◆ SpookStack

sheet; copy of RPQNEG | from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.” [Air Force letter to NICAP member, 4-2-63]. The original report released by the Air Force PIO at Truax AFB, Wisc., stated that contact was lost with the F-89 when it appeared to merge with the UFO. There is no mention of tracking the jet after that. In 1961, a NICAP member wrote to the RCAF concerning the Kinross incident to verify the C-47 identification. The reply stated: “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). Later, another NICAP member wrote to the RCAF and re- ceived an even more specific denial that any Canadian aircraft was intercepted by a U.S. jet. The spokesman added: ‘‘. . . as you stated the C-47 was travelling on a flight plan taking it over Canadian territory; this alone would seem to make such an inter- cept unlikely.” (See photostat), There are two interpretations of what happened over Lake Superior that night: (1) Air Force radar tracked a UFO, the F-89 closed in to investigate, collided with or was in some manner yy Gard once NADIAN AIRF Wotherstiold 9 Connecti Use tor 1963» 3 |. Ainguists of April 27 702" L6 come Dear *F etter oon unable Ye Far Release.2001/04102 : GlAcRDRS1RAG56ORQN04000 1000 t-Qrerzing on radar, the fact that radar contact was lostafter the blips merged, and the fact that no trace of the fully-equipped all-weather aircraft has been found.); or (2) Air Force radar tracked a tem- porarily unidentified RCAF plane, the F-89 intercepted it, made the identification and then crashed for unknown reasons. The latter explanation does not account for what was observed on radar; it assumes that expert radar men cannot read radar scopes. The RCAF has no record of such an incident, although a flight plan allegedly was filed. If there was such a flight, it would have been entirely over Canadian territory. Because of international identification networks between Canada and the U.S., its flight plan would have been known to the radar stations and there would have been no need for the intercept mission to begin with. The F-89 was originally reported to be chasing an “unidentified object.”” . The Air Force information sheet on this case states: ‘It is presumed by the officials at Norton AFB [Flying Safety Division] that the pilot probably suffered from vertigo and crashed into the lake.’ Judging by weather reports at the time, the pilot would have been on instruments, so that vertigo (dizziness re- sulting from visual observation) would be an extremely unlikely explanation, Even: if the F-89 was not on instruments at the time, there is no explanation why radar tracked it 160 miles out over the lake and then lost contact just after the blips appeared to merge.