Post by mecano04 on Aug 30, 2017 13:13:54 GMT
Maybe with today's technology we could send some miniature submarines and other teleguided drones to find it but I'm not sure it's the top priority in terms of resources(money and material) and time.
While I don't have an explanation for the inability to find a wreckage, the site you linked might have some clues on why it crashed, from their scanned documents:
www.ufobc.ca/kinross/otherTopics/usafDocs.html
You got the correction sheet:
It seems a few things weren't changed/done:
The transcription:
"
3 December 1953
C E R T I F I C A T E
1. The following Technical Orders were noted on Part III of the Form 1 as not complied with for
F-89C 5105853A.
a. T.O.01-1-476 Replacement Exchange of Type B-8 stick grip.
b. T.O. 01-15DC-1 Not in A/C.
c. T.O. 02B-1-17 Compounding the Ignition System
d. T.O. 01-15FDC-172 Installation R.O's Interphone cutout SW.
e. T.O. 02B-1050-73 Removal of Latch.
/S/
DAVID C. COLLINS
Captain USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigating Officer
23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla "
(Taken from : cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm )
Now I'm no expert on planes but it seems the ignition system needed some compound repair and that an interphone switch had some issues.
Having ignition issues with your car while driving at 100km/h might be problematic so my guess is it may equally if not worst in a plane.
Then you got interphone switch (I guess that what SW stands for). I don't know how important the issue can be but if you miss a piece it may create some issues?
Then the article states that the F-89C still had issues like the B version.
So, even if the chances are slim it may be possible the plane had some technical issues and crashed near the object that emitted the signal on the radar.
It may be how it happened or just me playing the devil's advocate and being in denial about a coverup of a UFO encounter turned wrong.
While I don't have an explanation for the inability to find a wreckage, the site you linked might have some clues on why it crashed, from their scanned documents:
www.ufobc.ca/kinross/otherTopics/usafDocs.html
You got the correction sheet:
It seems a few things weren't changed/done:
The transcription:
"
3 December 1953
C E R T I F I C A T E
1. The following Technical Orders were noted on Part III of the Form 1 as not complied with for
F-89C 5105853A.
a. T.O.01-1-476 Replacement Exchange of Type B-8 stick grip.
b. T.O. 01-15DC-1 Not in A/C.
c. T.O. 02B-1-17 Compounding the Ignition System
d. T.O. 01-15FDC-172 Installation R.O's Interphone cutout SW.
e. T.O. 02B-1050-73 Removal of Latch.
/S/
DAVID C. COLLINS
Captain USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigating Officer
23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla "
(Taken from : cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm )
Now I'm no expert on planes but it seems the ignition system needed some compound repair and that an interphone switch had some issues.
Having ignition issues with your car while driving at 100km/h might be problematic so my guess is it may equally if not worst in a plane.
Then you got interphone switch (I guess that what SW stands for). I don't know how important the issue can be but if you miss a piece it may create some issues?
Then the article states that the F-89C still had issues like the B version.
So, even if the chances are slim it may be possible the plane had some technical issues and crashed near the object that emitted the signal on the radar.
It may be how it happened or just me playing the devil's advocate and being in denial about a coverup of a UFO encounter turned wrong.