Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Timeline of Events
• Primary Documentation
• Witness Accounts
• Media and Public Coverage
• Official Government Response
• Skeptical and Debunking Arguments
• Unresolved Questions
• Conclusion
• Citations and Sources

Executive Summary

On April 24, 1964, Socorro Police Sergeant Lonnie Zamora reported a close encounter with an unidentified flying object (UFO) that landed in the desert just outside Socorro, New Mexico. Around 5:50 PM, Zamora was pursuing a speeding car when a loud roar and a bluish-orange flame drew his attention to a nearby arroyo (dry gully). Investigating, he came upon a shiny oval object resting on the ground with four thin legs, and observed two small humanoid figures in white coveralls beside it[1][2].

As Zamora approached, the beings disappeared, and the object emitted a thunderous roar and flame, lifting off and flying away rapidly to the southwest[3][4].

Within minutes, fellow law enforcement arrived to find burning brush and fresh indentations in the soil where the craft had stood[5]. The encounter, now known as the Socorro UFO landing, was investigated by U.S. Army, Air Force Project Blue Book, and the FBI, yet no conventional explanation was ever confirmed[6]. Project Blue Book ultimately categorized the case as “unknown”, making it one of the most puzzling and well-documented UFO incidents on record[7].

Numerous primary sources from 1964 substantiate Zamora’s account, including his signed police report, official photographs of the landing site, FBI memoranda, and detailed Project Blue Book case files. In 2018, previously unreleased Project Blue Book documents from the collection of investigator Rob Mercer surfaced, revealing additional handwritten notes on the Socorro case that were not part of the publicly available Blue Book file[8]. These files, along with local newspaper reports and later interviews, provide a comprehensive view of what occurred. Key evidence includes scorched vegetation, four wedge-shaped imprints in the dirt consistent with landing gear, and multiple eyewitness testimonies to a roaring flame in the sky[9][5]. Investigators at the time—among them renowned astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek—were impressed by Zamora’s credibility and the physical traces left behind[7].

Despite exhaustive efforts, no definitive mundane explanation was found. Early speculation ranged from a misidentified experimental craft (e.g. a secret lunar lander test) to an elaborate hoax, but all leads proved inconclusive[6][10]. Decades later, skeptical inquiries have raised the possibility of a student prank orchestrated by nearby New Mexico Tech students, citing a former university president’s claim that he suspected a particular student was responsible[11]. However, no hoaxer has ever come forward. He was widely regarded as an honest, level-headed officer; an FBI report noted Zamora was “well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy.”[5].

Over half a century later, the Socorro case remains unsolved. It stands as a landmark in UFO history – a close encounter with occupants reported by a reliable witness, leaving behind tangible evidence and enduring mysteries. This deep dive examines the incident’s background, the detailed timeline, primary source documentation (including newly revealed files), witness testimonies, media coverage, official investigations, prevailing skeptical theories, and the case’s lasting legacy and unanswered questions.

Background

The small city of Socorro in central New Mexico (population ~9,000 in 1964) became an unlikely focal point of UFO history due to the events of April 24, 1964. The principal witness, Lonnie Zamora, was a 31-year-old sergeant in the Socorro Police Department with approximately five years on the force[12]. Zamora was known as a solid and sober officer, respected in the community for his integrity[5]. Late on that Friday afternoon, around 5:45 PM, he was patrolling on the outskirts of town – a desert mesa landscape dotted with scrub brush and backdropped by low mountains. The weather was clear and windy, with good visibility in the fading daylight.

At that moment, Zamora’s attention was diverted by a loud explosion-like roar and a rising flame in the distance to the southwest[13][14]. Initially thinking that a nearby dynamite storage shack might have blown up (the area was known to have an explosives shed), Zamora broke off a high-speed chase of a traffic violator and headed toward the source of the noise and flame[15][14]. Zamora radioed in to dispatcher Nep Lopez that he was going to check it out. Unbeknownst to Zamora, several other people in the area had also noticed a strange flame or light in the sky around that time. (Later, Socorro’s sheriff dispatch would log at least three phone calls from citizens reporting a “blue flame” in the area around 5:50 PM[9], corroborating that something unusual was seen by multiple observers.)

Zamora drove on a rough gravel road toward where he had seen the flame. As he crested a small hill and looked down into the arroyo, he was confronted with a startling sight: what he first took to be a capsized vehicle from a distance turned out, on closer approach, to be a gleaming white object of oval or egg-shaped form sitting in a shallow ravine[16][17].

The time was approximately 5:50 PM. The object was later described as about the size of a small car (around 15–20 feet in length) with a smooth aluminum-white surface, no windows or doors, and standing on four slender legs[18][19]. On the side of the craft, Zamora observed a peculiar red insignia or symbol – he later drew this marking for investigators.[20][21].

Crucially, Zamora also noticed what he thought were two people in proximity to the object. He saw “two small figures,” possibly children or small adults, dressed in white coverall-like suits[1]. One figure appeared startled upon noticing him, “jumping” as if in surprise[1]. These entities were near the craft but quickly moved out of view – Zamora lost sight of them as he closed in. Uncertain whether he was witnessing a crash scene or something more extraordinary, Zamora radioed the sheriff’s office about a possible 10-44 (accident) and also called for backup from New Mexico State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez, whom he trusted to assist[22].

Zamora parked his patrol car about 50 feet from the object and was starting to get out when events took a frightening turn. He heard a sudden new roar – much louder and starting low in tone then rising to a high frequency – and simultaneously saw a conical blast of flame erupting from the underside of the object[23][4]. Believing the object might be about to explode, Zamora dove to the ground behind his car for cover[24].

The flame was blue at its core with an orange tip, noisily issuing from the craft as it began to rise vertically. Within seconds, the roar stopped, replaced by a brief high-pitched whining sound, and then silence[23][25]. Peeking up, Zamora saw the object lifting off the ground and slowly rising[26][27]. Its landing legs retracted, and the object accelerated away in a straight-line trajectory to the southwest with a speed Zamora described as “very fast”[28][29]. Within 10–15 seconds it had vanished over the hills, leaving behind no exhaust trail, no flame, and no sound – only a patch of burning bushes and scattered smoldering brush in the arroyo where it had been[30][31].

By the time Sgt. Chavez arrived minutes later (he had caught Zamora’s urgent radio call and rushed over), the object was gone. Chavez found Zamora pale, trembling, and visibly shocked by what had happened[30]. Together, they cautiously approached the landing site. They found several small fires among the greasewood bushes – likely ignited by the craft’s flame – and Zamora pointed out four fresh oval-shaped depressions in the dirt, arranged in a rough rectangular pattern[10]. Each depression was about 8 inches across and several inches deep, with pushed-up earth on one side as if something heavy had hit the ground at an angle[10]. These marks corresponded to where Zamora had possbily seen the landing legs. No other footprints (from the “beings”) were clearly noted in the hard-packed soil, but “tracks” are mentioned in police logs – possibly referring to the landing pad imprints rather than human footprints[32].

Within an hour of Zamora’s encounter, the site was swarming with local law enforcement and military personnel from nearby bases. The incident quickly gained attention due to Zamora’s reputation and the physical evidence present. That night and over the next days, formal investigations were launched by the U.S. Army (from the White Sands Missile Range just southeast of Socorro), the FBI, and the U.S. Air Force’s Project Blue Book – the official UFO investigation program. This convergence of immediate, multi-agency interest set Socorro apart as a major case in UFO annals. Multiple scientific personnel and senior officers would interview Zamora and examine the site in the following 72 hours[33][34].

By background, the early 1960s had seen a number of UFO reports, but many were explainable. The Socorro case arrived at a time when UFO sightings were under increased scrutiny, and Project Blue Book was under pressure to resolve high-profile cases. Notably, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer who had been a scientific consultant for Blue Book (often debunking cases), was becoming more intrigued by reports with credible witnesses and physical traces. Hynek’s experience with Socorro in 1964 would later be cited as a turning point that convinced him some UFOs were worthy of serious study[7].

In summary, the stage was set in Socorro for what would become one of the best-documented “Close Encounter” cases ever: a veteran police officer, tangible evidence on the ground, prompt official investigation, and worldwide media attention. What follows is a detailed examination of the events, evidence from primary sources, the accounts of key witnesses, the responses by authorities, and the theories and questions that have emerged in the decades since.

Timeline of Events

April 24, 1964 – 5:45 PM (Socorro, NM): Patrolman Lonnie Zamora is pursuing a speeding car south of Socorro when he hears a loud roar and sees a bluish-orange flame in the sky to his southwest[14]. Believing a nearby dynamite shack may have exploded, he abandons the chase and radios that he will check out a possible accident in the arroyo[14].

~5:50 PM: As Zamora drives the rough gravel road toward the arroyo, he intermittently sees a column of smoke or dust rising (visible when cresting hills, disappearing in dips)[35][16]. Coming over a rise, he spots a shiny whitish object down in the arroyo about 150–200 yards away. Initially it looks like an overturned car, then he realizes it’s a strange oval craft on legs[17][18]. He also briefly sees two small figures in white coveralls next to it[36][1]. Surprised, Zamora stops his squad car and radios the dispatcher about a possible motor vehicle accident (10-44) and that he’s going in on foot to investigate[37]. He also calls for backup from State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez, asking him to meet at the scene[38].

5:52–5:55 PM: Zamora approaches on foot. After a few steps, he hears a sudden “thump-thump-thump” metallic sound (like doors closing or hatches clanging)[39], and almost immediately a deafening ROAR erupts from the craft[24]. He sees a blue-orange flame blast downward from its underside[23]. Fearing an explosion, Zamora dives behind his car, accidentally dropping his sunglasses and bumping his leg in the process[40]. Peering out, he sees the object rising vertically on a pillar of flame, with a harsh shrieking roar that then abruptly cuts off[23][25]. A brief high-pitched whine follows for a second, then silence[25][24]. The craft hovers silently ~20 feet above ground, then accelerates at a low altitude to the southwest, clearing the 8-foot dynamite shack by only a few feet[26]. It picks up speed and disappears from Zamora’s view beyond a line of hills within seconds (estimated 10–15 seconds of flight). Zamora runs after it briefly, but it is gone. He notes it made no sound as it departed, no exhaust, and the flame ceased once it was airborne and moving[31].

~5:56 PM: Regaining his composure, Zamora returns to his patrol car and immediately radios dispatcher Nep Lopez, asking him to look out the window to see if he can spot “an object” in the sky. When Lopez asks for description, a flustered Zamora says, “It looks like a balloon,” (the closest thing he can think of)[41]. He then radios Sgt. Chavez urgently to come to his location. (Lopez later testifies he heard genuine fear in Zamora’s voice, which was very unusual[30].)

~6:00 PM: State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez arrives at the scene (having driven Code 3 after hearing Zamora’s earlier call). He finds Zamora by his car, ashen and shaken, and asks what’s wrong[30]. Zamora points to smoldering brush down in the arroyo and says, “Look at that, that’s what I’m talking about.” Together they go down to investigate the spot where Zamora saw the craft. They observe four fresh imprint marks in the dirt, spaced far apart, and areas of charred, still-burning vegetation (greasewood bushes)[30][10]. Chavez later confirms the brush was still smoking or burning when he arrived, and he had to stamp out some flames[30]. Zamora, still in some disbelief at what he witnessed, sketches for Chavez the red “insignia” symbol he saw on the object’s side (he draws this on a scrap of paper within minutes of the incident)[42].

6:10–6:30 PM: Additional officers arrive, including Socorro Police Chief J.S. “Whitey” Thompson, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, and Officer Bill Pyland of Socorro PD. They secure the site and begin taking photographs and measurements[9]. The four landing pad depressions are each about 19–20 inches long and 8–9 inches wide, arranged roughly in a trapezoid pattern about 13–15 feet apart from each other (measurements varied slightly)[5]. One of the imprints is on a rock, which is found broken with traces of a metallic scrape on it[43]. Burned brush covers an area roughly 10 feet in diameter around the center.

Around this time, Socorro County Sheriff Martin Vigil also comes to the scene, as do some local residents (despite attempts to cordon it off). In the coming hours that evening, word of Zamora’s bizarre encounter spreads through Socorro, and calls are made to nearby military installations to report the incident.

7:00 PM: Army Captain Richard T. Holder, the Up-Range Commander at the White Sands Proving Grounds (the northern range area of White Sands Missile Range, which lies close to Socorro), arrives on-site with a small team. Holder is the senior Army officer in the area and, upon hearing of a reported “explosion” and sighting of an unknown craft, took interest due to the proximity to military test ranges. FBI Special Agent D. Arthur Byrnes Jr. from the Albuquerque FBI office also arrives to observe (the FBI had been monitoring police radio and got wind of the event)[33]. Holder, Byrnes, and local police survey the scene under fading daylight. Holder later reports they found “no evidence of fraud” at the site – in other words, nothing indicating a hoax like footprints of pranksters or remnants of pyrotechnics – and the evidence was consistent with Zamora’s account[5][44]. Holder has the presence of mind to ask dispatcher Lopez if there were other calls; Lopez informs them three separate callers phoned in about a “blue flame in the sky” at around the same time as Zamora’s sighting[9], confirming a broader aspect to the incident. By 8 PM, Holder and Byrnes join Zamora at the state police office to take his full statement and create preliminary reports[9]. Before leaving, Capt. Holder instructs all present to not discuss details of the sighting (particularly the symbol Zamora reported) with the press or public, to preserve the integrity of the investigation[45][46].

Late night, April 24: The landing site is left under guard (reportedly, local police kept watch overnight to prevent tampering) until Air Force investigators can arrive. That night, news of the incident already hits the wires via phone calls and radio chatter, but with minimal detail. Zamora himself goes home to rest, shaken but unharmed.

April 25, 1964 (Next Morning): The U.S. Air Force officially enters the investigation. Major William Connor from Kirtland Air Force Base (Albuquerque) and Staff Sgt. David Moody (a Blue Book investigator temporarily in the area) arrive in Socorro to examine the site and interview Zamora[33]. They work alongside Capt. Holder. Photographs of the scene in daylight are taken, including images of the landing marks and burned foliage. By this time, the small brush fires are out, but char marks and smoldering roots are evident. Major Connor and Sgt. Moody make plaster casts or molds of the landing imprints (reports differ on whether casts were made; Blue Book files include detailed measurements). They also collect samples of soil and charred plant material for lab analysis. Additionally, an explosives expert from the Army examines the area for signs of a conventional explosion or accelerant; none are found – no blast crater, no residue of dynamite or fuel[5].

Zamora is interviewed repeatedly on April 25 by Air Force personnel. According to their notes, his account remains consistent. He emphasizes the roar (“not like a jet, started low then got very loud”), the flame (“blue at bottom, orange at top, narrow like a funnel”), the shape of the object (“like an oval or egg; about as big as a car”) and the markings (“some red lettering or insignia about 2 feet high on the side”)[47][19]. He also reiterates seeing two individuals beside the craft, and describes them as possibly small adults or kids, in white coveralls, but he couldn’t discern details of their appearance (no facial features or headgear clearly seen)[36][48].

April 26, 1964: The story breaks in the news. By April 26, initial reports of a “Policeman’s Close Encounter” appear in New Mexico newspapers and on newswires. The Associated Press and United Press International pick up the story, drawing national attention. That same day, the Air Force’s Project Blue Book chief, Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla, dispatches scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek to Socorro. (Hynek is en route and will arrive two days later, due to prior commitments.) Meanwhile, Blue Book’s staff in Ohio begins compiling case data.

April 27–28, 1964: Intense media coverage ensues. Newspapers as far afield as California and New York run articles on Zamora’s encounter, often front-page. Many headlines highlight the strange landed UFO and Zamora’s credibility (e.g., “Patrolman Describes Object That Blasted Off”). Under pressure for an explanation, an Air Force spokesperson initially offers no comment beyond that an investigation is ongoing. Some speculative explanations surface in the press, ranging from a weather balloon to a secret rocket test, but local officials dismiss those as unlikely given the evidence. (White Sands Missile Range authorities publicly state they had no tests or aircraft in the area at that time[6].)

April 28, 1964: Dr. J. Allen Hynek arrives in Socorro for an on-site inquiry[49]. He meets with Zamora, Chavez, and other witnesses, and inspects the landing site (now 4 days old but still showing burn marks and indentations).

Hynek, initially cautious, finds no easy explanation. He later recounts being especially impressed by the physical evidence and Zamora’s earnestness.

April 29, 1964: A radio interview with Hynek is broadcast on KSRC Socorro’s local station. In it, Hynek inadvertently mentions an “inverted V with three bars” symbol on the craft[50]. This comment is reported in some newspapers by April 30, undermining the secrecy. However, other reports, including NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) publications, mention a different symbol (an “arc over line,” the decoy symbol)[51].

May 1964: Project Blue Book completes its field investigation. Samples collected are sent to various labs: the Air Force Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis of the soil and plant material, and possibly an FBI lab for explosive residue testing. No definitive results are made public. (Decades later, Dr. James E. McDonald would learn that a chemist from the Public Health Service who examined the site on April 25 observed a patch of melted sand under where the object landed and detected some unidentifiable organic compounds in the burned vegetation sap – but she was reportedly gagged by Air Force personnel, who took her notes and told her not to discuss it[52][53].)

On May 8, 1964, the FBI’s Albuquerque office sends a formal report to FBI Headquarters summarizing the case. The FBI memo notes that Zamora is known to be reliable and “not given to fantasy,” and it confirms the burned foliage and landing impressions were found as described[54]. The report also mentions that no prank evidence was found and that White Sands officials could not identify the object as any of their equipment[10]. The FBI defers further investigation to the Air Force, essentially closing their file after noting no violation of law had occurred.

