know whatever I can.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Interesting info.

But it fails to solve some interesting problems.

1. If a plane malfunction, where's the radio transcript of it? Surely he would have mayday'ed....?

2. Surely the USAF would have much rather had it be a malfunction and crash than "unknown". So obviously no such mayday reported.

3. If the radio wasn't working, and the UFO was really the Canadian plane the USAF states, then surely the Canadian plane would have an idea what happened (given when and where the plane vanished from radar, and it's proximity to it....assuming of course, the USAF claim is legit). Why deny being in the area and off course? Unless of course, the Canadian plane WAS on course, and NOT in the area, just as they claim to be the case.


4. And after all these years and the activity in the area, still no wreckage or bodies turned up?

Indeed, the information regarding the plane needs to be considered, however if you check the link given:

www.cufon.org...

(Scroll down to Distribution B)

You can see all the aircraft inspection reports here.



That was a very informative link. Thanks for the info to allow a deeper 'probe' into some possibilities of the 'accident'.

First, let me say that I'm a retired Army aviator that specialized in Avionics & Electrical systems maintanance. So I'm pretty well versed in military aviation forms & records. Even though the forms date from the '50's, they are still the same standard logbook forms. www.cufon.org...

This set of logbook entries are a compliation from earlier open aircraft discprencies left over from the previous week- the crewchief is supposed to close out the logbook weekly and carry forward any deficencies that havn't been corrected to new forms. Every week the logbook forms (at least that was the practice when I was in service) got closed out, inspected by QC, and then filed to the historical records of the aircarft.
So...I'm assuming that the previously mentioned wing modification that would have temporarily restricted or grounded the aircraft had already been done- or that would be noted in the descrpencies along with the appropriate restriction write-up as well. But that wouldn't be 100% known unless the historical logbook records were gone over from the date of the entry of the appropriate T.O. & restriction imposed sometime after Sept. 22, 1952 when it was known that there was a problem with the wings oscillation & root edge attachment point making it a mandantory modification at depot level maintainence. Once the modifiactions were completed, the write-up would not appear on subsequent logbook entries after that set of logbook forms were closed out the week the work was done. So- obviously the entry regarding the wing & root edge attaching problem will not appear on the forms used by the investigation- they will only disclose the current forms.
After the extensive testing & subsequent 'fix' was evaluated and then carried out to all the relevent airframes of the F-89C...I'm sure that there would still be some kind of flight limitation imposed on the pilots after the Northrop engineers discosed their findings because the aircraft was still capable of inducing loads that would exceed its design limitations (now tragically known...) during flight that could potentially still damage the airframe. Maybe not noted in the aircraft logbook as a 'circled red X' resricting write up (because that would affect the 'readiness' numbers of the unit & also the entire F-89C fleet- and that might have put a crimp on the percieved warfighting ability by unit commanders during a critical 'cold war' period. Something that would not be likely exposed as 'chink in the armour' and subsequently affected national security)- but probrably well explained in pilots mission briefings.
So...even after the modifications were done to the wings, was it still possible for pilots to overfly the aircraft to the point of premature fatigue & failure?
In my mind that possibility still exists.
In that scenario of such a failure, there would be no time for a pilot to transmit a 'mayday'- it was known that the wing oscillations to the point of failure was not felt by the pilot from control feedback because the controls were hydraulically controlled & not mechanically connected. Not that he could get off a good readable transmission back to Kinross anyway being that far way, using VHF or UHF 'line-of-sight' radios of the time- not to mention the weather pattern of the day that would have contributed to making such a transmission quite interruptable.
If such a failure did in fact occur, I think it would be unlikly that the Air Force would admit that the failure occured that way after loosing other aircraft in the same manner- especially after corrective maintanince had been done. That would have put anouther mar in it's already troubled service record. It would have been better to have admitted that the plane was lost in an honest mission for which it had been designed for- on an intercept mission. There would be more 'glory' in losing it in a 'real' mission than a training mission as previous loses of the plane were.
Besides...if the wreckage had been found, the Air Force would have been compelled to investigate it's failure. Probrably something it wasn't too keen on doing and have to admit a further problem. Since the F-89C wasn't found- no failure investigation.
Not that it would have been easy to find the wreckage anyway, since Lake Superior is a pretty forbiding place to conduct a search & rescue mission in late November.

Now...the Canadians. I find it somewhat likely that the Canadians would start thier own 'disinformation campaign' if they were conducting a mission that they didn't want fully known. Just because the U.S. & Canada are sociable neighbors doesn't mean that everything gets disclosed. They may have intentionally obscured some facts instead of admitting to the true nature of the reason one of thier planes was in that area and had been discovered. Maybe the plane was really there...maybe not. Maybe it was a cooperating 'alert' exercise between U.S. & Canada to test out intercepting capabilites in poor weather...that went horibly wrong? Maybe because of low visibility, the pilot closed in on the Canadian plane quicker than he realized & had to make a sudden maneuver to avoid a collision and subsequently overstressed the F-89C's airframe? Nevertheless, it does seem odd that Canada would be flying a mission in that area given the poor conditions of the day.

So what was there that was suppossed to be intercepted anyway? It is plausible that it could have been a Canadian plane. It is also just as plausible that there may have been a radar return from a 'freak' hail & ice storm forming in the cloud cover (& who knows what further effect an icing condition would have had on an already known weak wing structure of an F-89C...). It also could have been a genuine UFO encounter as has been discussed. Who really knows??? I guess that it why it is considered a mystery.
It's just my 'hunch' that it probrably was not a UFO encounter, but a victim of circumstance.

Far be it that I'm just a UFO debunker (there are indeed some reports that I think could be claimed as such)...it is just that there are too many 'what-ifs' and possible scenarios to conclusively claim that there was indeed a UFO there & it made an intercepting F-89C disappear without a trace.

As far as your no. 4 reason...well, known by those that live near the Great Lakes- Lake Superior is infamous for bodies not to be found after tragedies. 'Gitchee-Gummee never gives up her dead...' This is especially true when tragedies occur during the winter months. I don't find it unresonable that nothing was found- I don't find that out of place at all.

I just find that this could likely be a case of a catrostophic failure of an already troubled airframe that simply was not recoverable that caused a crash in which the wreckage was equally unrecoverable due to the area it occured in. Just because the mission the plane was sent on was to intercept a percieved possible threat...well...
I'm not fully convinced.
T.S.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join