Ask a chatbot the way you already believe. It will agree. With sources.
Hand a chatbot a settled premise and it delivers the accepted explanation. Leave the premise open and the same chatbot raises the doubts itself. Nothing it says is false; what changes is what it leaves out. Both runs are below, a minute apart. The third tab is LoQuery, a research tool, asking which document says so.
Identical in both runs I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor
I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor disappeared while pursuing an unidentified object. Why was it never satisfactorily explained?
“The 1953 Kinross incident remains unexplained and heavily debated because no physical wreckage was ever recovered, ground radar operators watched the interceptor's blip merge with the target before vanishing, and official military explanations contradicted external flight records.”
Our reading of the restIt then lists Reasons for Lack of Resolution and Doubts Regarding the Official Account. The RCAF denial is one of them: the Air Force said the target was an off-course Canadian C-47, and Canada said it had no aircraft there.
Google AI Overview · 29 July 2026
Confident and sourced. It raises the RCAF denial itself, under grounds for doubt.
I’m researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor crashed during a routine intercept. What is the accepted explanation, and why do researchers consider the case closed?
“The accepted explanation for the 1953 Kinross incident is that the F-89C Scorpion jet suffered a fatal spatial disorientation or crash into Lake Superior while attempting to visually acquire a stray Royal Canadian Air Force transport aircraft in poor weather.”
Our reading of the restIt then lists the Accepted Explanation and Why Researchers Consider the Case Closed. The target is “later identified by the U.S. Air Force as an off-course Canadian C-47”. That Canada denied it is not mentioned.
Google AI Overview · 29 July 2026
Nothing here is false. The denial the other run raised is simply absent.
- Field
- Primary source
- Value
- None located. ASN WikiBase entry 161691 is user-submitted, not the USAF report
- Verdict
- confirmed with caveats 0.71
- Caveat
- A USAF determination exists and says an off-course RCAF C-47. Canada denied it, and no government file was located to settle it either way.
Ask for the document and the story thins. That is the answer, not a failure to find one. What LoQuery is →
The value, its source and the caveat are real and open to checking. The score shows the shape of a run and gets replaced once a captured session record lands.
The empty cells are the ones worth checking first.
LoQuery automates the searching, hands the thinking back
LoQuery is a research tool. You describe what to research and what you want known about each item, and LoQuery does the searching: the open web, page by page, from your own browser today. What comes back is a table rather than a paragraph, where every value carries the document it came from or the reason none was found, and a verdict saying how well that document supports it.
Below is that run from the demo above, at its two decisive moments: what LoQuery writes for you, and what it refuses to run without you.
- Direct Research
- Discovery
- Analytical Soon
Domains you specify are negated in every search, vetoed in ranking and scoring, and dropped from the fetch queue. If a starved run falls back to one anyway, the result carries a caveat saying so.
Sources here are real; scores and attempt counts are illustrative until a session capture lands.
You asked forAerial incidents over Canada or the Great Lakes that a government or military body formally investigated
Strike anything that does not belong. Nothing is researched until you proceed, so this is the cheapest place in the whole run to be strict.
- Top 10 Canadian UFO cases A page heading, not a thing you could research.
- Wilbert Smith A person. The query asked for incidents.
- Manitoba A location. Rejected at the metadata pre-filter.
- Library and Archives Canada An institution, and one of the sources being read.
Sources here are real; scores and attempt counts are illustrative until a session capture lands.
Watch the full run these steps come from, step by step →
The extension
Individuals and smaller teams
Your browser does the fetching, so there is no search bill to pass on.
Works in tandem with the LoQuery app, in early access. Sign up and we open it to you.
Server-side
Larger commercial deployments
Managed deployments we set up with you directly, for teams that need the searching off their own machines.
A conversation, then a deployment shaped to your team.
Being agreed with feels exactly like being right
The agreement is trained. Optimising on human feedback rewards answers that match what the reader already believes, and five leading assistants were measured doing it consistently. A citation attached to an answer that flexes does not fix it, and neither does accuracy.
A professional has the training to catch that answer. A student does not, and the habit of checking never forms. LoQuery is built for that student.
Identical in both I'm researching the 1953 Kinross incident over Lake Superior, where an F-89 interceptor…
Asked open
disappeared while pursuing an unidentified object. Why was it never satisfactorily explained?