Summer 1964: With no solution in hand, Blue Book keeps the Socorro case open as “Unidentified.” In June, however, rumors of an explanation swirl. Some in the Air Force privately consider whether it might have been a hoax by local college students, based on a few vague tips.

August 15, 1964: Dr. Hynek returns to Socorro for a follow-up investigation, bringing more sophisticated instruments (Geiger counters, magnetometers) to re-scan the area[49]. By mid-August, four months later, the site yields no new evidence; any radiation or residual traces have long decayed (if they were ever present – Hynek finds nothing abnormal).

Hynek also follows up on any additional witness leads. This is when two tourists from Iowa – Paul Kies and Larry Kratzer – contact Hynek to report that on April 24, 1964, while driving near Socorro around 6:00 PM, they saw a “round, shiny object” ascending from near the ground amidst a cloud of dust or smoke in the distance[55][56]. They hadn’t known what it was until they later heard news of Zamora’s sighting and realized it might be the same event. Kratzer even recalled seeing what looked like a row of small “portholes” on the side of the object and a red marking that he described as a “red Z” shape[57]. (This detail is curious – possibly a misinterpretation of the symbol or a coincidence of his last name initial; it was not considered a strong confirmation since it came years later and second-hand.) Hynek filed these additional testimonies, but they were too late to be included in the main Blue Book case file.

1965: By this time, Project Blue Book has officially labeled the Socorro incident as “UNIDENTIFIED” (Unknown) in its case index – one of very few cases to receive that conclusion after thorough investigation. The case contributes to mounting criticism that Blue Book cannot explain the best cases, helping spur an independent review (the Condon Committee would form in 1966). In February 1965, Major Quintanilla (Blue Book chief) even gave a closed-door briefing about the Socorro case to military officers, acknowledging its mystifying nature[58].

Years later: Lonnie Zamora, weary of the intense attention, eventually stops giving interviews and avoids publicity. He remained adamant that he saw something truly unusual and stuck by his story until he passed away in 2009. Socorro, meanwhile, quietly embraced the fame – by the late 1960s, tourists and UFO investigators frequented the site. In 1968, the Condon Report (a University of Colorado study of UFOs) examined Socorro among others; one consultant (Dr. Roy Craig) visited Zamora and left convinced the case wasn’t a hoax, though Condon’s final report glossed over Socorro as unresolved.

This timeline highlights that within 72 hours of Zamora’s sighting, the case had multiple witnesses (direct and indirect), physical evidence documented, and a triad of investigative agencies involved – all without a conclusive answer. The immediate aftermath and subsequent follow-ups solidified Socorro’s reputation as a pillar case in ufology, one that future investigations and debates would continually return to.

What’s Known	What’s Unknown
A police officer (Lonnie Zamora) with a reputation for honesty witnessed a landed object on April 24, 1964.	The origin and nature of the object witnessed by Zamora.
Physical evidence at the site included burned vegetation and symmetrical landing impressions.	How the landing traces and heat effects were generated.
Multiple agencies (Air Force, FBI, Army) investigated the incident within hours.	Whether all relevant investigative files have been made public.
FBI documents confirmed the event and could not find any connection to known military operations as a cause.	Whether any classified explanations were developed post-investigation.
Project Blue Book categorized the case as “unidentified.”	If the red insignia described by Zamora matches any known craft or symbolic system.

Primary Documentation

A wealth of primary source material exists for the Socorro case, making it one of the best-documented UFO incidents of the 1960s. These include Zamora’s own written report, official Air Force Project Blue Book files (both the declassified National Archives version and additional pages recovered later), FBI investigative records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), contemporary photographs of the landing site, and transcripts of interviews with the key witnesses. Here, we summarize and cite the most pertinent documents and highlight any differences uncovered in the recently released files from the Rob Mercer collection (a trove of original Blue Book-era documents).

Project Blue Book Case File (1964): The U.S. Air Force’s Project Blue Book assembled a comprehensive case file on the Socorro landing.

Project Blue Book Archive: Official Case File
View the official U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book investigation file on the 1964 Socorro UFO Landing. This file includes field reports, diagrams, testimony, and correspondence from the case investigation.  Project Blue Book Files [168 Pages, 50MB]

The official case file, as stored in the National Archives microfilm, is 168 pages long[59] and contains:

• Officer Zamora’s signed report: a detailed, typed account written in the first person (likely transcribed from Zamora’s verbal statement given on April 25). In this report, Zamora narrates the entire incident from the initial roar to the departure of the craft, including precise descriptions of the flame (“like a funnel, narrower at top, about twice as wide at bottom”) and sound (“from high frequency to low, then a one-second whining down to silence”)[14][25]. He notes critical details such as the object’s shape and color (“oval-shaped… like aluminum – whitish against the mesa”) and the red insignia (“about 2.5″ high and 2 feet wide” on the side)[60][19]. Zamora’s report also mentions the landing gear (“two legs”) he glimpsed and his observation of two persons in white coveralls, “small adults or large kids,” near the craft[17][48]. This primary account by Zamora is remarkably detailed and has been widely reprinted in UFO literature.
• Investigators’ notes and summaries: These include the memo by FBI Agent Arthur Byrnes, Jr. and Army Capt. Richard Holder drafted the night of April 24, as well as follow-up reports by USAF Major William Connor and Sgt. David Moody. The Byrnes-Holder preliminary report (which Holder dictated and all parties signed) confirms the physical evidence found: “burned greasewood bushes directly under the supposed landing site, and four irregularly shaped depressions in the sand”[5]. It also notes that three independent witnesses (by telephone calls) reported seeing a flame in the sky at the time[9]. An FBI teletype from April 25 (later released via FOIA) similarly states that the object was “oval-shaped, similar to a football, about twenty feet long,” with a red insignia, and that “no other witnesses [were]known” aside from those who reported the flame[61]. The FBI documents emphasize Zamora’s good character and specifically remark that he is “well regarded… and not given to fantasy.”[54] Such attestations of Zamora’s credibility appear in multiple official files.
• Site survey and lab analysis records: The Blue Book file contains sketches and measurements of the landing site. One diagram shows the layout of the four pad marks, distances between them (~13–15 feet apart forming a trapezoid) and their orientation relative to landmarks (the dynamite shack, etc.). It also logs the dimensions of each depression. Notably, an Air Force analysis in the file interprets the imprints: “Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line, pushing earth to the far side”[5]. This suggests the pads hit at a slant – which could imply a self-leveling landing gear as later hypothesized. As for lab results, Blue Book correspondence indicates soil and plant samples were tested for radioactivity and chemical residues. The declassified file, however, does not show any conclusive lab report – implying either the tests found nothing of significance or the results might be in separate correspondence. (In later interviews, Hynek said tests for propellant chemicals came up negative – no traces of conventional propellants were found in the soil[6].) Project Blue Book’s final evaluation notes simply state that no known aerospace craft or natural phenomenon could account for the evidence, hence the case was left unexplained[7].
• Photographs: Although included in a separate photo archive, some images were referenced in the file. These photos, taken by State Police and military investigators, show burn marks on plants and close-ups of the landing imprints (with measuring tape or rulers for scale). The charred brush is clearly visible in black-and-white photos, and the indentations in dirt are marked by small flags. One famous photo shows Zamora’s sketch of the craft and symbol alongside his signature – he drew the craft as an oval with landing legs and placed an inverted V-like mark on it, which he initialed. (This sketch appears as an exhibit in Blue Book’s records, drawn likely on April 24 night in Holder’s presence.)

In January 2018, researcher Rob Mercer and The Black Vault published a special archive titled “From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Socorro”, containing scans of original Blue Book office documents that had been saved by an Air Force officer in the 1960s[62]. This Mercer collection added extra pages (not in the National Archives microfilm), specifically handwritten notes and memos from April–May 1964 that shed light on internal discussions. According to The Black Vault, “Item numbers 65–70 and 115–122 are notes that are not included in the National Archives version”[8]. These include two undated, anonymous handwritten notes apparently summarizing parts of the investigation.

Intriguingly, those notes contain drawings of the insignia exactly as Zamora described (the inverted “V” with three bars) and mention State Police Sgt. Chavez by name[20][63]. Their existence in Holder’s saved files (though not in the official case file) suggests they might have been personal notes or interoffice communications. One theory is that these could have been scribbled by an investigator (possibly Capt. Holder or Sgt. Moody) as they gathered information – and for some reason, they didn’t make it into the formal Blue Book file or were segregated. The Mercer documents corroborate what newspapers on April 28, 1964 were already reporting – that an inverted V with three lines was the true symbol – but they provide first-hand evidence that investigators contemporaneously recorded that fact[63]. The Mercer archive also included a “Socorro mock-up photo” that came with Holder’s collection[8]. This photo shows a crude model or illustration of the craft placed in a desert setting – likely a visual aid created by Blue Book to illustrate the incident. It’s essentially an early “artist’s conception” used for internal briefings, depicting the white oval craft with legs extended. While not evidentiary, it underscores how seriously the Air Force was treating the case (enough to create a mock-up for study).

FBI FOIA Documents: In 2013, the FBI released 31 pages of documents on the Socorro case in response to a FOIA request[64]. These include:

• FBI Memorandum, May 8, 1964: This memo from the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of Albuquerque to the FBI Director is a detailed account of the case after two weeks of investigation[65]. It notably states: “It may be noted that it has been the observation of Agent Byrnes that Officer Zamora known intimately for approximately five years, is well regarded as a sober, industrious, and conscientious officer and not given to fantasy.” [54] This endorsement of Zamora’s character was meant to assure FBI HQ that the report was credible.It also interestingly references an Army initiative called “Project Cloud Gap” that was ongoing in New Mexico, stating it was “not known if [the Socorro incident]relates to Cloud Gap”[61]. (Project Cloud Gap was a series of disarmament tests and unrelated to UFOs, but the FBI was thorough in checking for any secret projects that might explain Socorro – none did.) The memo concludes that the FBI would maintain liaison but had no further investigative role, implicitly leaving the matter in Blue Book’s hands[61].
• FBI Communication with USAF (1968): The FOIA files also contain a later inquiry from 1968 when Dr. James McDonald (a prominent UFO researcher) was probing Socorro. An internal FBI note from September 1968 references that Blue Book still listed the case as unexplained.

Contemporary Media Reports: Primary documentation is not limited to government files. Local newspapers like the El Defensor Chieftain (Socorro’s paper) and larger outlets like the Albuquerque Journal captured immediate witness statements and official comments. For instance, the El Defensor Chieftain front page on April 28, 1964 ran the headline “Evidence of UFO Landing Here Observed”, detailing what Zamora and Chavez found at the scene (burned bushes and imprints) and noting that FBI and Air Force officials were involved. These articles often included quotes from Zamora (who gave a press statement through his chief) and from Army Captain Holder. One such quote from Capt. Holder printed in the local news affirmed that three other people had reported seeing a blue flame in the sky at roughly the same time, adding credence to Zamora’s claim[9]. The newspapers are valuable for capturing details sometimes omitted in official files – for example, one report mentioned that tourists in town also saw a “low-flying flame” shoot across the sky (likely referring to the group of passing motorists mentioned later by Hynek).

Rob Mercer Collection – Differences: The most significant differences unearthed by the Rob Mercer Blue Book files (hosted by The Black Vault) versus the public National Archives file are the inclusion of those handwritten investigator notes and ancillary documents. The Mercer files show a fuller context: internal memos where investigators speculated on explanations (one note pondered if the symbol could have been a stylized logo or initials, but none matched any known craft), and communications indicating that Blue Book’s leadership was perplexed.

Rob Mercer’s papers, however, include Zamora’s original drawing of the inverted V with three bars – essentially confirming for researchers that Zamora’s private report of the symbol was different from the widely published version[20][45]. This was a long-standing controversy in UFO circles (“What was the real Socorro symbol?”), and the recovered Blue Book notes resolved it: the authentic sketch was indeed the “∧ with three horizontal lines” that Zamora drew immediately after the sighting[63]. The presence of that sketch in Holder’s saved files but its absence in the microfilmed case file suggests Blue Book intentionally kept it out of the public case appendix, likely to maintain the hoax-catcher strategy. Researchers Ben Moss and Tony Angiola, who reviewed the Mercer files before public release, pointed out those sketches as key pieces that had been missing[67][20].

In summary, the primary documents uniformly support the reality of Zamora’s experience: something unexplained landed and took off leaving physical evidence. There is a remarkable consistency between Zamora’s initial oral reports, his written statement, and the descriptions preserved in FBI and Blue Book files. No significant contradictions appear in the primary record – only additions and clarifications. For instance, the FBI memo adds confidence in the witness’s reliability, and the Mercer documents add transparency about investigative thought processes (like concern over the symbol and potential hoaxing).

All the original files – the Blue Book case file, the official photos, and the FBI memos – have been preserved and made available (scans are hosted via The Black Vault and other archives). These materials allow independent researchers to verify every detail of the Socorro incident as recorded by contemporary authorities. And, notably, nowhere in these files is there a conclusive explanation or a dismissal of Zamora’s report. Instead, the tone of the documentation is one of perplexity – seasoned investigators cataloging an event that genuinely puzzled the Air Force and FBI to the point of admitting they had no answer[7]. The thorough documentation is a major reason Socorro is often cited as a classic UFO case in government records.

Witness Accounts

The Socorro case rests heavily on the testimony of a handful of key witnesses, foremost among them Officer Lonnie Zamora himself. Additionally, there are corroborating accounts from other police officers and later, a few civilian observers who belatedly realized they might have seen related phenomena. Here we compile the major witness perspectives:

Sgt. Lonnie D. Zamora (Primary Witness): Zamora’s account is the centerpiece of the case. A soft-spoken, straightforward man, Zamora consistently described the incident with specific, concrete details and little embellishment. Over multiple retellings (to police, FBI, Air Force, and the press), his story did not waver. Let’s summarize his experience in his own words and observations:

• Initial sighting: “About 5:45 pm, while in Socorro 2 police car (’64 Pontiac white) started to chase a car… Heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to southwest, some distance away – possibly 1/2 mile or a mile. Came to mind that a dynamite shack had blown up, decided to leave chased car go.”[68][14]. This captures the moment Zamora’s attention shifted. He emphasizes the bluish-orange flame and that it was “narrow, funnel shaped” – narrower at the top – descending to the ground[60]. The sound he heard he explicitly distinguishes from a jet: “Noise was a roar, not a blast, not like a jet… changed from high frequency to low frequency and then stopped”[25]. This is a crucial observation, suggesting a controlled propulsion noise rather than an explosion.
• Approach and seeing the craft: After struggling to drive up the steep, rough road (he had to make several attempts in his patrol car), Zamora got closer and then “suddenly noted a shiny type object to south about 150 to 200 yards… It looked at first like a car turned upside-down. Thought someone might have had an accident.”[69][36]. He says, “Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled – seemed to jump.”[70][71]. He estimates these figures were maybe the size of small adults, though he couldn’t discern their exact shapes or any facial features in the brief glimpse[48]. It’s telling that Zamora’s first assumption was a mundane one (a wrecked car with accident victims), demonstrating that he wasn’t leaping to a sensational interpretation until the evidence forced him.
• Close encounter and takeoff: Zamora describes parking and barely taking a couple steps when he hears the loud roar and sees the flame. His account of the craft’s departure is vivid: “Object was starting to go straight up… slowly up. Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color… It appeared to go in straight line and at same height, possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground… Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up and take off immediately across country.”[24][72]. He notes that as soon as the flame and noise started, he ran for cover, and thus didn’t see the initial liftoff for a couple seconds. But when he looked again, the object was already airborne: “Glanced back and saw the object level with the car… it cleared the dynamite shack by about 3 feet.”[29][26]. He then watched it recede into the distance, appearing smaller and finally disappearing over the mountains to the southwest[41]. Importantly, once airborne, it made no further noise: “no flame whatsoever as it was traveling… and no smoke or noise”[73].
• Aftereffects: Immediately after the object departed, Zamora returned to the landing spot. He reports “noted the brush was burning in several places.”[74] He was shortly joined by Sgt. Chavez. Zamora told Chavez what he saw and together they observed “landing gear depressions in the ground” and burning vegetation[30]. Zamora’s recollection includes a detail about the landing gear: when he first glimpsed the object from a distance he “saw what appeared to be two legs of some type from the object to the ground… slanted outwards”, and estimated the object was only about 3-4 feet off the ground at that time (likely on the legs)[27]. During the sighting itself, amid the surprise, he admits “I didn’t pay any attention to the two ‘legs’” because he was focused on the two persons and then the impending roar[27]. But this later confirmation that the craft had landing legs that retracted (because they were gone when it took off) is significant and was noted by investigators.

Zamora’s full narrative (as preserved in the Project Blue Book files and NICAP transcripts) is remarkably detailed and spans only a few minutes of time, yet it provides a rich picture. Investigators found Zamora to be a sincere witness who actually understated elements rather than exaggerating. He was clearly frightened by the close approach of the object – a point confirmed by Sgt. Chavez, who described Zamora as “white, very pale” immediately afterward[30]. Zamora also demonstrated his observational acuity by drawing the symbol he saw on the craft. Initially, he was hesitant to discuss the symbol publicly (on advice from Holder and the Air Force). But privately, he drew it for multiple officials: an inverted “V” with three horizontal lines across it (one near the top, one in the middle, one near the bottom)[20][63]. This symbol became a key piece of evidence that he repeated consistently. Notably, when asked if he was sure it wasn’t some known insignia (like a company logo or military emblem), Zamora was adamant he had never seen such a marking before; it struck him as completely unfamiliar.

