Kinross F-89 Story May Be a Hoax

By Mike Price
12-4-06

Note-I received this missive from Mike two days ago, and in the spirit mentioned, I share it with our readers-FW

     I am a UFO investigator. I have been following this F-89 story a bit. The more you look at the claims, the more suspect they seem.

The most recent MUFON Journal describes in detail the rather significant effort MUFON investigators have applied to the claims of the "Dive Company". You should read that carefully, and then revise your article as you see fit. This information is in the October 2006 issue of MUFON Journal, number 462. The MUFON investigation is ongoing, however, the claims have proven to be fabrications in many ways so far.

My interest is simply that false or inaccurate information put out to the public regarding the UFO phenomenon results in a disservice to legitimate cases and legitimate UFO research efforts. Hoaxes draw limited resources away from more important work, and confuse the real issues.

Your article ends by looking for a propeller on the nose of this faked side scan sonar image. The F-89 was a jet. It is easy to Google it and see an accurate photograph of an F-89 as flown from Kinross. Please do a bit of research, and correct your article in light of the facts.............everyone will be better served by the truth and accuracy.

It is true aircraft have been lost in pursuit of UFO's, and true that many other pilots lived to describe their encounter..........it may even be true that the "Kinross F-89" may have been lost in an encounter with a UFO. However, the unverified claims of these people are serving to only distort the truth. I will assume you intend to help the truth be known, and offer these comments to you in that spirit.

E-mail: Mike Price

North Carolina MUFON

My Response

Dear Mike,

FW: Thank you for your interest in our web-site.

MP: Dear Frank, I am a UFO investigator. I have been following this F-89 story a bit. The more you look at the claims, the more suspect they seem.

The most recent MUFON Journal describes in detail the rather significant effort MUFON investigators have applied to the claims of the "Dive Company". You should read that carefully, and then revise your article as you see fit. This information is in the October 2006 issue of MUFON Journal, number 462. The MUFON investigation is ongoing, however, the claims have proven to be fabrications in many ways so far.

FW: Hmmm . . . there are (4) articles about the so-called "Great Lakes Dive Co" (on our site) and their "alleged" claims and I'm afraid I can't change any of them, as "I didn't author them." I was/am only the messenger.

As far as the "F-89 story" goes, "I have been investigating it thoroughly," and based on that research, I do in fact believe it is a hoax. An article "by me" is forth coming concerning the issue. Moreover, I am awaiting the "full report" from Dave Watson re "The MUFON Journal.

MP:My interest is simply that false or inaccurate information put out to the public regarding the UFO phenomenon results in a disservice to legitimate cases and legitimate UFO research efforts. Hoaxes draw limited resources away from more important work, and confuse the real issues.

FW: Of course you are right Mike; however, since the beginning of "modern day Ufology" this collocation has existed; it is up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sadly, even when this case is proved to be a hoax without a shadow of doubt, there will still be those who will argue the fact, and scream conspiracy! This in my view, will be the "ultimate dis-service."

MP:Your article ends by looking for a propeller on the nose of this faked side scan sonar image. The F-89 was a jet. It is easy to Google it and see an accurate photograph of an F-89 as flown from Kinross. Please do a bit of research, and correct your article in light of the facts.............everyone will be better served by the truth and accuracy.

FW: Mike I'm assuming you are referring to the article written, by Jack Storey, of the "Soo Evening News," found here. That portion of "his" article reads:

The aircraft in the image appears to be mostly intact, except for the missing wing. The general shape of the aircraft closely resembles those from the last generation of propeller-driven fighters used late in World War II and the Korean War.

It also resembles early U.S. jet fighter aircraft built prior to the advent of the F-86 Fury, also used extensively in the Korean War.


The reproduced sonar image is not distinct enough to show a propeller on the mostly undamaged nose of the aircraft.

Nothing in the fuzzy image visually confirms that the aircraft with a missing wing is under water or at the bottom of Lake Superior.

As you can see, "the author" refers to the "general shape" of the aircraft as that of a "propeller-driven fighter" and "also" states that it resembles a "jet" fighter. Finally he points out that the image "doesn't" prove that the aircraft is under water or at the bottom of Lake Superior.

With respect Mike, I would ask that "you take your own advice" and add, "do your homework a little more thoroughly," particularly if you plan on assessing someone else's work.

You have incorrectly identified "me as the author" of the a fore mentioned articles, which is quite frankly "very hard to do" as the author's by-line is posted directly under the title of the piece; in addition a link is always provided at the end of an article so the reader can go "directly to the source." Moreover, you also "incorrectly" perceived the "gist" of what the author was saying in regards to the propeller-driven craft.

I might also add, that in addition to "hoaxes and inaccurate information," sloppy research is also a hindrance "to important work, and confuses the real issues."

MP:It is true aircraft have been lost in pursuit of UFO's, and true that many other pilots lived to describe their encounter..........it may even be true that the "Kinross F-89" may have been lost in an encounter with a UFO. However, the unverified claims of these people are serving to only distort the truth. I will assume you intend to help the truth be known, and offer these comments to you in that spirit.

Mike Price

FW:Mike unless you are altering the definition of "UFO," the Kinross Scorpion was "lost while pursuing said UFO"; that is a fact--period--there is no debate about that.

Separately, in order to prevent any future confusion please understand that our web-site is first a repository for UFO reports, presented as they are written, and secondly, a platform for me to put the "proverbial pen" to paper, as well as "other writers/researchers" etc. I am the first to tell you that there are IMHO, pictures on our web-site that have been reported as UFOs, which are only pictures of "blurry bugs"; some might argue that point, which is their right--the reader must make up their own mind. Also, it's important to remember, that this is a "blog format" and comments are welcomed, (and desired).

As far as "my written work" is concerned, I welcome criticism, and would be the first to admit a mistake; however, I can't and won't take the blame for someone else's work. :-D

In regards to research, I rarely publish anything on my work, as I find it an impedance to the work itself; however, suffice it to say that I have been active in researching/investigating the UFO phenomenon since the early 70's and take a "scientific construct in the approach, and go wherever the evidence leads.

Finally in regards to the Great Lakes Dive Company debacle, I have been in contact with the originator of the story, as well as the individual who calls himself Adam Jimenez; I have checked into (and continue to) look into every aspect of the case, which has included correspondence with the "Canadian Ministry" as well as the University that the so-called Jimenez claimed to have attended.

To that end, I as mentioned before, I believe we can call this case the "Great UFO Hoax of 2006!"

Respectfully,
Frank Warren

See Also: Diver's Find 53 Year-Old Plane and Maybe The UFO It Collided With!