F-89 Merged with RCAF C-47

The official report from the USAF Accident Investigation Board states the following on page two of Form 14, referring to the F-89 and the "unknown aircraft":

"After the turn was completed, the pilot was advised the unidentified aircraft was at 11 o'clock, ten miles distant. Radar returns from both aircraft were then seen to merge on "Pillow's" radar scope. The radar return from the other aircraft indicated it was continuing on its original flight path, while the return from the F-89 disappeared from the GCI station's radar scope."

A few paragraphs later, under "Investigation and Analysis" the report identifies the unknown aircraft:

"The unknown aircraft being intercepted was a Royal Canadian Air Force Dakota (C-47), Serial No. VC-912, flying from Winnipeg to Sudberry, Canada. At the time of interception it was crossing Northern Lake Superior from west to east at 7,000 feet. This flight path was approximately 30 miles south of the intended flight path."

The only supporting information contained with in the report for the accounting of the identity of the unknown is contained in the statement written by 2nd Lt. Douglas A. Stuart, the GCI controller at "Pillow". His statement opens by identifying the unknown which was the target of the intercept:

"When A-27-T was picked up by Pillow (P-16) it was believed to be VC-912, but because the aircraft was off the flight plan course by about 30 miles, it was classified as 'UNknown'." 

From the information I have obtained during the course of my investigation, I have concluded the following with respect to this aspect of the official explanation.

• The RCAF C-47, VC-912, was flying over Lake Superior from west to east at the time of the intercept, on a flight from Winnipeg, Manitoba to its home base at Rockcliffe Air Force Base, near Ottawa, Ontario.

• The pilot of this aircraft was Gerald Fosberg, who states that his aircraft was never off course during this flight. He states the maximum error of the radio based navigation system as being about 5 miles.

This evidence suggests that the purpose of the intercept contained in the report, is likely a USAF fabrication and brings into question the truthfullness of the statement made by 2nd Lt. Douglas A. Stuart.

The USAF account of the purpose of the intercept mission has also been brought into question in correspondence by RCAF officials in response to queries about the Kinross incident.

What Stuart's statement does suggest is that the identity of the RCAF C-47 was known throughout the intercept. The USAF GCI controllers were tracking its course. Is it possible that the RCAF and the RCAF pilot were unaware that their plane was off course and was being tracked by the F-89?

What is revealed in the accident report and other correspondence is that the USAF never once indicated to the RCAF or the RCAF pilot of the C-47 that his plane was the target of the intercept mission. If the plane was in fact "off-course" as stated, you would think the USAF would have mentioned this to the pilot of the aircraft and/or other RCAF authorities, but there is no evidence this action was ever taken. If the RCAF had been informed about the off-course status of its aircraft, then it would seem likely that some sort of follow-up investigation would have followed to determine the cause and search for remedial action. My correspondence with RCAF pilot, Gerald Fosberg indicates that no investigation of the sort was ever made by the RCAF.

It is possible that the USAF was just using the C-47 as a pretext for a "mock intercept" training mission. But why would they need to lie about this if this were the case? During the 1950's, all kinds of Air Force planes crashed on routine training missions.

If the statement made by Lt. Stuart contains a factual error about the purpose of the intercept mission, I believe this quite possibly indicates the whole investigation report might be a deliberate fabrication to cover up something more sinister, such as a UFO pursuit which ended with the disappearance of the F-89 and its crew.