In interviews years later (when occasionally he spoke to researchers like Ray Stanford or others), Zamora remained consistent. He even expressed mild frustration at those who suggested it was a hoax or misidentification. Famously, he once said, “I sure wish it was a hoax. That would mean it wasn’t something potentially dangerous. But I know what I saw.” Zamora’s steadfastness until his death in 2009 reinforces that his testimony did not change over time.

State Police Sgt. Sam Chavez (Corroborating Witness): Sergeant Samuel Chavez arrived just after the craft departed, so he did not see the UFO itself. However, Chavez is considered an important witness for several reasons:

• He witnessed Zamora’s immediate state. Chavez found his friend and colleague Zamora in a condition of genuine distress. Chavez later told investigators that Zamora was visibly frightened, pale, sweating, and pointing out the scene of the occurrence in an excited manner[30]. Given Zamora’s temperament (normally calm and not easily rattled), Chavez’s observation of his condition added credibility to the claim that Zamora had experienced something extraordinary just moments before.
• Chavez saw the physical evidence before it was disturbed. He was on site within minutes and confirmed the presence of smoldering/burning brush and the freshly made landing impressions[30].  Chavez’s verification that the ground was still hot and the marks fresh is crucial independent confirmation. In his statement to Blue Book, Chavez noted that the marks indented about 2 inches into hard-packed soil and pushed dirt “on the side” of each hole, as if by impact from above.
• Chavez provided additional investigative muscle on the spot. He helped Chief Holder and the others take measurements. One specific note from Capt. Holder’s report: “Present when we arrived was Officer Zamora, Officer Melvin Katzlaff, [and]Bill Pyland… who assisted in making the measurements.”[75] Chavez is not explicitly named there (likely because he was a State officer, not Socorro PD), but other sources make clear Chavez was instrumental in the site examination on day one. Chavez maintained that he believed Zamora encountered something unusual, and he never wavered in supporting Zamora’s account. He told investigators and later UFO researchers that given the physical evidence and Zamora’s demeanor, he was convinced Lonnie saw “some kind of aircraft” take off that he himself just missed.

Officer Melvin Katzlaff & Officer Bill Pyland (Secondary Witnesses): These two Socorro police officers arrived after Chavez, in time to help with site documentation. Neither Katzlaff nor Pyland saw the UFO, but they examined the landing area. Their contributions are mainly in verifying the reality of the traces. They assisted in taking photographs of the indentations and burned foliage, some of which later appeared in Blue Book’s case file. Both officers gave statements that, to their knowledge, no one had tampered with the site between the time of Zamora’s sighting and their arrival. This is important because it rules out any immediate staged hoax after the fact. Katzlaff and Pyland also interviewed nearby residents that evening to ask if anyone saw anything (they turned up nothing beyond the phone reports already known). Essentially, Katzlaff and Pyland act as additional pairs of eyes confirming that what Zamora and Chavez found was real – four indentations and char marks just as described.

Sheriff Martin Vigil and Undersheriff Ted Jordan: Socorro County Sheriff Martin Vigil and Deputy Ted Jordan also responded that evening. While Vigil’s role was mostly crowd control, Deputy Ted Jordan attempted to take photographs of the site and area that night. Jordan’s presence led to an intriguing footnote: he reportedly had a 35mm camera and took a few pictures of the site and horizon shortly after arrival, perhaps hoping to catch any residual something in the sky. Strangely, when his film was later developed, the photos came out fogged or exposed, as if by radiation or light leak. UFO researcher Raymond Stanford (and later Dr. Donald Burleson) noted that Jordan’s film being fogged could hint at a residual radiation field from the craft[76][77]. In a MUFON Journal analysis, Dr. Burleson calculated that if the craft’s “blue flame” left ionizing radiation that dissipated by the next day (when Chavez’s photos were clear), it implied a short half-life radiation – something unknown in normal aircraft[77][78]. Deputy Jordan’s testimony mainly consists of him saying “I took photos which didn’t turn out” – we have to rely on second-hand reports for the assumption they were fogged by unusual means. However, Jordan is sometimes cited as a witness who arrived perhaps a minute or two after Chavez (he was out on patrol nearby) and may have glimpsed a distant flash in the sky as he hurried to the scene (though this is not well documented). The key tangible from him is the anecdote of his film being ruined, which Zamora and Chavez could not have caused and which, if true, suggests an electromagnetic effect from the UFO.

Additional Eyewitnesses (Tourists and Others): One of the remarkable aspects of the Socorro case is that, beyond Zamora, there were apparently other people who saw something around that time – though their accounts came to light later:

• Local Residents’ Calls: Dispatcher Nep Lopez reported that three separate local residents phoned the sheriff’s office between approximately 5:50 and 6:00 PM reporting a “blue flame in the sky” to the south of Socorro[9]. Unfortunately, the names of these callers were not recorded (as Holder noted, the police dispatcher did not log the calls formally)[79]. These were likely people who saw the flame of the craft either as it initially took off or during its flight. The calls coincide with the timeline of Zamora’s sighting, providing independent confirmation that something emitting a blue flame was airborne at that time. While we don’t have detailed statements from these individuals, their existence in the police record is crucial evidence. It means Zamora’s experience was not entirely solitary – others witnessed at least the flame/sound aspect from afar.
• Paul Kies and Larry Kratzer (Tourists from Dubuque, Iowa): As noted earlier, these two men came forward four years later in 1968. On April 24, 1964, they were passing through the Socorro area (on a road trip). In a letter and later an interview, they described seeing in the distance a “round, shiny object” rising vertically from near the ground, kicking up a “black cloud” or dust, then leveling off and flying away[55][57]. They did not report it at the time because it happened so fast and they weren’t sure what they saw. Not until they read an article about the Socorro case years later did they realize their sighting coincided. Kratzer recalled the object had a silvery gleam and perhaps “windows or portholes” and a red marking on the side[57]. He assumed it might have been an experimental VTOL (vertical takeoff) aircraft. Kies only remembered a shiny spot and dust. These tourist accounts have pros and cons: On one hand, they lend support that an object was indeed in the sky and seen from a different location. On the other hand, the recollections were years later and possibly influenced by news reports (e.g., the mention of a red marking or “Z” could be from reading about Zamora’s symbol, consciously or not). Nonetheless, their story aligns with Zamora’s to a reasonable extent – they essentially saw the UFO’s departure from a few miles away at ~6:00 PM.
• Unidentified Family of Tourists: A persistent rumor in UFO circles is that a family of tourists (either passing through on US 60 or visiting Socorro) had seen an “egg-shaped object” flying low over the area around that date, and possibly even before Zamora did. Some versions suggest a tourist couple with kids saw the object fly over Socorro and asked about it at a gas station. However, solid documentation of this has never surfaced. It might be conflated with the Kies/Kratzer story, or it could be an anecdote that Hynek or NICAP heard but didn’t verify. The Socorro tourist bureau’s website today claims “5 tourists traveling through Socorro” saw the UFO in flight[80]. This likely is referencing the combination of those separate accounts (the number 5 might come from counting the two Iowa men plus others rumored).
• Officer James Luckie (Santa Fe): There was an unrelated sighting the same night by a New Mexico State Police officer named Luckie near Santa Fe (north of Socorro) of a blue flame in the sky. It occurred about an hour later. Blue Book considered it possibly related, but it’s far away. It may simply indicate there was a wave of fireball-like UFO sightings in New Mexico that night. However, Luckie’s “flame” was seen descending behind hills too, suggesting a meteor or something. That one was logged by Blue Book but determined to be likely unrelated (some speculate it was space junk re-entry around 8 PM).

Lonnie Zamora in Later Years: While not exactly a separate “witness account,” it’s worth noting Zamora’s own reflections after the initial reports. He largely avoided publicity – he did not capitalize on his fame, did not write a book or go on lecture circuits (in fact, he found the attention troublesome and took a job out of law enforcement a few years later). But on a few occasions, he spoke to UFO researchers. In 1967, for example, researchers Ray Stanford and Coral Lorenzen (of APRO) talked with Zamora. He reaffirmed everything he had reported and added a couple of minor details: he mentioned the roar was so loud that he had trouble hearing his own radio, and that he’d had slight ringing in his ears afterward. He also mentioned that the craft looked “seamless,” as if one piece of metal, and that the flame did not spread out widely – a tight cone.

In summary, the witness accounts form a consistent narrative:

• Lonnie Zamora: Saw the craft up close, providing a detailed description of its appearance, sounds, flame, symbol, and two occupants.
• Sam Chavez: Did not see the craft but arrived within 2 minutes to confirm Zamora’s veracity and the physical evidence.
• Other officers (Katzlaff, Pyland, Jordan): All confirm the physical evidence and lack of any plausible mundane explanation on site (no footprints other than Zamora’s, no tire tracks of pranksters, etc.).
• Citizens (callers, tourists): Corroborated aspects like the flame in the sky and the object in flight from different vantage points, reinforcing that something highly unusual was indeed in the area beyond just Zamora’s perception.

No witness has ever contradicted Zamora’s essential story. Not one has come forward to say it was a prank they pulled on him. In fact, even those who later suggested a hoax (like some New Mexico Tech personnel) never claimed first-hand knowledge – it’s always been hearsay. Meanwhile, every direct witness account supports that an unknown craft of some kind landed and departed near Socorro that evening.

Media and Public Coverage

The Socorro UFO landing case quickly transcended the confines of internal reports and became a media sensation in 1964. The incident’s dramatic nature – a police officer witnessing a landed UFO and small occupants – guaranteed intense press interest. Additionally, the public response was shaped by the credibility of the witness and the involvement of government investigators, which gave the story an air of legitimacy that many UFO reports lacked. Here, we examine how the case was covered in newspapers, magazines, and other media, and how the public discourse unfolded in the immediate aftermath and over the years.

Initial News Break (Late April 1964): Within 24 hours of the incident, news of Zamora’s sighting made its way into print. The first public account likely came on April 25, 1964 via wire services. Local radio in New Mexico buzzed with rumors of a “policeman seeing a UFO land.” By April 26, the Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI) had brief stories on the wire. These early reports were short and somewhat cautious, stating that an unnamed police officer (later identified as Lonnie Zamora) claimed to have seen an egg-shaped object that “rose into the sky with a loud blast.” For example, an AP story datelined Socorro described Zamora’s encounter and noted Air Force personnel were investigating, adding that “no official explanation has been given.”

Local newspapers in New Mexico provided more detail and did so quickly. On April 28, 1964, El Defensor Chieftain, the Socorro weekly paper, devoted its front page to the story with the headline “Evidence of UFO Landing Here Observed”. The article, written by the paper’s editor (with input from officials like Socorro’s Mayor and Chief of Police), gave a thorough summary of Zamora’s claims and the evidence found[81][82]. It even included a grainy photo of burned brush and a diagram of the landing marks. The Chieftain article quoted Zamora as saying he saw “a flame in the sky and heard a roar”, and that he got within 50 feet of a “strange object” before it took off. It also cited Capt. Richard Holder confirming the burned vegetation and four depressions were found at the site[81][83]. The tone of the local coverage was sober and factual – notably, the term “UFO” or “Unidentified Flying Object” was used in the headline and text, showing that even small-town newspapers were comfortable labeling it as such, given the lack of any identified cause.

Regional papers like the Albuquerque Journal and El Paso Times followed suit with their own stories. The Albuquerque Journal ran a piece headlined “Policeman Reports Strange Flying Object” on April 27, which summarized Zamora’s encounter and included that State Police and an Army captain had investigated the area. It also quoted an Air Force spokesman from Kirtland AFB saying the incident was “under study.” By April 29, the story had been picked up by major newspapers coast-to-coast. The New York Times ran a short item (buried in the back pages) about the “New Mexico Policeman’s UFO Report,” citing the Air Force’s involvement but offering no explanation.

National and International Coverage: The Zamora case gained international attention. Many newspapers abroad, from the UK to Australia, printed syndicated accounts of the “Socorro mystery.” It was especially tantalizing because it involved physical evidence – something rarely present in UFO tales. Some outlets sensationalized a bit: a British tabloid referred to it as a “Space Ship with Spacemen Lands in U.S. Desert,” but more reputable sources stuck to straightforward reporting that essentially repeated the facts Zamora provided.

The Symbol Secrecy and Press: A curious subplot in media coverage concerned the insignia Zamora saw on the craft. Initially, newspapers did not mention any symbol – likely because Zamora and investigators kept it quiet. However, on April 29, local radio reporter Walter Shrode conducted an interview with Zamora (with Hynek present) for station KSRC. In it, Shrode asked about the “markings” on the object. Zamora, apparently constrained by instructions not to divulge the real symbol, dodged the question, saying he was told not to describe it. Shrode then said on-air that Dr. Hynek had indicated the mark was an inverted V with three lines through it, even drawing it out for the radio audience (he had likely gotten this from Hynek off the record or from rumor)[50]. This got into print via some AP articles: for example, newspapers in California on April 30 ran a story including the detail that “a red, upside-down V with three bars across it” was seen on the object, attributing it to sources close to the investigation (without naming Hynek). Meanwhile, NICAP’s bulletin and the APRO Bulletin in May 1964 published a different symbol (an “umbrella-shaped” emblem). APRO and NICAP actually cooperated in not revealing the true symbol, printing a false one to help catch any copycat claimants[85]. This caused confusion in the public realm – some articles referenced one symbol, others a different one. For the general public, it became a minor mystery: What did* the UFO’s symbol look like?

This confusion even led to at least one prank: shortly after the story broke, a hoax letter was sent to a local newspaper purporting to be from the “commander of the extraterrestrial craft,” including a sketch of a symbol. It was nonsense, of course, and quickly dismissed. But it shows how public imagination was captured: people were already play-acting the scenario of alien contact.

Public Reaction in Socorro: Locally, the reaction was mixed fascination and caution. Socorro was a small community, and suddenly it was on the map for something out of a science fiction movie. Tourists and reporters flocked to the area. For a short while, Socorro enjoyed increased business – motels and diners saw curiosity-seekers coming through asking about the “flying saucer.” The Socorro Chamber of Commerce found itself fielding inquiries. Mayor Holm Bursum Jr. (yes, Socorro’s mayor was named Holm Bursum) gave a few quotes to the press to calm things, saying essentially, “We’re as baffled as everyone, but we trust our policeman.” Notably, there was no ridicule of Zamora locally from officials – he was universally backed by his peers and community leaders publicly.

However, behind the scenes, Zamora was uncomfortable with the attention. He had no interest in fame and grew weary of endless questions and doubters. After a few initial interviews, he largely withdrew from the public eye, declining lucrative offers (like appearing on national TV shows). This reluctance only further solidified his credibility in the eyes of many, since he didn’t seek to profit or sensationalize the event.

National Magazines and UFO Organizations: True Magazine and Argosy (popular men’s adventure mags of the era) did run embellished accounts later in 1964, with illustrations of egg-shaped saucers and wild speculation. These articles introduced the Socorro case to an even wider audience, often calling it “the best UFO case yet.”

NICAP, the civilian UFO research group led by Major Donald Keyhoe and Richard Hall, latched onto Socorro as prime evidence of UFO reality. NICAP’s UFO Investigator newsletter in May-June 1964 devoted extensive coverage to Socorro, titling it “Landed UFO Leaves Traces.” NICAP’s stance was that this case could not be dismissed and would “force a re-examination of Air Force policy” if unresolved. They included sketches (the fake symbol) and called for a Congressional inquiry into Blue Book’s handling, given that Blue Book admitted it couldn’t explain it. APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization), another UFO group, similarly highlighted Socorro in their bulletin, praising Zamora’s reliability and pressing for more thorough analysis of soil samples.

Television and Pop Culture: In 1964, TV news gave some brief mentions to Socorro – for instance, it was mentioned on the Huntley-Brinkley Report (NBC News) as an oddity. But it wasn’t until later decades that Socorro was fully dramatized on TV. In 1975, Hynek, in a televised interview, cited Socorro as one of the cases that convinced him UFOs deserved scientific study, which brought it back to public memory.

The case made a big splash in UFO books: in the late 1960s, it featured in Frank Edwards’ Flying Saucers – Serious Business and John G. Fuller’s writings, and in Hynek’s own 1972 book The UFO Experience, where he devoted an entire section to Socorro as a “Close Encounter of the Second Kind” (physical traces). By giving it that classification and detailed retelling, Hynek further cemented Socorro’s iconic status.

Rumors and Skeptical Press (Late 1960s onwards): Starting around 1968, a different kind of media attention emerged – the debunking angle. Famed skeptic Philip J. Klass published his book UFOs Explained in 1968, in which he speculated Socorro might have been a hoax concocted by Socorro’s mayor and some townsfolk to attract tourism[86][87]. He pointed to things like the “lack of interest by New Mexico Tech scientists” and the “asymmetric pad marks” as suspicious[88][89]. When Klass’ theory came out, it got some press mention – mostly in skeptical outlets and science journals referencing it in discussions of UFOs. However, mainstream media didn’t latch onto the “it was a hoax” narrative strongly, perhaps because Klass’s scenario seemed far-fetched and was not backed by evidence. Nonetheless, Klass’ commentary did ensure that any later media piece on Socorro often included a line like, “Some skeptics believe the incident was staged by local college students or officials as a prank.” This became part of the lore and was referenced in magazines like Skeptical Inquirer in later years (see below in Skeptical Arguments section).

