Was F-89 Captured by Flying Saucer?

The theory that the F-89 was possibly captured by a UFO was proposed in Donald Keyhoe's book "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy".

The basis for this theory can be summarized as follows:

• Donald Keyhoe is woken by a phone call on the night the F-89 was lost and told of a rumor at Selfridge Air Force Base that the F-89 was lost after "colliding with a flying saucer".

• The USAF provides contradictory explanations for the intercept, suggesting a possible cover-up of the alleged UFO encounter.

• An aerial search of Lake Superior and the Lake Superior coastline provides no trace of the F-89 or crew.

• Keyhoe and a friend discussed the disappearance of the F-89 after it merged with an alleged UFO and the lack of any wreckage and conclude one possible explanation for was that the F-89 and crew were captured by the UFO.

To this day, we don't know who it was who phoned Donald Keyhoe and alerted him about the rumor that an F-89 had been lost after colliding with a flying saucer. We do know that Selfridge Air Force Base played key roles during the intercept and seach efforts. The alert was called by Selfridge so it is clear they were aware of the real reason for the alert - whatever it was. It seems apparent that several radar sites in the US were monitoring the flight of the F-89 so there were probably at least ten or twenty observers of the intercept at the three or four GCI sites. Most of these observers have kept a low public profile and have opted to remain silent about what they witnessed that night.

The contradictions in the USAF accounts of the intercept does suggest that they were conducting a coverup of the incident. It would be logical for the USAF to cover up the incident if the loss of the F-89 was related to a pursuit of a UFO. This is because it was official USAF policy to hide information about real unexplained UFO encounters from the public.

But are there other potential reasons for a coverup? I have tried to formulate alternative scenarios that would potentially lead to a coverup by the USAF.

My best formulation of a possible alternative scenario is this:

The USAF was involved in a preplanned training mission which simulated a real intercept of a soviet bomber over the Canadian border. They used the RCAF C-47 as the "dummy target" but never notified Canadian authorities about the training mission. They invented the excuse that the C-47 was flying 30 miles off track as a cover story to avoid controversy arising from unauthorized incursions into Canadian territory.

The problem with this scenario is that it unplanned incursions of US aircraft into Canadian air space were apparently not uncommon during this time period. Canadian incursions by RCAF aircraft were also not uncommon in this time period as such incursions werew viewed by both countries as good training to test the defense readiness of allies.

A second possibility is that some of the contradictions arose out of confusion and poor communication. One key question is whether the USAF ever did allege that the cause of the alert was a Canadian DC-3 airliner in restricted air space over Soo Locks. Keyhoe alleges he was told this by Lt. Robert C. White who served as a Public Information Officer for the USAF at the press desk in the Pentagon. Is there any evidence that Lt. White ever refuted this claim? Was Lt. White confused or ill-informed about the "real cause" of the incident?

Donald Keyhoe also stated that Frank Edwards had interviewed two pilots of the Canadian Airliner which had supposedly been observed in restricted air space over the locks. They had reportedly stated unequivically that they had not violated this retricted airspace. Are there any records of this interview? Who were these pilots? We know that this does not refer to the pilots of the RCAF C-47 as they were only contacted by the USAF and asked if they had seen the lost F-89. They were certainly not interviewed by Frank Edwards. Curiously, the allegation that the F-89 alert was caused by an incursion of an aircraft over Soo Locks never seemed to make it into any newspaper archives. I can't imagine that these archives have been tampered and falsified. So it is rather odd that no newspaper ever reported anything about unidentified traffic over Soo Locks on the night of the alert.

The failure to locate the aircraft keeps the mystery alive but it does not provide convincing evidence that a flying saucer was involved.