In November of 2004, the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group was engaged in training exercises off the coast of San Deigo. Radar chief Kevin Day says he was seeing objects moving erratically and eventually was able to have a couple of jets scrambled to take a look. The pilots were Wing Commander David Fravor and Alex Dietrich. They also had weapons systems officers (often called wizzos). When they arrived, they saw an area where the water was disturbed. One of them said it looked like something had just submerged. Over the area of disturbed water, there was a white object. Fravor said it was about the size of his aircraft, which was about 40 feet long. He said it was lozenge-shaped, like a giant white Tic Tac. Fravor had Dietrich stay behind as he went in for a closer look. He said the object reacted to his approach and reoriented itself. When he tried to get behind it, it took off at a very high rate of speed.
After their return, another pilot, Chad Underwood, said he was going to get a video of the object. His aircraft was equipped with a Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera. He actually did see something during his flight and captured this short video, which is referred to simply as the FLIR video.
As a former Navy Aviation Electronics Technician, I am particularly interested in hearing from the sailors who worked in the avionics shop on the USS Nimitz during the âTick Tackâ incident. Their firsthand knowledge of the FLIR equipment involved could provide valuable insights into the event.
I would also welcome any Avionics Technicians who maintained FA-18s to share their experiences. Although my expertise lies in maintaining the MH-60S and SH-60F, which have a similar FLIR system but are mounted differently on helicopters compared to fighters, I believe that a diverse range of perspectives from individuals with various maintenance backgrounds can greatly contribute to understanding the complexities of the âTick Tackâ incident.
I was impressed by the thorough analysis of the video footage in the recent Nova episode, but I was disappointed that no one with a maintenance background was included in the discussion. I feel that the technical knowledge and experience of those who work hands-on with these systems could provide crucial information and context for understanding such events.
There are several things I find interesting about this case. First of all, there was no concern of Naval leadership at the time of the event. Multiple objects on radar for a period of days, the video, and âthe chaseâ, But after that there was no appetite to pursue an investigation or to determine what had been stationary in the airspace of an aircraft carrier strike group. Why was this? Why was there no quest for answers and no concern that UAP with this demonstrated capability was operating uninhibited near the coast of the United States? It took over 10yrs before it was even talked about. What makes this even more intriguing and is my second observation is that there were multiple cutting edge sensors that held the same radar contact and tracking data. I knew serval people who were eye witness to this event aboard the cruiser PRINCETON and all confirmed that there were multiple stationary objects on radar at specific altitudes for days and remained there until the jet went to investigate. Numerous ships and aircraft all held radar track data (on at least 3 separate shipboard radar systems SPY-1, SPS-49, SPS-48 and 4 different classes of ship) and then the aircraft radar and flir. This many corroborative sensors has to be the best kinematic data ever on a UAP, but none of it was saved or catalogued. Not that anyone directed them not to, it just was deemed unnecessary at the time or no one thought to do so. My final observation and one that could be its own post is the fact that the UAP submerged to escape. This is astonishing in itself. There have been reports of object submerging and reemerging into the air from sea around southern Californian for decades (I didnât take the time to add references) but they are clearly related.
Thank you for the insight and context. I agree about the lack of forethought regarding saving data. I do think that an additional post about submerged and transmedium objects is warranted.
I think the lack of concern is consistent with many military sightings I have spoken to witnesses about. It is also consistent with Col. John Alexanderâs research looking into military encounters. He expected to find secret keepers, but instead found a tendency to ignore this kind of thing. I have interviewed Kevin Day several times, the radar chief on the Princeton, and he says it was hard to get them to take the readings seriously.
As for the object submerging. Where do you see that? The witnesses didnât say they saw it emerge from the water. They also say it sped off into the distance.
Interesting reading materials, thank you! I have a question about the Executive Summary report that is on the reference list: who has written it and where was it originally published?
Great question. It was originally posted on the KLAS 8 News website by George Knapp, who is close with AAWSAP and UAPTF. I have asked around. Knapp could not share more than he did in the article. On the record in an interview Lue Elizondo told me it was made by the military for the military. He would not confirm any more details.
Also, I think it is best to look at the video and the Nimitz Tic Tac as two separate incidents/events. Nimitz is perhaps, imho, the one of the best recent anecdotal based cases, but we have no sensor data to help us understand what the object was. The Navy FLIR video is sensor data, but doesnât seem to have enough data to confirm anything anomalous or to confirm it was the same or similar object. Underwood says he never saw it with his eyes, so we just have this heat signature.
There is a couple of references in this doc to craft hovering above/disturbing the water and a sonar contact going 500 knots. Iâll look up the page and para numbers before the discussion.
There is one witness who claims there was a sonar contact at some point, but the executive summary says there wasnât. During the Tic Tac incident the witnesses say there was some sort of effect on the water, but they did not witness the object going in or out of the water.
As for the Navy FLIR video, it is a good anecdotal case given this claim by Underwood. Too bad we donât have any of the radar data.