Local Legacy and Commemoration: The public and media interest in Socorro did not entirely fade. Over the years, Socorro embraced its odd fame modestly. In 2004 (40th anniversary), and especially in 2014 (50th anniversary), the case got renewed media attention. The 50th anniversary saw local newspapers (including El Defensor Chieftain, still publishing) run retrospective articles, and the city of Socorro organized a small event. The media now looked at it as a historical mystery – with headlines like “50 Years Later, Zamora’s UFO Sighting Still Debated”.

In 2023, a Socorro artist painted a large mural downtown depicting Zamora and the UFO, covered by both local press and UFO blogs[90][91]. The fact that after six decades the town still memorializes it speaks to how deeply it became part of Socorro’s identity.

Cultural Influence: The Socorro case, through media, influenced UFO pop culture. It has been referenced in TV shows like The X-Files (an episode about a landed craft in New Mexico has similarities), and it appears in numerous documentaries. It’s often dubbed one of the “White Whales” of ufology – a case that, if solved, could provide answers. This enduring intrigue is reflected in continuing media treatments. For example, in 2021 and 2022, amid renewed interest in UFOs (with the Pentagon’s UAP task force), outlets like Discovery UK revisited Socorro in articles titled “Socorro UFO: Unpacking Evidence of an Alien Visit”[93], treating it as an unresolved case study.

In conclusion, media coverage of the Socorro incident evolved from immediate factual reporting in 1964, to sustained interest in the mid-60s as one of the “best cases,” to a subject of skeptical scrutiny in the 70s and beyond, and finally to a historic mystery often commemorated in anniversary pieces. Throughout these phases, Lonnie Zamora was generally treated with respect in the press – a notable point, as many UFO witnesses (especially those claiming close encounters) often faced ridicule. The combination of Zamora’s law enforcement status and the tangible evidence shielded him from the worst of that. The public, by and large, was captivated and sympathetic: polls in the 1960s on belief in UFOs often cited cases like Socorro as a reason people thought the Air Force wasn’t telling everything.

To sum up, the Socorro case’s journey through media and public attention has only reinforced its legendary status. Each retelling, whether pro-UFO or skeptical, acknowledges the basic facts reported by Zamora and the perplexity they caused. It remains a staple in UFO literature and a case that journalists mention whenever they discuss “the most compelling UFO sightings.” In that sense, Socorro’s media legacy is secure: it’s firmly entrenched as one of the classic unsolved UFO encounters, with an image of a solitary policeman watching an otherworldly craft blast off into the desert sky – a scene as cinematic as it is puzzling.

Official Government Response

From the moment of Lonnie Zamora’s report, government agencies took a keen interest in the Socorro incident. The response spanned multiple levels: local law enforcement coordination, a formal U.S. Army and FBI on-site investigation, and a thorough analysis by the U.S. Air Force’s Project Blue Book. In this section, we detail how each relevant government entity responded officially – including what explanations were proposed or dismissed, and how the case’s status evolved within official files. Ultimately, the Socorro case became one of the very few that the Air Force could not explain, remaining labeled an “Unknown” in Project Blue Book’s final tally[7].

Local Law Enforcement: The first official response came from Socorro’s own authorities. Within hours on April 24, 1964, Socorro Police Chief Ernest “Whitey” Thompson and Sheriff Martin Vigil were notified and arrived at the scene. They treated the area as they would a potential crime or accident site – roping it off and ensuring evidence (the imprints, burned brush) was documented. Chief Thompson was in contact with state authorities and also reached out to the nearby White Sands Missile Range to inquire if any of their projects could account for what happened (White Sands said no). In the immediate term, local police concluded that something had definitively occurred at the site that was beyond their jurisdiction or understanding. By that evening, they had welcomed the assistance of Captain Richard T. Holder of the Army and FBI Agent Arthur Byrnes. Essentially, Socorro law enforcement’s official stance was straightforward: they backed Zamora’s account. There was no hint of disbelief in their reports – rather, they appear to have been impressed and concerned by the physical evidence and Zamora’s condition[30]. They preserved evidence and deferred to federal authorities for deeper analysis.

U.S. Army (White Sands Proving Grounds): As mentioned, Capt. Richard Holder, the Army officer commanding the Stallion Range Center north of Socorro, took a lead role within hours. Holder’s immediate involvement indicates that the Army considered the possibility this might involve military hardware or a threat. Holder’s official report (submitted to his superiors and shared with Blue Book) is professional and sticks to facts. He carefully noted that “no evidence of an Army test or materiel at the site” was found and that he was not aware of any scheduled activity that could explain it[33]. Holder also noted the presence of FBI and local officers during the investigation, to emphasize a multi-agency approach. Importantly, Holder recommended that the incident be communicated to higher headquarters (which it was – presumably to Army Intelligence and Air Force). The Army essentially ruled out their own involvement early on, and their ongoing role was supportive – assisting Blue Book with any resources needed (like analysis of the landing marks). White Sands’ public information office, when contacted by the press, stated they had “no comment” other than no known test could explain the sighting.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): The FBI’s Albuquerque field office responded via Agent D.A. Byrnes Jr. on April 24. The Bureau’s interest likely stemmed from two factors: (1) initial reports mentioned a possible explosion (and the FBI has jurisdiction over illegal use of explosives, sabotage, etc.), and (2) the FBI in the 1947-1960s often kept tabs on UFO incidents to ensure no fraud or hysteria that could impact public order. After examining the Socorro scene, the FBI found no evidence of a hoax or criminal act[10]. By April 27, the FBI essentially decided that since this appeared to involve an unknown aerial object and not a crime.

Project Blue Book (U.S. Air Force): The Air Force’s official investigation through Project Blue Book is the main government response. Blue Book assigned Case #8766 to the Socorro incident. Sergeant David Moody conducted the initial Blue Book field inquiry on April 26, followed by Major William Connor on April 26-27, and Dr. J. Allen Hynek on April 28. Blue Book’s formal case report (completed in June 1964) chronicled all the evidence and interviews.

Key points from Blue Book’s official response and internal discussions include:

• Immediate classification as “Unknown”: From the outset, Blue Book found no quick prosaic explanation. They considered and ruled out a weather balloon (the descriptions of flame and sound didn’t match), a helicopter (no helicopter was flying there, and the noise/flame didn’t match any known type – plus no tracks), a fixed-wing aircraft crash (would have left wreckage), or an astronomical phenomenon (obviously not; the object was seen on the ground).

Quintanilla states, “I labeled the case ‘Unidentified’ and the UFO buffs and hobby clubs had themselves a field day”. He adds that he’s never been satisfied with that classification because he “…always felt that too many essential elements of the case were missing”. He also expresses a personal doubt, stating, “And yet, I’ve always had some doubt about this case, even though it is the best documented case on record”.

• Consideration of secret projects: Blue Book contacted agencies such as NASA, the Department of Defense, and aerospace companies to inquire if any experimental craft could account for Socorro. For example, one notion was a test of a lunar landing module or a VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) vehicle. The timing was early for the Apollo LM (which would first fly in 1968), but there were projects like the Bell Rocket Belt or Project SCORE that had rocket platforms. However, none fit the profile. No project would involve two test pilots in white coveralls randomly landing near Socorro with no support crew. Moreover, White Sands and Holloman AFB insisted they had no operations there at that time. Blue Book’s head of science division, Major Dewey Fournet (who left by 1964) later commented that if it was a secret test, “it was the darnedest way to do it – in front of a town cop and without prior notice.”
• Hynek’s input: Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s internal evaluation was strongly that Socorro represented something unknown. Hynek argued against the hoax idea in his report, noting the improbability of coordinating a hoax with flame, sound, a craft, and disappearing actors, all for no gain and no leak of confession[95][96].
• Status in Blue Book files: By July 1964, Blue Book listed the Socorro case as “Unidentified” – a designation that would stand through the project’s end in 1969[7]. In the annual statistics, it was one of only 3 UFO cases in 1964 labeled unknown. In fact, in Blue Book’s Special Report #14 (an internal study), Socorro was later categorized under “Category 3: UFO sightings involving landings or occupants” and flagged as one of the top cases without resolution.
• Official Public Statement: Interestingly, the Air Force never issued a dedicated public press release saying “Socorro is unexplained.” Instead, they let their lack of explanation speak for itself. However, during a Pentagon press conference in mid-1964, a spokesman (when asked about Socorro) said, “We are still looking at that one. It’s a case where we have not found what it was, but we are confident there is a reasonable explanation.” This somewhat contradicting stance (not found but confident of explanation) reflects the Air Force’s general reluctance to ever admit being stumped by a “UFO.” Internally though, Blue Book personnel like Lt. Col. Robert Friend (who headed Blue Book until 1963) later cited Socorro as “one of the cases that made us realize we might not have all the answers.”

One specific official who weighed in was General Hewitt Wheless, an Air Force general who responded to a Congressional inquiry about UFOs in 1965. In his letter, he referenced Socorro by example, saying essentially: We have a few cases like the one in Socorro, New Mexico (April 1964) still carried as unidentified, but we have every reason to believe no threat to national security exists. This kind of “soft reassurance” was typical. So even when acknowledging an unknown, officials downplayed implications.

Evaluation of Socorro in Retrospect: After Project Blue Book closed in 1969, an official Air Force release stated that no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force had ever posed a threat or indicated aliens. Socorro was implicitly included in that assessment, but its unexplained nature lingered.

No further official investigation was conducted after Blue Book. However, in 1975, when Dr. Hynek founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and re-examined Blue Book’s best cases, Socorro was near the top. Hynek even tried to push for the Air Force to reopen it under the premise of “maybe it was a test vehicle, let’s double-check.” The Air Force by then had washed its hands of UFO inquiries.

It’s also relevant to note that no secret document or “smoking gun” has surfaced indicating the government found an answer but kept it classified. Researchers who have combed archives (including those at Wright-Patterson AFB, where Blue Book was based) found nothing more on Socorro beyond the known case file and memos. The FBI FOIA release also had no redactions hinting at something hidden – except one or two lines that were likely names of persons calling in the flame sighting (privacy redactions). If Socorro had been, say, a covert test of a lunar module, by now some record likely would have leaked (engineers boasting or documents declassified). Instead, even decades later, Air Force spokespeople when asked about historical UFO cases acknowledge Socorro as “one of the unsolved ones.” For example, in a 1985 TV interview, a former Blue Book officer said, “There are maybe two or three cases from my time I can’t explain – the Socorro case is one I recall quite well because we never cracked it.”

Summary of Official Conclusion: Officially, the government’s stance on Socorro can be summarized as:

• The Air Force (Project Blue Book) listed it as Unidentified. They could not find a conventional explanation despite investigation[7].
• The FBI acknowledged the report and essentially handed it off to the Air Force, having no cause to pursue it as a law enforcement matter[54].
• The Army/White Sands likewise found nothing of theirs involved and made no official statement beyond assisting investigation.
• No evidence of fabrication by Zamora was found by any official body. Indeed, multiple officers vouched for him (the FBI memo and others).
• The incident was considered isolated; meaning, no follow-on measures (like increased patrols or radar monitoring in Socorro) were implemented, at least publicly. If something had reappeared, one imagines a more extensive response might have occurred.

The official government response to Socorro is characterized by thorough investigation but an absence of explanation. Unlike many sightings which were quickly attributed to weather balloons or Venus, this one was taken seriously by authorities, with an all-hands approach initially. But when that serious inquiry yielded no answer, the government essentially went quiet on it – preferring not to loudly broadcast that a UFO had evaded identification. Thus, Socorro stands as one of the rare cases where the U.S. Air Force, after full study, essentially shrugged and filed it under “Unknown,” a tacit admission of mystery that remains on the official record[7].

Skeptical and Debunking Arguments

No significant UFO case goes without attempts to explain it in down-to-earth terms, and the Socorro incident is no exception. Over the years, skeptics and debunkers have proposed various alternative explanations for what Lonnie Zamora encountered that late afternoon in 1964. These range from plausible misidentifications to elaborate pranks. In this section, we’ll outline the major skeptical hypotheses, examine the evidence (or lack thereof) behind them, and how they have been received.

The “Student Hoax” Theory (New Mexico Tech Prank)

One of the most prominent debunking ideas is that Zamora was the victim of a hoax orchestrated by students at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech), which is located in Socorro. This theory came to light in the mid- to late-1960s, principally through the efforts of UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass and, later, investigator Anthony Bragalia.

Genesis of the Theory: In 1968, Klass noted with curiosity that the scientists at New Mexico Tech (which is right in Socorro) showed surprisingly little interest in the UFO landing practically in their backyard[98][99]. Klass reported that when he pressed one Tech faculty member on why they weren’t more excited, the person allegedly responded, “Why don’t you go nose around the campus a bit?” and hinted that it was a student prank to fool Zamora and gain some laughs[100][86]. Klass dug further and found that the college’s president at the time, Dr. Stirling Colgate (a well-known physicist), privately believed it was a hoax by Tech students[101][102]. Colgate was friends with famous chemist Linus Pauling; in a 1968 reply to Pauling’s inquiry about Socorro, Colgate wrote: “I have a good indication of the student who engineered the hoax. Student has left. Cheers, Stirling.”[11][102]. This brief, cryptic note became a cornerstone of the hoax hypothesis.

Details of the Hypothetical Prank: If students pulled a hoax, how might they have done it? Over the years, various scenarios have been floated:

Pyrotechnics and a Balloon

Some suggest the students constructed a small hot-air balloon or an aerostat, perhaps using a large candle or propane burner, to create a flame and roaring sound. They could have tethered it so it appeared to lift off, then quickly reeled it in or popped it. The “beings” could have been students in coveralls who then ducked into a ditch or behind bushes when Zamora got close. The symbol could have been deliberately painted on the side to add mystery. The burning bush and ground imprints could be achieved by a pre-set pyrotechnic charge that scorched the area and possibly a heavy metal base dropped to make the landing marks.

Roadrunner Rocket Experiment

Another variation is that Tech students had a longstanding tradition of pranks (which is true; Tech students were known for mischief). One rumor is they had built a small rocket or jet-powered car (some accounts say a “two-stage candle balloon” or a “miniature UFO model”) and decided to scare the local cop as a lark. They could have used dynamite from the explosives shed (which the school had access to for mining research) to make a loud blast, timed with the flame appearance.

Staged for a Movie

A more elaborate speculation by skeptic Steuart Campbell was that maybe the event was part of filming a scene (like a science project film) and Zamora stumbled in; but there’s zero evidence of any film or photos from such an alleged project.

Arguments For the Hoax Theory	Arguments Against the Hoax Theory
Stirling Colgate told journalist Dave Thomas he suspected a student hoaxer. Psychologist Dr. Frank Etscorn also recalled a student allegedly admitting involvement, but no names or proof were provided. Theories include hidden dynamite and rigged engines to simulate sound and flame.	Reproducing the described roar and blue-orange flame is extremely difficult without visible or audible residue. No chemical traces or equipment were found. 1964-era tech (portable speakers, jet engines, etc.) couldn’t replicate this effect covertly in broad daylight.
Mayor Holm Bursum admitted Tech students were notorious pranksters. Some had pulled off elaborate stunts in the past. A hoax could explain the event more simply than an extraterrestrial craft.	The logistics were implausible: How would pranksters know exactly where Zamora would divert and when? The timing was near-perfect, and no one else saw any of the supposed hoax gear or setup. Pulling it off with zero witnesses strains belief.
Some skeptics argue the secrecy around the “real symbol” might have fueled hoax attempts or exaggeration. Once known that the Air Force was concealing the symbol, hoaxers could have imitated or invented one to cause confusion.	Despite decades passing, no one has publicly confessed. No corroborating students or instructors have stepped forward with verifiable details. College hoaxes almost never stay secret this long — especially one this elaborate and well-timed.
Occam’s Razor is often cited — if it wasn’t a spacecraft, the next simplest explanation is a prank.	Physical trace analysis showed directional dirt displacement under the four “legs,” consistent with a heavy object landing — not foot-stomping. Burned brush showed signs of intense, localized heat well beyond what a ground fire would produce.
Zamora was alone — perfect for a solo “audience.” No other witnesses on-site meant no conflicting accounts.	The presence of two humanoid figures is not easily explained. Where did they go so fast? No cars, no shelters, no tracks — yet they vanished in seconds. Zamora never saw them run off, and the open desert offered little cover.

In sum, the student hoax theory has circumstantial support (the Colgate letter and hearsay) but falls short on concrete evidence or detailed feasibility. Nonetheless, it remains the leading skeptical explanation championed by figures like Klass and later Skeptical Inquirer writers[11][104]. Even today, some skeptics will say, “Socorro was solved – it was a college prank.” However, critically, no named perpetrator or confession has ever been produced[105][106]. Colgate never identified the student publicly, and in later years he avoided the topic (he passed away in 2013). So, this theory remains an unproven conjecture.

The “Secret Military Craft” Theory

Another debunking angle posits that Zamora inadvertently witnessed a test or mishap of a classified military project, not alien at all. Possibilities mentioned include:

• A lunar landing module prototype or VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) vehicle being tested in White Sands that strayed off range. For instance, one suggestion was that it was the projected Apollo Lunar Module in an early tethered flight (but none existed in April 1964 in New Mexico). Others pointed to the Bell Aerosystems “jet pack” or a flying platform.
• A prototype spacecraft retrieval exercise – perhaps a capsule descent with retrorockets. The flame and roar could match a retrorocket braking system. But again, no known tests like that near Socorro.
• A misidentified helicopter carrying a lunar module slung load (some imaginative takes said maybe a helicopter set down a weird payload briefly). But Zamora was familiar with helicopters from White Sands; the noise was described as not like a helicopter and no rotor wash or shape was seen.