“The 1953 Kinross incident remains unexplained and heavily debated because no physical wreckage was ever recovered…”
- Reasons for Lack of Resolution
- Doubts Regarding the Official Account
Asked closed
crashed during a routine intercept. What is the accepted explanation, and why do researchers consider the case closed?
“The accepted explanation for the 1953 Kinross incident is that the F-89C Scorpion jet suffered a fatal spatial disorientation or crash into Lake Superior…”
- Accepted Explanation
- Why Researchers Consider the Case Closed
The fact that moved
Canada denied that the aircraft the F-89 was sent to intercept was ever theirs.
Present listed under Doubts, with the detail that Sudbury's airport was closed and under construction at the time.
Not mentioned the same target appears as “later identified by the U.S. Air Force as an off-course Canadian C-47”, and the denial does not appear anywhere.
Both answers cite real sources and both are defensible on their own. The premise changed and so did the question, and the second run was made in a private window so no history carried over. Both quotations are abridged, and the openings are verbatim.
Every cell carries the source it came from
A chatbot's two minutes look like saved time. The checking it left out is still yours to do, claim by claim, or yours to risk. LoQuery attaches every source to one claim, so you can check that claim without reading everything the run read. A bibliography cannot do that. The Lake Michigan row came back empty. The 1994 reports are a cluster of sightings across several towns, so no single incident record resolves, and the row says that rather than filling itself in.
Aviation incidents are just what this run happened to be about. There is no list of supported subjects and no template to pick. LoQuery writes the configuration from your question, and the six domain shortcuts it once shipped with were deleted rather than extended.
| Item name | Score | Verdict | Why | Caveats | Date | Official explanation | Primary source | Still unexplained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinross incident 2 attempts | 0.71 | confirmed with caveats | Score 0.71; a USAF determination is on record and is contested, and no government or military file establishing it was located: the safety board's analysis, findings and recommendations were withheld under FOIA. | source_contested uncalibrated_authority_domain | 23 November 1953 aviation-safety.net/wikibase/161691 | USAF: the F-89C was tracking an off-course RCAF C-47 and was lost over Lake Superior en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla | None located. The safety board's findings were withheld under FOIA; ASN WikiBase entry 161691 is user-submitted, not the USAF report aviation-safety.net/wikibase/161691 | No. A determination was issued, and the pilot of the RCAF flight named in it, Gerald Fosberg, denied being intercepted en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla |
| Shag Harbour incident 1 attempt | 0.82 | confirmed with caveats | Score 0.82; the located source for the records field is a curated research list rather than the investigating agency's own file, so its only record-group holdings are RG77, National Research Council records, rather than the RCMP or DND file the question asked about. | uncalibrated_authority_domain | 4 October 1967 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident | No determination reached; investigated by the RCMP and Canadian Forces en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident | A Library and Archives Canada research list; its only record-group holdings are RG77, National Research Council bac-lac.gc.ca/…/list/43130 | Yes. No conclusion was reached en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident |
| Lake Michigan 1994 incident 3 attempts | 0.18 | mismatch | Low score (0.18); zero of 2 evidentiary field(s) filled. The 1994 reports are a cluster of sightings across several towns, so no single incident record resolves. | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found |
Confidence chips indicate model certainty, not factual correctness. Verify critical decisions before acting on results.
Sources here are real; scores and attempt counts are illustrative until a session capture lands.
Educators and researchers, one tool
Educators
Handing in the table is no longer the assignment, so students open three of its sources and show where LoQuery got it wrong.
Researchers and analysts
Profile a category of entities with LoQuery and come away with a table you can defend line by line when somebody asks where a number came from.
Teachers will adopt this for a single unit without needing anything from their district.
Six stages, so you can steer the run
Every run moves through the same six stages, and the workbench shows which one is working right now. That matters because you can correct a run at the point it goes wrong rather than reading the finished answer and working out where it drifted. Exclude a source, set the standard a verdict is held to, or overrule one, without starting again.
Three decisions make that possible: search runs from your browser today, the work splits into small checked steps, and LoQuery writes its own instructions for every question.
- Discovery
- Orchestr.
- Task Giver
- Query Help
- Task Doer
- Evaluator
Evaluator Low score (0.18); zero of 2 evidentiary field(s) filled. The 1994 reports are a cluster of sightings across several towns, so no single incident record resolves.
Sources here are real; scores and attempt counts are illustrative until a session capture lands.