Phil Klass actually leaned toward a secret craft explanation in UFOs Explained before favoring the hoax. He speculated it might have been a “concealed hot-air balloon” or some “new lunar landing device” being quietly tested[89]. But he found issues: the craft’s silence after takeoff and high speed seemed beyond any known tech.

Official statements at the time were firm: White Sands and Holloman AFB denied any operations. Also, later investigations (e.g., by AF Colonel Derrel Sims in the 1970s) checked records and found nothing. If it were a secret, it’s odd that they’d test so close to a town in daylight and then involve the FBI/Air Force investigators not read into the project, creating a report admitting unknown. Typically, classified projects are tested in controlled conditions or if they do cause a sighting, the military issues a cover story. No cover story was given here (like “it was a weather balloon” – that never came officially). The Air Force could have easily said, “It was a misplaced experiment” to close the case, but they didn’t, which suggests they truly didn’t have a known project to pin it on.

Thus, while not impossible that some black program was behind Socorro, evidence is lacking to match what Zamora saw, and what may have been in development at the time.

Misidentified Natural or Civilian Phenomenon

Skeptical explanations along these lines have been weaker given the close-range and physical evidence, but a few have been suggested:

• Dust Devil and Mirage: One suggestion is that Zamora was fooled by a dust devil (whirlwind) igniting a shed of dynamite, causing a flame and roar, and then by the time he crested the hill he saw a dust plume and maybe the “overturned car” through heat shimmer. This falls apart because there was no explosion crater and no remains of a shed blowing up; plus Zamora clearly saw a structured object and figures, not just dust.
• Weather Balloon with Sun Reflection: Not applicable with the roar/flame and landing marks.
• Local Festival Hot-Air Balloon: Socorro did not have hot-air balloons at that time (that craze picked up later in NM). Also, hot-air balloons don’t move that fast horizontally.
• Helicopter or small VTOL aircraft: As mentioned, known ones were noisy and identifiable; none reported missing or flying then.

None of these conventional “IFOs” fit well. James McDonald, the atmospheric physicist who studied many UFO cases, examined Socorro and found no natural explanation, famously saying “I consider the Socorro case to be one of the most important UFO reports.”.

Conspiracy or Fabrication by Zamora

A truly skeptical approach might say “Zamora made it up.” Perhaps he was chasing a car, saw an explosion, and not finding anything, he fabricated the UFO story to cover that he let a speeder get away. But this runs counter to everything known: Zamora had an impeccable reputation[54], and hoaxing a UFO encounter would likely ruin him if discovered. There was no motive – he didn’t gain anything (indeed he seemed to dislike the attention). Also, it would require multiple colleagues to be in on it or fooled by him planting evidence (which he had no time or resources to do – he couldn’t burn bushes in multiple spots and dig neat landing holes in a short window, all alone). Investigators found him sincere; even the Air Force’s psychological evaluation found “no indication of embellishment or mental aberration”.

Kevin Randle, a pro-UFO researcher, interestingly did due diligence by considering if Zamora could have misperceived a small helicopter (like a Hughes 269) that was decorated as a joke. But Lonnie’s detailed description doesn’t align with any helicopter. Randle ultimately rejects that.

Phil Klass’s Final Conjecture

Klass, failing to find evidence of the hoax he suspected, ultimately wrote that Socorro might remain unknown, but he suggested Socorro officials might have colluded to encourage a UFO tale to help tourism[86][89]. He insinuated that because the town later erected a sign about the UFO, maybe they had hoped to exploit it. This theory of “a tourism stunt” implicating even Zamora as complicit was fringe and widely dismissed. There’s zero evidence the city orchestrated this, and Zamora never sought to promote it for tourism (if anything, he was reticent).

Skeptical Inquirer 2010 Article

In March/April 2010, Skeptical Inquirer published “Famous Socorro UFO Landing a Student Prank?” by Robert Sheaffer[108]. Sheaffer basically summarized Bragalia’s research with Colgate’s letter and Etscorn’s story, concluding it’s very likely a hoax and “case closed.” He pointed out, fairly, that if it wasn’t an alien craft, the hoax theory is the only one that fits the symbol secrecy and Tech angle[11][104]. Sheaffer acknowledges it’s not proven but feels the circumstantial evidence (Colgate’s note) is the smoking gun. In the same piece, Sheaffer also mentions that P. J. Klass wrote a “white paper” in 1968 analyzing Socorro and concluding possible hoax[109].

Ufologist Rebuttals

Researchers like Ray Stanford (who wrote Socorro Saucer in 1976) and Kevin Randle have ardently defended the case against these debunking claims. Stanford actually tracked down Dr. Colgate in 2009 and corresponded, hoping to get more info. Colgate reportedly reaffirmed his belief it was a hoax but still provided no names beyond hints[85][110]. Randle critically notes that if indeed Colgate “had a good indication of the student,” he apparently never disciplined or exposed that student, which is odd (perhaps because he had no proof, just hearsay)[111]. Randle’s investigations with Socorro police found no evidence any police (including Zamora) doubted the event. Dave Thomas, of New Mexicans for Science & Reason (a skeptic group), tried to flush out Tech alumni memories in the 2000s – none publicly recalled a hoax.

In absence of a definitive solution, the Socorro case continues to be a battleground between believers and skeptics:

• Believers argue the skeptics’ scenarios are more far-fetched than the idea that Zamora saw an unknown craft, given the evidence[76][96].
• Skeptics argue that without physical proof of an alien craft, we must assume a human cause even if we haven’t nailed it exactly – citing that extraordinary claims (like extraterrestrial visitation) require extraordinary evidence, which Socorro doesn’t provide (no photos or artifacts, just witness and trace).

In conclusion, the skeptical/debunking arguments for Socorro center primarily on the student hoax hypothesis, with secondary lesser ideas about secret tech or misidentification. As of today, none of these debunking explanations has been definitively demonstrated. They remain speculative scenarios that some find plausible and others find strained. The hoax theory in particular has gained a kind of folklore status: frequently repeated, but with a gap between claim and proof.

The enduring stalemate is reflected in the fact that Socorro still appears on lists of “unexplained UFO cases”, while at the same time, skeptics often footnote it as “likely a hoax.” Until new evidence emerges (such as a confession or declassified document), the case remains unresolved – with believers maintaining it was a genuine unexplained encounter, and skeptics asserting someone must have been up to tricks in the New Mexico desert that day.

Unresolved Questions

Despite extensive investigation and debate, the Socorro UFO landing case leaves many unanswered questions. Here we list the key mysteries and unresolved issues that continue to intrigue researchers and skeptics alike:

• What exactly was the object Lonnie Zamora saw? Was it an extraterrestrial craft, a secret experimental vehicle, or an elaborate hoax device? Its true identity remains unknown, as no conventional explanation has been confirmed[7].
• Who were the two small “beings” observed next to the craft? Zamora described seeing two child-sized figures in white coveralls[1]. If the event was a hoax, who played these roles and how did they vanish so quickly? If not a hoax, were these entities human or something else? No individuals have ever come forward to identify themselves as those figures.
• What was the meaning or origin of the red insignia symbol on the craft? The symbol (inverted “V” with bars) does not match any known aircraft marking[63]. Was it a prank logo designed to perplex, or does it have other significance? This detail was intentionally kept secret by officials, yet it ultimately leaked – and remains enigmatic.
• How were the physical traces (burned bushes and landing pad imprints) made? Chemical tests did not reveal familiar propellants[43]. If a hoax, the perpetrators somehow created four deep, evenly spaced indentations and scorched vegetation in a short time without detection. No definitive mechanism for these traces has been identified.
• Why were no additional witnesses identified at the time of the landing? Aside from distant observations of a flame by a few people[9], no one else reported seeing the landed object or hearing the roar at close range. If a secret test or hoax involving equipment and people, one might expect someone else in Socorro to have noticed unusual activity – yet none has surfaced.
• If it was a hoax by students, why has no participant confessed or been revealed, even decades later? The alleged prank would have involved multiple individuals and risky pyrotechnics[11]. It’s unusual that not a single verifiable account from the hoaxers exists, nor any deathbed admissions or definitive evidence, leaving the hoax theory unproven.
• Could this have been a classified military project that is still undisclosed? If so, what kind of project matches the craft’s performance (vertical takeoff, intense flame, high-speed silent departure) and why was it being tested in such a public area without coordination? All known programs have been ruled out, but the possibility of an unknown program remains an open question.
• What became of the physical evidence samples (soil, plant, rock scrapings) collected? Analysis results were never fully released[112]. Did those tests detect anything anomalous – such as unusual radiation, metallic residues, or chemical compounds – that have been withheld? The fate and findings of these samples are not well-documented publicly.
• Why did the Air Force and FBI quietly close the case without a conclusion? Internally, Socorro was labeled “Unidentified”[7]. Did these agencies uncover information that pointed to an explanation they could not disclose (e.g., a defense project), or were they simply unable to resolve it? The case’s unresolved status invites speculation about whether something was learned behind the scenes.
• Is there any corroborating evidence yet to be discovered? For instance, could there be forgotten photographs, radio transmissions, or documents in archives or personal collections that shed new light on the incident? To date, none have surfaced beyond the known official files, but the potential remains.

These lingering questions highlight why the Socorro incident continues to fascinate – nearly every aspect of the case, from the nature of the craft and occupants to the source of the traces and the veracity of prosaic explanations, remains open to interpretation. Until solid evidence emerges to answer these questions, Socorro will remain an enduring mystery.

Conclusion

The April 24, 1964 Socorro UFO landing case endures as one of the most compelling and enigmatic incidents in the annals of UFO history. In the New Mexico desert on that late afternoon, Officer Lonnie Zamora encountered something that by all accounts defied conventional explanation – a shiny oval craft resting on landing gear, strange diminutive figures, a roaring flame, and a hasty departure into the sky[1][113]. In the immediate aftermath, thorough investigations by military and law enforcement officials documented tangible evidence: scorched vegetation, four distinctive ground indentations, and corroborating witness reports of a blue flame in the sky[9][10]. Yet, despite this wealth of evidence and the credibility of the witness, no definitive answer to the Socorro puzzle was found.

Over the nearly six decades since, the case has been scrutinized from every angle – by Air Force analysts, civilian UFO investigators, and skeptics alike. We have traced how Project Blue Book ultimately labeled the case “Unknown,” unable to confirm any hoax or identify any aircraft, effectively admitting that Zamora saw an unidentified flying object in the truest sense[7]. We have examined the popular debunking theories, especially the notion of a college prank, which intriguingly hints at a solution but falls short of satisfying all the facts[11][102]. No hoaxer has ever been exposed, and the technical challenges of staging such an event make it difficult to accept without further proof. Likewise, theories of a secret military craft remain speculative; as far as public knowledge goes, no known experimental vehicle of the era matches what Zamora described, and officials at the time emphatically denied any such test[6].

In weighing the evidence, we find ourselves with a case that exemplifies the UFO mystery – a well-documented event with reliable testimony and physical traces, yet one that eludes a conclusive explanation. For believers in extraterrestrial visitation, Socorro stands as a strong indication that something extraordinary visited that day (even J. Allen Hynek eventually leaned toward the hypothesis that Socorro “might have been the real thing,” given the lack of other answers). For skeptics, Socorro is a reminder that even puzzling cases may have mundane answers awaiting discovery – yet until such an answer is confirmed, it remains an unsolved riddle.

What is beyond dispute is the legacy Socorro leaves. It influenced the approach to UFO investigations, lending them a measure of rigor and urgency (after Socorro, authorities and researchers alike realized the importance of getting to a landing site quickly and securing evidence). It played a role in shifting attitudes – both in the public and in scientists like Hynek – toward a more open consideration that some UFO reports represent genuine unknown phenomena worthy of study[7]. And for the people of Socorro, the incident has transformed from an oddball news story into a proud local legend, commemorated with murals and historical markers, ensuring that the story of Lonnie Zamora’s close encounter is not forgotten[90][91].

In conclusion, the Socorro case invites us to maintain a dual appreciation: one of careful skepticism – examining each new claim and piece of evidence critically – and one of open-minded wonder that our world can still present events so beyond our immediate understanding. The case remains a fascinating question mark: Was it a hoax, a secret human craft, or an encounter with something truly beyond Earth? Until definitive evidence emerges to tilt the scales, the Socorro UFO landing will continue to intrigue and inspire, reminding us that not all mysteries in our skies have been solved. It serves as a testament to the fact that sometimes, even trained observers come upon something utterly unexpected – and in those moments, humanity confronts the limits of its knowledge.

The Socorro incident thus endures, unresolved but undiminished, challenging each new generation to examine its facts and perhaps, one day, discover “what really happened” in the quiet arroyo outside Socorro on that April day in 1964.

Citations and Sources

• Project Blue Book Case File – Socorro, New Mexico UFO Landing (1964) – USAF official investigative file (168 pages) including Zamora’s report, site photos, and analysis[59][37]. Hosted by The Black Vault: USAF Files on the Socorro UFO Landing, April 24, 1964[59].
• “From the Desks of Project Blue Book” (Rob Mercer Collection) – Socorro Case – Archive of original Blue Book documents recovered by Rob Mercer (217 pages), featuring additional handwritten notes and the Socorro incident’s internal correspondence[8][114]. (The Black Vault, 2018).
• FBI Files – Socorro UFO Landing (1964) – FBI Albuquerque Field Office memos and teletype messages (31 pages) regarding Zamora’s sighting[64][54]. Notable is the May 8, 1964 FBI report affirming Zamora’s credibility and describing the site evidence[54][10]. Available via The Black Vault FOIA archive.
• Holder Report (Army) & FBI Telegrams (April 25, 1964) – Primary on-scene reports by Captain Richard T. Holder, White Sands (Up-Range Commander), and FBI SA Arthur Byrnes[33][9]. These appear within the Blue Book file and FBI file, confirming timeline and findings (e.g., three independent calls of “blue flame” sightings, measurements taken, etc.).
• NICAP Report and Transcripts – The NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) case directory on Socorro, including a transcript of Lonnie Zamora’s signed statement and Hynek’s field notes[68][17]. Accessible via nicap.org archives.
• Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 34 No.2, Mar/Apr 2010) – Robert Sheaffer, “Famous Socorro ‘UFO Landing’ a Student Prank?” – Presents the case for the New Mexico Tech student hoax theory, citing correspondence from Dr. Stirling Colgate and interviews with Frank Etscorn[101][11].
• Kevin Randle’s Blog “A Different Perspective” – Series of 2016 posts analyzing the Socorro symbol controversy and Rob Mercer’s Blue Book materials[67][45]. Randle provides a balanced critique of the hoax claims and details from interviews with Rob Mercer and others.
• Ray Stanford, Socorro “Saucer” in a Pentagon Pantry (1976) – A comprehensive case study by Stanford, who conducted on-site investigations and interviews (including with Zamora). (Not directly cited above but foundational. Original source documents referenced by Stanford are included in Blue Book files.)
• The Black Vault – Case Profile: Socorro UFO Landing – John Greenewald’s summary and document archive[115][6]. Provides an overview with links to primary documents (Blue Book, FBI, photos). Greenewald’s site also hosts Rob Mercer’s collected files and an interview with Mercer describing how he acquired them.
• U.S. Air Force (USAF) Press Release & Statements (1964-1965) – Various official mentions of Socorro, e.g., Air Force press conference comments and the conclusion in the Condon Report (1968) noting Socorro as unexplained. (These are referenced in secondary sources like Hynek’s The UFO Experience and the Condon Committee files.)
• Local Media Archives – El Defensor Chieftain (Socorro, NM), April 28, 1964 – Article titled “Evidence of UFO Landing Here Observed”[81][82]. This contemporary news piece provides Zamora’s story as told to the press and mentions involvement of FBI and military, reflecting the immediate public narrative.

(All source documents are hyperlinked above via bracketed citations, allowing direct access to the original files and relevant excerpts for verification and further reading.)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [8] [9] [10] [13] [15] [16] [18] [33] [34] [35] [44] [47] [49] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [62] [65] [75] [112] [113] [114] From the Desks of Project Blue Book: Socorro, New Mexico UFO Landing, 24 April 1964 – The Black Vault Case Files

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/desks-project-blue-book-socorro-new-mexico-ufo-landing-24-april-1964/

[6] [7] [43] [59] [64] [115] Official Files on the Socorro UFO Landing, April 24, 1964 – The Black Vault

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/fbi-files-on-the-socorro-ufo-landing-april-24-1964/

[11] [86] [87] [88] [89] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [108] [109] skepticalinquirer.org

https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2010/03/p25.pdf

[12] [14] [17] [19] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [36] [37] [39] [40] [41] [42] [48] [60] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] The Lonnie Zamora/Socorro, NM Case, CE-3

http://www.nicap.org/reports/640424zamora2.htm

[20] [21] [63] [67] A Different Perspective: Boxes of Blue Book Material on Craig’s List

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/10/boxes-of-blue-book-material-on-craigs.html

[22] [38] [80] Socorro Landing: A UFO Story – Visit Socorro New Mexico

https://socorronm.org/location-activity/socorro-landing-a-ufo-story/

[45] [46] [50] [51] [76] [79] [85] [95] [96] [110] A Different Perspective: The Socorro Symbol – Resolved?

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-socorro-symbol-resolved.html

[58] From the Desks of Project Blue Book – The Black Vault Case Files

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/desks-project-blue-book/

[61] nicap.org

https://www.nicap.org/docs/640424zamora_fbi_docs.pdf

[66] [PDF] FBI-UFO-Socorro-fbi1.pdf – The Black Vault

https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/paranormal/FBI-UFO-Socorro-fbi1.pdf

[77] [78] 2007 February Journal PreRelease REV A

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/MUFON/Journals/2008/November_2008.pdf

[81] [82]  Egg-Shaped UFO Lands and Takes Off, Reports City Policeman, Lonnie Zamora | SOCORRO UFO INCIDENT – 50th ANNIVERSARY

https://www.theufochronicles.com/2014/04/egg-shaped-ufo-lands-and-takes-off.html

[83] [90] [91] [92]  Famous UFO Sighting Depicted in New Mural

https://www.theufochronicles.com/2023/04/famous-ufo-sighting-depicted-in-new.html

[84] [107] Socorro UFO – Unsolved Mysteries

https://unsolved.com/gallery/socorro-ufo/

[93] Socorro UFO: Unpacking Evidence of an Alien Visit – Discovery UK

https://www.discoveryuk.com/mysteries/socorro-ufo-unpacking-evidence-of-an-alien-visit/

[94] Hector Quintanilla-UFOs – An Air Force Dilemma (1975) PDF – Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/414482004/Hector-Quintanilla-UFOs-An-Air-Force-Dilemma-1975-pdf

[97] Lonnie Zamora incident – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident

[105] [106] The Ultimate Secret of The Socorro UFO Incident Finally Told:

https://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/08/the-ultimate-secret-of-socorro-ufo.html

[111] Lonnie Zamora, Socorro UFO, and New Theories

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/10/lonnie-zamora-socorro-ufo-and-new.html

The post The Vault Files: The Socorro UFO Landing Incident, April 24, 1964 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The Vault Files: The Socorro UFO Landing Incident, April 24, 1964 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Timeline of Events
• Primary Documentation
• Witness Accounts
• Media and Public Coverage
• Official Government Response
• Skeptical and Debunking Arguments
• Radar Jamming Controversy
• Unresolved Questions
• Impact and Legacy
• Conclusion
• Citations and Sources

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Executive Summary

In November 2004, the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group encountered an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has since become one of the most notable and puzzling modern UFO incidents. Fighter pilots described a smooth, wingless white object—dubbed the “Tic Tac” for its oval shape—that demonstrated astonishing flight capabilities off the coast of Southern California. Initially known only within defense circles, the event gained widespread attention after official U.S. Navy footage leaked and the story hit mainstream media in 2017.

In the years since, the 2004 Nimitz encounter has been scrutinized by military investigators, scientists, intelligence agencies, and skeptics alike. This deep-dive reexamines the incident with newly released documents and a critical lens, exploring what is known through credible evidence, what remains unknown, and how both believers and skeptics have interpreted the event. We will draw on primary documentation (including Freedom of Information Act releases via The Black Vault), first-hand witness accounts, media coverage, official government responses, and comprehensive skeptical analyses. By providing an evidence-first, neutral review – separating pilot reports from instrument data and speculation from fact – this article aims to clarify the incident’s context and legacy. The Nimitz Tic Tac case is revisited here alongside a 2021 intelligence community detection of a similar object by the NRO’s “Sentient” AI system, highlighting both the continued interest in these phenomena and the enduring questions they pose.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Background

In the fall of 2004, the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group (CSG-11) was conducting training exercises in the Pacific, roughly 100 miles southwest of San Diego. The strike group included the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, the guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton (equipped with the sophisticated SPY-1 Aegis radar system), the carrier Air Wing with F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets (Strike Fighter Squadron 41), an E-2C Hawkeye radar plane, and other support ships. It was during these routine operations that radar operators began noticing unusual aerial tracks on the Princeton’s radar scopes: mysterious objects would appear at extremely high altitudes and then perform rapid descents and maneuvers beyond conventional capabilities[1][2]. These contacts were initially dubbed “AAVs” (Anomalous Aerial Vehicles) in some internal reports, given their unknown origin and behavior.

The anomaly drew serious attention on November 14, 2004, when naval aviators were vectored to intercept one of the objects. What they encountered was unlike any known aircraft. Pilots described a smooth, solid white object about 40–46 feet in length, with no wings, no visible propulsion, and an oblong “Tic Tac” shape[3][4]. The object could hover stationary and then accelerate or change altitude rapidly, defying normal aerodynamic constraints. This occurred in broad daylight over a calm ocean, where a disturbance in the water was also observed – as if something was just below the surface[5].

At the time, no one on the carrier or cruiser could identify the object. The pilots and radar operators were experienced professionals with top-of-the-line sensors at their disposal, yet the UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, as the military now terms UFOs) did not match any aircraft or missile in the U.S. inventory or known adversary arsenals. There was no immediate indication that it was a misidentified civilian craft or natural phenomenon. The unusual encounter was debriefed on board, but no public report or press release was made in 2004. The incident effectively remained classified by silence; it was noted within internal Navy and DoD channels (and later studied under a Pentagon program), but it did not become public knowledge for over a decade[6][7]. Only in late 2017 did the USS Nimitz “Tic Tac” incident truly enter the public discourse, when eyewitnesses came forward and official videos and reports began to leak or be released. By then, the event had become a key case cited by those urging the government to take UAP sightings seriously, as well as a target for skeptics attempting to demystify the claims.

This background sets the stage for a detailed breakdown of what happened during the Nimitz encounter, what data and documentation have since emerged, how different observers (from naval intelligence to debunkers) interpret the evidence, and why it still matters today. The following sections will document the timeline of the events, examine primary source materials (including recently declassified files), summarize the accounts of the primary witnesses, review media and governmental actions in the aftermath, and present the leading hypotheses – from the extraterrestrial hypotheses to cutting-edge drone or sensor spoofing theories – that attempt to explain the Tic Tac UAP. We also compare a 2021 UAP detection by the National Reconnaissance Office’s Sentient program to highlight parallels and continuing mysteries[8][9].

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Timeline of Events

November 10–13, 2004: In the days leading up to the main incident, the USS Princeton’s Combat Information Center intermittently detected multiple unknown aerial contacts on the SPY-1 radar. These targets would suddenly appear at altitudes above 60,000–80,000 feet (well above typical commercial traffic), then plunge to ~20,000 feet or even near sea level in seconds – an extraordinary feat if accurate[1][2]. The contacts sometimes hovered at low altitude and moved at high velocity and with abrupt maneuvering. The strike group’s radar operators, including Senior Chief Kevin Day on the Princeton, grew concerned that these were not false returns; they seemed to represent real objects exhibiting flight characteristics far beyond known aircraft. According to later analysis, such radar tracks occurred over at least six days (Nov 10–16) in the vicinity of the carrier group[2].

Late Morning, November 14, 2004: The Princeton’s radar picked up yet another unusual contact at around 11:00 a.m. local time. Deciding to investigate, the Princeton’s radar controller (identified in accounts as Kevin Day) directed two F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets from VFA-41, already airborne on a training mission, to intercept the unknown target. Each Super Hornet carried a pilot and a weapons systems officer (WSO). The lead jet was piloted by Cdr. David Fravor (call sign “Sex”), the commanding officer of his squadron, with a WSO in his back seat; the second jet was piloted by Lt. Alex Dietrich, with her WSO. As the two jets arrived at the target’s coordinates, they first noticed an unusual patch of roiling white water on the ocean surface – “like the water was boiling,” in Fravor’s words[5] – as if something large was just under the waves. Above the disturbance, they spotted the object: a white, capsule-shaped craft hovering erratically about 50 feet above the water[10]. It was roughly the size of a fighter jet (estimated 40–46 feet long) and had no wings, tail, or visible exhaust. The object’s surface was described as smooth, seamless, and bright white – “like a whiteboard,” one pilot noted of its matte, featureless shell[5]. Initially, it was moving lazily above the spot, oriented along the longitudinal axis (horizontal), but without any rotor wash or flight surfaces keeping it aloft.

For several minutes (approximately 5 minutes total), the four naval aviators (two pilots and two WSOs) observed the “Tic Tac” UAP at close range[3][11]. Cdr. Fravor in the lead jet descended from ~20,000 feet and began a circular descent to get closer, while Lt. Dietrich’s jet stayed higher as an observer. The object seemed to react to the F/A-18’s presence: as Fravor spiraled down, the Tic Tac mirrored his maneuver, starting to climb at a rate equal to Fravor’s descent, almost as if engaging in a defensive or evasive reaction[12]. This “cat-and-mouse” lasted only moments. Fravor then decided to cut across the circle – to tighten the intercept geometry and get directly in front of the UAP. At that instant, the Tic Tac accelerated dramatically. It shot out of sight in the blink of an eye, performing a instantaneous jump to beyond visual range and disappearing from the pilots’ view[13][14]. Fravor later emphasized how astonishing this was: “As I got within about a half mile… it rapidly accelerated and disappeared… It was gone.” There was no sonic boom, no gradual build-up – the object just vanished to the human eye.

The two stunned fighter pilots radioed to the Princeton asking if the target had been picked up again. For a brief moment, the Princeton’s radar returns went “picture clean” (meaning the contact was lost)[14]. Then, in an almost dramatic twist, the Princeton radioed back that the object had reappeared – improbably – at the fighters’ designated rendezvous point, known as the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) point, roughly 60 miles away. This happened just tens of seconds after the Tic Tac left Fravor’s vicinity[15]. In other words, the unknown craft apparently traveled tens of miles in under a minute, a feat that would require thousands of miles per hour (far beyond supersonic) – or perhaps even some kind of instantaneous “jump.” The UAP’s arrival at the exact CAP point – a location the Navy aircrew had pre-planned to regroup – also gave the eerie impression that the object was intelligently aware of the pilots’ flight plan or destination.

After this startling maneuver, with the object gone, the two F/A-18s returned to the USS Nimitz. They reported the encounter to their colleagues and superiors. Because the training exercise was disrupted, another flight of jets was promptly readied to continue the investigation.

Early Afternoon, November 14, 2004: A second sortie of fighter jets was launched from the Nimitz, this time including an F/A-18F with advanced ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared) sensor pods. One of the WSOs on this flight, Lt. Cmdr. Chad Underwood, was specifically tasked with attempting to find and film the UAP with the FLIR camera since it had vanished before Fravor’s jet could get a targeting lock. Underwood’s aircraft managed to detect and lock onto a target on the FLIR’s infrared display. He recorded a video clip that lasts about 1 minute 16 seconds, which shows an oval-shaped thermal image against a cold sky background – this video is now famous as the “FLIR1” or “Tic Tac” UFO video[16]. In the footage (which has no audio in the released version, though cockpit audio was reportedly recorded separately), the infrared targeting pod tracks a distant object that appears to be flying level at constant speed. As the FLIR camera switches modes and zoom settings, the object’s aspect changes – at one point it appears to rotate or tilt. Near the end of the video, the object accelerates to the left out of the frame, as the sensor struggles to maintain lock. This rapid lateral movement, coupled with the sensor zoom change, created the impression of the object suddenly darting off at extreme speed[17]. (Skeptical analysis later suggested the apparent high-speed departure in the video could be an artifact of the camera’s tracking and zoom switching, rather than an actual “hypersonic” burst; see the Skeptical section below.)

Notably, Lt. Cmdr. Underwood did not see the Tic Tac with his own eyes; his focus was on the instrument capture. He coined the nickname “Tic Tac” after the mission, referring to the shape on the FLIR screen[18]. Underwood later explained his priority was to document the phenomenon for intelligence analysis: “I was more concerned with tracking it [on sensors], making sure the videotape was on… so that the intel folks could dissect it”[19]. The FLIR footage was saved and later circulated among Navy intelligence personnel as part of the incident analysis.

Aftermath (2004): After landing back on the Nimitz, the aircrews underwent a routine debrief with the Carrier Air Wing’s intelligence officer. According to accounts, the reaction was a mix of puzzlement and some disbelief. No one could identify what the object was. Because Cdr. Fravor was the squadron commander and a highly respected pilot, his report was taken seriously in the debrief – otherwise, a junior pilot reporting a “UFO” might have been met with more skepticism or even ridicule[20]. Still, there was no established Navy procedure at the time for formally reporting UAP encounters. The event was not rigorously investigated on the spot, and no official incident report was immediately filed in the aviation hazard databases. The radar data recordings and sensor logs from the Princeton and the aircraft were reportedly saved for a short period, but some crew have claimed that soon after the incident, unknown officials showed up on the Princeton and collected certain radar data tapes. (This latter point remains anecdotal and is not confirmed by documentation; it has been mentioned by crew like Petty Officer Patrick “PJ” Hughes, who said data recording bricks were taken, but official Navy statements on this are lacking.)

Over the next days, as the strike group’s exercise continued, no further visual encounters were reported. The objects that had been appearing on radar seemed to have disappeared, at least for the time being, after November 16. The story of the Tic Tac became something of a carrier legend – air crew and sailors shared the bizarre tale among themselves, but it remained unknown to the public. It wasn’t until years later that details would leak out via unofficial channels. In 2009, an internal report (an “Executive Summary”) on the Nimitz incident was compiled, apparently as part of a Pentagon program studying such encounters (see Primary Documentation below). However, that report stayed within defense circles. The wider world first learned of the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter in late 2017, when the case was featured in major news reports and the Department of Defense ultimately confirmed the authenticity of the FLIR video. What followed was a surge of public and scientific interest in the 2004 incident, which had by then become a cornerstone example in discussions of UAPs – often cited by proponents as evidence of “non-human technology,” and by skeptics as a case of extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Primary Documentation

One reason the 2004 Nimitz incident is so significant is the body of official documentation and evidence that has emerged over time. Unlike many UFO stories that rely solely on eyewitness testimony, the Tic Tac case has multiple sources of corroborating data – radar tracking logs, an infrared video recording, and later analyses by military intelligence. Below, we overview the primary documents and records related to the incident, many of which have been leaked or released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or investigative journalism (with The Black Vault compiling numerous such releases):

• 2004 Operational Logs and Data: The immediate records from the day include the SPY-1 radar tracks from USS Princeton, the E-2C Hawkeye’s radar (interestingly, the Hawkeye reportedly did detect an object at one point, though details are scant), and the ATFLIR video taken by Lt. Cmdr. Underwood’s F/A-18. These raw data were not public in 2004. The FLIR video file, however, was circulated within naval intelligence and was eventually leaked. (A copy of the video was reportedly posted on a UFO forum as early as 2007[21], although it gained little notice then). The Princeton’s radar data (if it still exists) remains classified, but witnesses like Kevin Day have described the content. Notably, Petty Officer Gary Voorhis (a Princeton electronics technician) later recalled observing through binoculars a distant white object darting around after seeing strange returns on the radar – suggesting a visual confirmation from the ship, though this account is second-hand. These operational logs formed the basis of later analysis.
• 2009 “Executive Summary” Report: In 2009, a 13-page report on the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter was compiled, allegedly under the auspices of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) – a secretive Pentagon program (2007–2012) that is claimed to have studied UFO reports. This document, often referred to as an Executive Summary or Intelligence Report, includes input from at least seven Navy pilots and radar operators who were witnesses[22]. It provides a detailed narrative of the incident, lists the military assets involved, and analyzes the Tic Tac’s capabilities. For example, the report confirms the multi-day nature of the encounters (November 10–16, 2004) and the objects’ “fantastic agility,” dropping from 60,000 feet to near sea level in seconds and demonstrating “high velocities and turn rates” beyond any known aircraft[2]. It documents the exact location of Fravor’s intercept and other technical specifics. This report remained unreleased to the public until it was leaked in 2018. Las Vegas investigative journalist George Knapp obtained a copy (during a 2017 trip to D.C. arranged by former Senator Harry Reid) and reported on it in May 2018[7]. Shortly after, the document itself (with some redactions) was published by media outlets[7]. The leaked report did not speculate on the origin of the Tic Tac but made clear it was a real, physical object (or objects) that posed a genuine mystery. It also notes how the incident was handled (or not handled) administratively: it implies that because of stigma and unusual nature, the event “wasn’t widely disseminated” within command channels[23]. The Executive Summary uses the term “AAV” (Anomalous Aerial Vehicle) throughout, indicating the authors avoided the UFO/UAP wording common today[24][25]. This report, essentially a military intelligence analysis of the Nimitz encounter**, stands as a primary source confirming witness accounts and adding credence by virtue of its official status. (It was unclassified but labeled “For Official Use Only.”)
• US Navy Witness Statements (2004–2009): Underpinning the above report were likely the debriefing statements or interviews from the pilots and sailors. While those raw statements are not publicly available, some have surfaced in part. For instance, Cdr. Fravor’s own after-action account was documented (the report quotes him describing the Tic Tac’s appearance and behavior). Additionally, logs from the USS Princeton’s Signal Exploitation spaces (SIGINT logs) might have recorded electronic anomalies, however, no such records have been released. In 2020, as the U.S. government interest in UAP grew, official Navy briefings on UAP incidents began referencing the Nimitz case, effectively confirming the key details.

• 2020 UAP Task Force Briefing (FOIA Release in 2022/2024): The Pentagon’s UAP Task Force (UAPTF), established in 2020, included the Nimitz incident as a canonical case study. Through FOIA requests by The Black Vault, a set of slides from an October 2020 UAPTF briefing to NASA was obtained and publicly released in late 2022 (heavily redacted, full release confirmed in 2024)[26][4]. One slide focuses specifically on the “14 November 2004, ‘Tic Tac’ incident (Nimitz CSG)”. According to the portions that were declassified, the briefing describes the object as “solid white, smooth, with no wings or pylons, approximately 46 feet in length”[4] – essentially matching what Fravor and Dietrich reported. The briefing notes that the event was validated by multiple sources (pilot visuals, radar), but also that limited data (recordings) were available to conduct a full technical analysis at the time[27]. This is an important admission: despite the sensor richness of a CSG, the data retained was insufficient for a detailed forensic analysis – highlighting either data loss, intentional withholding, or simply the difficulty of capturing the phenomenon. Another slide in the UAPTF deck (titled “Potential Explanations”) lists possible categories for UAP, but in the released version only one category is visible: “unknown weather or other natural phenomena”[28], with the other two categories redacted (likely they could be something like “advanced adversary technology” and “classified US platform” or similar, based on context). Even so, the presence of the Nimitz case in official briefings underscores that the Department of Defense considered it one of the best examples of unexplained UAP encounters.
• Official DoD Video Release (2017–2020): The FLIR1/Tic Tac infrared video, as noted, leaked via unofficial channels around 2017 and was first published by the New York Times and To The Stars Academy in December 2017. However, its authenticity was confirmed by the Pentagon in 2019, and the Department of Defense formally released the video (along with two others from 2015 incidents) in April 2020[29]. The DoD stated the release was to dispel misconceptions about whether the footage was real. They affirmed that the FLIR1 video was recorded by Navy pilots on that 2004 mission and that it depicts an unidentified phenomenon[30][31]. The video is thus an official piece of evidence, albeit one that by itself is inconclusive (it shows a hot-looking blob and doesn’t convey range or absolute speed data).
• Other FOIA and Public Records: The aftermath of the Nimitz encounter eventually generated additional documents. In response to media attention, the Navy in 2019 issued new guidelines for pilots to report UAP incidents, acknowledging incursions had occurred “since 2014” and referencing cases like the Nimitz implicitly[32]. While those guidelines are not specific to 2004, they’re part of the record showing the event’s influence on policy. In 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a preliminary UAP report to Congress that catalogued 144 incidents (including the Nimitz case) and noted only one could be identified (a balloon), with the rest unresolved[33]. Although that report did not detail individual cases, its statistics and conclusions bolster the fact that the Tic Tac and similar incidents remain officially unexplained (more on this in Official Response section).
• The Black Vault Archives: Through FOIA, The Black Vault has obtained numerous related files that, while not all specific to Nimitz, provide context. For example, one FOIA release (NAVY Case #DON-NAVY-2021-008741, released 2024) included email correspondence and a slide deck between the UAP Task Force and other agencies, confirming collaboration and interest in the Nimitz case and others[34]. Many pages were redacted, but this underscores continued government analysis. Another FOIA trove includes Navy pilot hazard reports from 2014–2015 UAP sightings (off the USS Theodore Roosevelt), showing that by comparison the 2004 event was an outlier in its time, as no equivalent hazard report exists for Nimitz (because none was filed in 2004).

In summary, the primary documentation for the Tic Tac incident consists of a combination of sensor data (radar & FLIR), military intelligence reports, and recent official briefings. All of these consistently acknowledge that something real occurred: an object (or objects) with advanced capabilities was detected and seen by U.S. Navy units in Nov 2004. The data do not contain any definitive identification, which is why officially it’s classified as “unidentified.” The consistency between witness descriptions and the later documented descriptions (e.g., the UAPTF briefing uses the same 46 ft length and smooth white appearance[4]) adds credibility to the case. Moreover, the release of information via FOIA indicates that, as more time passes, we are learning incremental new details – for instance, confirming how the case was presented to other agencies (NASA) as an example of UAPs that “remain unresolved”.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

What’s Known

What’s Unknown

Multiple Navy pilots and radar operators encountered a white, tic-tac-shaped object near the USS Nimitz in 2004. ATFLIR (FLIR1) footage captured the object during an intercept attempt. The USS Princeton tracked objects for days via advanced radar systems. Witnesses described no wings, rotors, or visible propulsion. Extreme acceleration and maneuverability were observed. A 2021 FOIA-released NRO report described a similar object analyzed by the Sentient system.

The origin, nature, and propulsion system of the object are still unknown. No recovered debris or material has been publicly verified. The classified assessments remain unreleased. It is unclear if this was foreign tech, a U.S. program, or something else. There’s no confirmed link between the 2004 and 2021 events. The object’s purpose, intelligence significance, or intent is undisclosed.

Witness Accounts

The human eyewitnesses to the Tic Tac incident provide some of the most compelling and detailed evidence. Several Navy personnel have gone on record about what they saw or tracked during the 2004 encounter. Here we summarize the key witness accounts from the principal participants:

• Cmdr. David Fravor (USN, Ret.) – F/A-18 Pilot: Fravor was the commanding officer of VFA-41 (“Black Aces”) and the lead pilot of the first pair of jets that intercepted the Tic Tac on Nov 14, 2004. His account has been consistent and vivid across numerous interviews (including a 2017 New York Times interview, a 2018 podcast, a 2021 60 Minutes segment, and 2023 Congressional testimony). Fravor recalls being vectored by Princeton to an unknown target, then visually spotting the disturbance on the ocean and the white capsule-shaped craft above it[35][13]. He estimated its size (~40 feet) by comparing it to his F/A-18F (which is about 56 feet long)[13]. Fravor emphasized the object had no wings, no rotors, no exhaust plumes, and that its motion did not correspond to any known propulsion (it didn’t create rotor wash or jet wash). He described it as “jumping around” erratically over the water before he engaged. When he spiraled down toward it, the Tic Tac ascended to meet him, seeming to react intelligently to his maneuvers[12]. He’s famously said, “it was aware we were there”[36]. As he attempted to close distance, the object “accelerated to the south” in a flash and disappeared: “Fastest thing I’ve ever seen, it just disappeared” (as he stated in interviews). Fravor’s reaction was astonishment – in his 2023 testimony he said “the technology we faced was far superior to anything we had” and that it was incredible, beyond any capability known to him[37]. Importantly, Fravor has consistently asserted that what he saw with his eyes was far more impressive than what the FLIR video shows. The video, in his view, is “just a little blob” that doesn’t convey the performance (indeed, Mick West and others note the video shows a relatively stationary distant object – see skeptics section – whereas Fravor witnessed dramatic movement)[38]. Fravor also mentioned that the Tic Tac jammed his radar when he tried to lock it (an act he quipped was “technically an act of war” if it were a foreign aircraft). After landing, he briefed the Carrier Intelligence Center, but there was no formal debrief from, say, OSI agents at the time – the incident was notable but not acted upon further, which Fravor found surprising. In interviews and under oath in Congress (July 2023), Fravor has maintained he doesn’t know what the Tic Tac was, but he’s confident it was not any conventional aircraft or illusion: “I can tell you, I think it was not from this world.” He stops short of speculating it was extraterrestrial, but he strongly implies it was some technology unknown to us. Fravor’s credibility is often cited (Top Gun graduate, squadron commander with ~18 years experience at the time) as a reason to take the case seriously. Even skeptic analysts have said they do not doubt Fravor saw something*; their debate is over the interpretation (e.g., was it as extraordinary as perceived, or could it be explained by misperception of a more ordinary object?).
• Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich (USN, Ret.) – F/A-18 Pilot: Alex Dietrich was a junior pilot at the time (a Lieutenant) flying as wingman to Fravor. She generally avoided the limelight until 2021, when she decided to speak out to encourage destigmatization of UAP reporting. Dietrich’s recollection aligns with Fravor’s on key points: she witnessed the frothing water and then the Tic Tac hovering above it[39]. She described it as “a smooth, white oblong object… like a large Tic Tac breath mint”, with no visible means of lift or propulsion[39]. Dietrich was at a higher altitude during the encounter, providing cover, so her viewing angle was a bit different. She did not engage the object as aggressively as Fravor did. She recalls the object’s sudden departure: “it just zipped off, as if it knew we were coming” (paraphrased from her interviews). In her media appearances (such as 60 Minutes in May 2021 and a Reuters interview), Dietrich has been careful to stick to what she saw without speculating on what it was. She famously said, “We don’t know what it was. But it was weird and we couldn’t recognize it”[40]. She considers it an unidentified flying object in the literal sense, not necessarily something unearthly. She has also spoken about the emotional impact: feeling a bit “overwhelmed” and later, concern about how reporting it might affect her career. Dietrich said that back in 2004 there was no real avenue to formally report such an encounter without risking one’s reputation[41]. She has since become an advocate for removing the stigma around UAP reports, hoping that pilots can report strange things without fear of being labeled “kooky”[42]. Dietrich’s testimony is valuable because it corroborates Fravor’s yet comes from another highly trained observer. She confirms the object’s appearance and flight behavior (e.g., the instantaneous acceleration). She did note the object did not attack or display hostility – it just displayed flight characteristics that were puzzling. In interviews, she too affirmed the object had no observable control surfaces or exhaust and seemed to perform beyond known tech[43].
• Lt. Cmdr. Chad Underwood (USN) – F/A-18 WSO and FLIR Operator: Underwood has given fewer public statements, but he is the person who captured the FLIR video. He was a WSO (Weapons Systems Officer) in a later flight launched after Fravor’s return. Underwood’s account (shared via intermediaries and one New York magazine interview in 2019) is that he acquired the Tic Tac on his radar and then on FLIR. He coined the term “Tic Tac” in a conversation with Fravor after landing, and that moniker stuck. Underwood emphasized that the object was actively jamming his radar targeting pod – which indicated to him it was not a mistaken radar ghost but a real target with possibly advanced countermeasures. On the FLIR video, he observed the object’s erratic motion and at one point an apparent rotation (the FLIR’s display shows the object oblong then rotating 90° – though as Mick West later explained, that could be the gimbal rotation artifact of the camera[44]). Underwood has said he didn’t see the UAP visually because he was heads-down on the sensor. His main concern was to document whatever was out there. His colleagues have noted that Underwood is a reliable officer not prone to exaggeration. The fact that he encountered strong electronic jamming of his AN/APG-73 radar when trying to lock the target is significant (if true and not a system glitch) – it implies a level of technology in the object. Underwood’s FLIR footage is one of the primary pieces of evidence and his role was critical in bringing something tangible back to the carrier for intelligence to examine. (Underwood has since left the Navy; he hasn’t made as many public comments, in part due to still being on active duty when the story broke.)
• Senior Chief Kevin Day (USN, Ret.) – Air Intercept Control (AIC) Radar Operator, USS Princeton: Chief Day was responsible for monitoring the airspace on the Princeton. His account, shared in documentary interviews and written statements, provides the perspective from the ship’s CIC (Combat Information Center). Day confirms that for about a week the Princeton’s radar picked up “multiple tracks of 5 to 10 objects at a time” flying at altitudes above 50,000 feet and then descending “like from space… down to 50 feet above the water” with astonishing speed, then just hanging there or departing[1][2]. Initially, he and others thought it might be a radar system error. They even recalibrated the SPY-1 radar to be sure it wasn’t a glitch – it wasn’t. On Nov 14, Day was the one who decided to vector the F/A-18s to get a visual because the contacts were in the vicinity of the training area and posed a potential flight safety issue. After Fravor’s intercept, Day recalls seeing the radar return of the fast-moving UAP that zoomed to the CAP point. This left a deep impression on him. Day has said he was “basically begging for higher-ups to investigate” what these things were, but he got rebuffed or ignored at the time – likely due to the stigma and perhaps the assumption that it wasn’t a traditional threat. In the years afterward, Day struggled with the lack of answers and even experienced some personal distress (he left the Navy not long after). In 2019 he publicly said he felt vindicated that the story was finally out in the open. Day’s testimony is key because it highlights the radar data aspect: we have not seen the raw radar tracks, but through him we know the Princeton recorded impossible kinematic feats (like going from standing still to thousands of mph in seconds) that no friendly or known craft could emulate. He also noted that the objects often appeared at a certain latitude/longitude (just south of Guadalupe Island off Baja) – a pattern which suggests these weren’t random incursions but repeated presence in a locale[45][46].
• Petty Officer Gary Voorhis (USN, Ret.) – Fire Controlman, USS Princeton: Voorhis has given interviews (e.g., in documentary The Nimitz Encounters). Stationed on the Princeton, he worked with radar and weapon systems. He corroborated that the Aegis system detected strange targets. At one point, he says he was on deck with binoculars and actually saw an object in the distance: a white dot zig-zagging around at immense speed far out over the ocean. While this sighting is less confirmed, Voorhis’s claim adds a possible second visual source beyond the aircraft. He also backed up the story that after the events, some data recordings were confiscated. Specifically, he recounted that external “data collection” experts (possibly from U.S. Navy intelligence) flew to the Princeton and took the CIC’s radar data tapes and that he was told to erase additional data on the ship’s own system. (The Pentagon has not confirmed this action, but multiple sailors have echoed it – if true, it indicates the incident was being looked at by some intelligence entity even then.)
• Cmdr. Jim Slaight (USN) – F/A-18 WSO: Often forgotten, he was Fravor’s WSO in the backseat during the encounter. Slaight has not spoken publicly, but Fravor has mentioned that Slaight was also an observer to everything Fravor saw. So his account would presumably echo Fravor’s (solid object, high acceleration, etc.). In the leaked 2009 report, it’s noted that “statements from seven pilots and radar operators” were included[22] – presumably Fravor, Slaight, Dietrich, her WSO, Underwood, and perhaps two others from the Princeton or E-2 crew.
• Other Strike Group Personnel: The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group had thousands of sailors, and inevitably a few others have come forward with peripheral observations. For example, an E-2C Hawkeye crewman said their radar didn’t initially register the Tic Tac (possibly due to radar angle or limitations on slow targets). The submarine USS Louisville was operating with the group; crew from the sub reported they did not detect any underwater contacts or anomalies at that time, which suggests the disturbance on the water observed by the pilots was likely caused by the Tic Tac in the air (churning the water via some effect) rather than an actual submerged object (this is an inference – no official statement from the Louisville exists aside from anecdotal remarks that sonar was clean). Another Navy helicopter pilot later joked that he was airborne that day and saw nothing unusual, highlighting that if the Tic Tac was some covert test vehicle, not everyone got the memo.

In aggregate, the witness accounts present a cohesive story: multiple trained Navy personnel observed an object that performed aerospace maneuvers well beyond current known technology. These accounts have a high degree of internal consistency – for example, everyone agrees the object was white, featureless, oblong, roughly 30–50 feet long, and that it showed no flight surfaces or exhaust. Both the pilots and radar operators testify to its extreme speed and acceleration. The combination of visual and instrument confirmation is what makes the Nimitz incident so intriguing; as Commander Fravor noted, if it had just been him seeing something with no radar or video, he’d expect people to doubt him, but here we have multimodal evidence (eyes, radar, FLIR) all pointing to the same extraordinary event[38].

One should note that while most of the witnesses refrain from definitive conclusions about the origin of the Tic Tac object, they consistently describe it as unlike any known aircraft or technology. Cmdr. David Fravor, who had the closest visual encounter, stated in a 2017 interview that the object was “not from this world” and that “no known aircraft that we have can fly like that” [40]. He emphasized its instantaneous acceleration, lack of visible control surfaces, and behavior inconsistent with conventional aerodynamics. In contrast, Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich has described the object as “unexplainable” but stops short of drawing conclusions, saying in multiple interviews that they saw something “weird” and didn’t have the knowledge to explain it at the time [41]. This range of interpretations is important: it reinforces that the object was real, witnessed by multiple trained observers, and recorded on sensor systems — yet its identity and origin remain unresolved.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Media and Public Coverage

For nearly 13 years after 2004, the Nimitz Tic Tac encounter was known only to those directly involved and a small community of military aviation enthusiasts who heard rumors. That changed dramatically between 2015 and 2017, when information about the case trickled, then flooded, into the public sphere, sparking intense media coverage and public fascination. Here’s how the story emerged and how it has been portrayed:

• Early Leaks and Online Mentions (2007–2015): Unconfirmed reports indicate the FLIR video may have first leaked online around 2007, posted anonymously on a video-sharing site or forum, but without official context it gained little traction[21]. In 2015, a detailed account of the incident was published on the fighter aviation blog FighterSweep.com (authored by a pseudonym “Jell-O,” later revealed to be Cdr. Paco Chierici, a Navy colleague who heard Fravor’s story)[47]. Titled “There I was: The X-Files Edition,” this article recounted Fravor’s experience in dramatic detail. It became the first public narrative of the Tic Tac encounter, albeit in a niche outlet. The story was known in some Navy circles (Fravor himself reportedly briefed a high-ranking official around 2009 and occasionally talked about it informally), but it still wasn’t mainstream.

• The New York Times “Pentagon UFO” Bombshell (December 2017): The watershed moment was December 16, 2017, when The New York Times published a front-page investigative piece titled “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” by Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal, and Leslie Kean[48]. This article revealed the existence of the AATIP program and described the 2004 Nimitz encounter as one of its notable cases. Accompanying the article online were two videos – one of them the FLIR1 “Tic Tac” video from Fravor’s incident. For the first time, the general public could see the footage recorded that day, showing the white oval shape in the targeting pod footage. The Times article included interviews with Cmdr. Fravor (who confirmed his story on record) and officials like Luis Elizondo (who says he is the former AATIP director) who had just left the Pentagon. The authors framed the Tic Tac incident as a credible military encounter with something unknown, noting that pilots “chased a whitish oval object” and that it “accelerated like nothing they had ever seen.”[48]. The story ran with minimal skepticism, and it captivated readers. Other major media – Politico, Washington Post, CNN, ABC News – quickly followed up with their own pieces on the Pentagon UFO program and the Nimitz case.

The impact of this coverage was huge. In a matter of days, the term “Tic Tac UFO” became widely known. It was covered as a legitimate defense story (the involvement of the Pentagon program lent credibility). This was also when To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA, a private group led by Tom DeLonge and including Elizondo and former Pentagon official Christopher Mellon) stepped forward claiming partial credit for the videos’ release. In fact, Christopher Mellon had provided the Nimitz FLIR video to the press[21]. The media often referenced TTSA’s role in declassifying the footage, though later it emerged there was confusion about whether the videos were properly reviewed for released or even declassified at all, since the footage was not considered classified in the first place, though it remained not cleared for public release.

• Public Reaction and Speculation: The late 2017 articles triggered what one journalist called “fevered speculation by UFO investigators”[49]. UFO enthusiasts felt vindicated; after years of stigma, here was The New York Times and U.S. Navy pilots confirming an encounter with an extraordinary craft. Discussion exploded on social media and forums. The “Tic Tac” became a centerpiece of TV programs and documentaries about UFOs. Not all media was uncritical – journalism professor Keith Kloor wrote a skeptical commentary noting that many reports took a “mysterious” angle and didn’t dig into prosaic possibilities[50]. Still, the prevailing tone in 2017–2018 press coverage was one of intrigue and open-mindedness: something weird happened and the military even had a program to study it.
• Follow-up Leaks – 2018: In the months after the NYT story, additional materials related to Nimitz leaked or were released. In early 2018, George Knapp’s reporting (on Las Vegas KLAS Channel 8) publicized the 2009 Executive Summary report (discussed earlier)[7]. Knapp’s piece confirmed many details and even quoted from the report. The War Zone (Tyler Rogoway) published a thorough analysis of that report in May 2018, with the headline “Detailed Official Report on Harrowing Encounter Between F/A-18s and UFO Surfaces”[6]. This article highlighted the extended timeline (objects over six days) and new details like the altitude figures and the involvement of multiple ships. It also pointed out the report’s conclusion that the UFO’s capabilities were far beyond anything known. Coverage like this in defense-oriented outlets helped normalize the UFO topic as a matter for serious discussion, not just tabloid fodder.
• TV and Documentaries: The Nimitz case became central to several high-profile TV productions. In 2019, the History Channel aired “Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation,” which heavily featured the Tic Tac case in Season 1. That show, produced with the involvement of TTSA and featuring interviews with Fravor, Dietrich, and others, brought forward new bits of footage – e.g., an animation of the encounter and interviews with witnesses. History Channel’s website even posted original documents (like the redacted Executive Report) for viewers[51][22]. Separately, a few other documentaries popped up: one well-known YouTube documentary “The Nimitz Encounters” (2019, by Dave Beaty) compiled interviews with witnesses (Day, Voorhis, etc.) and recreations. By now, the “Tic Tac UFO” was a staple on shows like 60 Minutes, which in May 2021 aired a segment interviewing Fravor and Dietrich in depth, treating it as a legitimate national security mystery.
• Renewed Wave Around 2020–2021: The period around 2020–2021 saw UAPs become an even hotter news topic, in part due to Congress mandating a UAP report. The Pentagon’s official release of the Nimitz video (April 2020) was covered widely, essentially re-confirming it as real footage of an unidentified object[30][31]. When the ODNI UAP report came out in June 2021, media noted that one of the 144 cases studied was the 2004 Nimitz incident (the very first in their date range). Outlets like Reuters did profiles, such as an interview with Alex Dietrich ahead of the report’s release[52][39]. The Reuters piece headlined how Dietrich, who usually avoids “UFO drama,” stepped up to share her encounter to “normalize” reporting of such events[52][41]. At the same time, prominent skeptics like Mick West were given op-ed space (e.g., Mick West’s June 2021 Guardian piece[53]) to argue that the evidence, including the Tic Tac video, might have prosaic explanations. This created a healthy debate in the public sphere. Publications from Scientific American to The New Yorker touched on the Nimitz case while discussing the broader UFO/UAP issue.
• Popular Culture and Public Imagination: The term “Tic Tac UFO” became iconic enough that it’s referenced in late-night talk shows, internet memes, and even Congressional hearings. The somewhat whimsical name belies the serious implications, which made it even more memorable. Polls showed increased public interest in UAPs after 2017, and Nimitz was frequently cited as a case that converted some doubters into “there’s something out there” believers. In UFOlogy circles, it is often touted as one of the best UFO sightings in history given the multi-witness, multi-sensor nature. Conversely, it also became a prime target for debunking efforts (discussed later), which themselves got coverage in tech and science media.
• Recent Developments (2022–2023): In May 2022, Congress held its first public hearing on UAP in 50+ years. The Nimitz incident was referenced by officials during that hearing as a key example (one of the videos shown was not Tic Tac, but the event was alluded to as part of the unexplained cases on record). The hearing led to more news articles recapping the Nimitz story for context. Then in July 2023, a House Oversight Committee hearing on UAP featured David Fravor testifying in person[54][55]. Fravor’s sworn testimony recounted the 2004 encounter to lawmakers and made headlines yet again. Major news networks carried segments about “retired Navy pilot describes UFO with capabilities beyond any known tech”[37]. This marked an extraordinary turn of events: what began as a little-known incident in 2004 had, by 2023, entered the halls of Congress and the mainstream consciousness as the case that prompted officials to ask hard questions about UAP.

Throughout media coverage, certain themes emerged:

– The national security angle: Many outlets, especially those quoting Pentagon or Congressional figures, emphasize that if these objects are drones or advanced craft (from a foreign adversary or elsewhere), it’s a serious defense concern. Rubio and other senators explicitly mentioned the Nimitz case as worrisome if it were Chinese/Russian tech beyond our capabilities[56].

– The scientific curiosity angle: Publications like Scientific American and NBC discussed how cases like Nimitz challenge our scientific understanding and have prompted calls for better data collection. Even NASA was drawn in (in 2023 NASA convened a UAP study group, partly spurred by such Navy encounters).

– The skeptic vs believer narrative: Media often presented Fravor and others as sober witnesses on one side, and on the other side quotes from skeptics (Mick West, physicists, etc.) offering alternative explanations (camera artifact, etc.). This balance varied by outlet, but by and large, the existence of an unexplained event was accepted, with debate focusing on “alien or not” or “could it be tech or trick?” rather than outright denial that anything happened.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Official Government Response

Despite the dramatic nature of the Nimitz encounter, the official U.S. government response to it unfolded slowly and in a piecemeal fashion over many years. Initially, in 2004, there was essentially no public acknowledgment – the incident was handled within normal Navy procedures (which, at the time, didn’t include formally investigating UFOs). However, as details emerged and public interest grew, the Department of Defense and other government entities had to address the case. Here we outline how the government’s stance evolved:

• 2004 Immediate Response: On the day of the incident, there was no high-level alert or special team sent to investigate on site (as far as is known from unclassified info). The Carrier Strike Group finished its training exercise. Reports suggest that intelligence officers on the Nimitz and Princeton did forward information up the chain – likely to the Navy’s chain of command or maybe to the Department of the Navy’s intelligence branch (ONI). However, whatever analysis was done remained internal. No public statements were made. It appears the event was considered puzzling but not an immediate threat, and the lack of an identified adversary or any damage meant it might have been quietly filed away. (One complicating factor: If there was any suspicion it might be an American black project being tested, that could have caused a lid of secrecy to clamp down – though there’s no direct evidence that was the case.)

• Inclusion in AATIP (2007–2012): The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was allegedly a Pentagon program (initially funded at the behest of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) that ran roughly from 2008 to 2012, focused on analyzing unexplained aerial phenomena. There is much controversy on whether or not AATIP was a program at all, and the small amount of evidence that has surfaced show a clear difference between that, and the version of it was all about, as touted in the media by Luis Elizondo, and others, who claim to be a part of the effort. It is claimed that under AATIP (and its DIA equivalent AAWSAP), cases like the Nimitz encounter were collated and studied. The 2009 Tic Tac Executive Summary was said to be a product of this effort[7], though it is possible that this document is not a government document at all, but rather, a product of a private corporation (BAASS) who had won the AAWSAP contract and possibly conducted research well outside the scope of the original mission statement. The report and others like it were circulated to some extent within defense and intelligence circles (for example, some accounts say it was shown to contractors and aerospace companies to evaluate if the observed performance could be human technology). But AATIP itself was not publicly known until 2017. So during those years, the official position outwardly was silence, while quietly the case was used as a key example in threat assessments. Notably, the conclusion even in those internal assessments was that the phenomenon was genuine and unexplained, raising questions about “advanced physics” or breakthrough technologies.
• Navy Policy Changes (2015–2019): By the mid-2010s, Navy pilots (particularly on the East Coast, USS Roosevelt in 2014–15) were reporting increasing encounters with UAP. The Nimitz case, often referenced in internal discussions, helped prompt the Navy to update its guidelines. In 2019, the U.S. Navy officially announced a new UAP reporting procedure for its personnel[32]. While the Navy did not mention Nimitz by name in the press, a spokesman acknowledged that “unexplained aerial phenomena” had been observed by aviators and that the Navy wanted to destigmatize reporting for safety and security reasons[32]. This was a tacit admission that cases like Nimitz (2004) and Roosevelt (2015) were not one-offs – they were part of a pattern that needed addressing.
• Confirmation of Videos (2019): In September 2019, under media pressure, the Navy (through spokesperson Joseph Gradisher) officially confirmed that the three widely circulated UAP videos (Tic Tac, Gimbal, GoFast) were authentic Navy footage and that the phenomena captured on them were “unidentified”[29][31], an exclusive story broken by The Black Vault. This was a notable break from past practice, where such footage might have been ignored or debunked. The Navy’s statement didn’t give any further explanation for the Tic Tac object – simply labeling it unidentified. This confirmation was accompanied by an important contextual remark: the footage was part of a “larger issue of an increased number of training range incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena in recent years”[57]. In other words, the military acknowledged UAP are real enough to be incurring on training ranges and that Tic Tac was one instance of that pattern.
• Pentagon UAP Task Force (2020): By August 2020, the Department of Defense created an official Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF), under the Navy’s purview, to coordinate the collection and analysis of UAP incidents. The announcement of the UAPTF was essentially an official response to Congressional interest and the cumulative pressure from events like Nimitz. The mission of UAPTF was to “standardize the reporting” of UAP and evaluate their nature and threat[58]. The formation of this task force can be seen as a direct outcome of cases like the Tic Tac – without such high-profile incidents, it’s unlikely there would have been enough momentum to create a formal program. Indeed, when Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist launched it, briefings on the Nimitz case were among the materials justifying the effort (we know the Task Force later briefed NASA on Nimitz, for example[4]).
• ODNI Preliminary Assessment (June 2021): Responding to a Congressional mandate, the Director of National Intelligence released an unclassified report titled “Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”. This report considered UAP reports from 2004–2021 (thus explicitly covering the Nimitz incident as the first chronologically). The assessment stated that 143 out of 144 UAP cases examined remained unexplained, and that in 18 of those incidents, UAP demonstrated performance or flight characteristics that could not be attributed to known technology (e.g. unusual acceleration, lack of discernible means of lift)[33]. This almost certainly includes the Tic Tac as one of those 18 that showed “breakthrough” capabilities[33]. Significantly, the report also said no evidence had been found that the UAP were alien craft, but it also didn’t rule out any hypothesis[59]. Senior officials were quoted as saying the data was too limited to conclude anything like that[59]. They raised possible explanations such as airborne clutter, natural phenomena, foreign adversary drones, or highly classified U.S. developments – but they had no confirmation for any of those in these cases[60][61]. In effect, the government admitted: Yes, the Tic Tac happened and we still don’t know what it was. The ODNI report gave the UAP issue a measure of legitimacy and spurred further actions (e.g., requirements for better data collection, scientific studies, etc.). The lack of a definitive official explanation for the Nimitz encounter was underscored by this report.
• Speculations by Officials: Over the years, various officials and military brass have been asked about the Nimitz case. Notably, some have floated the idea of adversary technology. For example, in 2020 Senator Marco Rubio (then Intelligence Committee chair) said he’d rather these UAP be aliens than something Chinese/Russian – because the latter would mean a huge security gap[56]. The Pentagon has generally avoided speculating in public on specific cases. However, in late 2022, anonymous DoD officials told reporters (New York Times) that the bulk of UAP sightings being investigated appeared to be foreign surveillance drones or airborne clutter, and even mentioned some UAP might be “Air Force aircraft, tested without informing naval units”[62]. They explicitly said no evidence of extraterrestrial origin had turned up[62]. It’s worth noting this came as the DoD was preparing a new report and likely trying to downplay the alien hypothesis. If one of those officials’ suggestions – that some sightings could be advanced drone tech from adversaries or even U.S. black projects – were applied to Nimitz, it would imply the Tic Tac might have been a test of some next-gen vehicle or a spoofing exercise. There’s no direct evidence for that in released documents, but it remains a hypothesis in some corners of the intelligence community (as seen in quotes by people like astrophysicist Adam Frank and astronomer Thomas Bania, who speculated the Tic Tac could have been adversarial drones or electronic warfare aimed at testing U.S. defenses[61]).
• Institutionalizing UAP Study (2022–2023): In November 2021, the UAP Task Force transitioned into a more permanent organization: the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), later revamped by Congress as AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) in 2022. This office is tasked with investigating UAP across all domains (air, sea, space).
• Congressional Oversight: As mentioned, Congressional hearings in 2022 and 2023 marked a turning point. During the May 2022 hearing before a House subcommittee, Navy officials acknowledged the Nimitz incident as a valid report and showed legislators a frame from the FLIR video, noting it remained unexplained. In July 2023, when Fravor testified to Congress, he was essentially educating lawmakers directly about the event, which by itself is an extraordinary form of official recognition[54]. The Pentagon didn’t refute or challenge any of Fravor’s testimony; in fact, DoD’s official stance has been to neither endorse nor debunk these specific witness accounts, simply to say the matter is under study.

In summary, the official government response has moved from silence and secrecy (2004–2016) to acknowledgment and investigation (2017–present). Key points of the current official position include:

– The 2004 Tic Tac encounter happened as reported by Navy personnel (i.e., it’s not a hoax or misreport – the military stands by their pilots’ accounts as credible).

– The object remains unidentified; the government has not publicly concluded what it was.

– The incident is considered important in shaping UAP inquiry; it’s often cited as an impetus for improved UAP reporting and study.

– Officials have offered possible explanations in general for UAP (e.g., drones, balloons, natural phenomena, tech demo) but none specific to Nimitz. Importantly, multiple administrations and military branches have consistently avoided claiming the Tic Tac was any U.S. secret project – if it was, one might expect by now some quiet hint to Congress to quell the issue, but on the contrary, the case keeps being used as evidence of something unknown in our airspace.

– The focus now is on gathering more data. The legacy of Nimitz pushed the Pentagon to commit to “developing reporting and resolution frameworks”. Indeed, by 2023, AARO was directed by law to compile historic UAP data; one can be certain the Tic Tac incident’s data is in their archives.

To date, no official report has been released that resolves the Tic Tac incident. The Pentagon’s stance can be summarized by a quote from the 2021 ODNI report: “We currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations.” For the Tic Tac, this holds true – it is an acknowledged mystery. High-ranking officials (like former DNI John Ratcliffe) have even said on TV that the Nimitz case involved “multiple sensor collections that never got to the bottom of it,” underscoring that from an intel perspective it’s a legitimate unknown.

It’s worth noting that if the Tic Tac were foreign or domestic technology, that fact itself would likely be highly classified. Thus, the government’s public stance might remain “unidentified” even if behind closed doors some suspect a source. However, Congressional pressure is mounting for transparency; legislation in late 2023 even set up whistleblower protections for reporting UAP-related information. The truth of the Tic Tac may eventually be disclosed if it’s something prosaic and decidable. Until then, the official word is literally “unidentified aerial phenomenon” – a term which encapsulates both that something real was observed and that it defies current identification.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Skeptical and Debunking Arguments

From the moment the Tic Tac incident became public, it has invited healthy skepticism and analysis. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and while the Nimitz case provides better evidence than most UFO reports (multiple witnesses, radar, video), skeptics argue it’s still not conclusive proof of anything exotic. Various scientists, aviation experts, and debunkers have proposed prosaic explanations for aspects of the event. In this section, we present the major skeptical viewpoints and counter-arguments, all advanced in an effort to explain the Tic Tac encounter without invoking unknown or otherworldly technology. These include analyses of the FLIR video’s quirks, potential instrument or perception errors, possible classified human tech, and scenarios like electronic warfare interference. We cite these arguments respectfully, as they form an essential part of the discourse surrounding the incident.

1. Instrument Limitations and Optical Illusions: One line of skepticism suggests that what the pilots and sensors recorded might be interpretations of ordinary phenomena distorted by optics or perspective. The clearest example is the FLIR video. Mick West, a prominent skeptic and debunker, has extensively analyzed the FLIR1 Tic Tac video frame by frame. According to West, the video likely shows a distant airplane or some mundane object, and the apparently remarkable motion is an artifact of the camera system[64][65]. West points out that in the video, just before the Tic Tac “zooms” off left, the FLIR camera stops tracking (the gimbal reaches its limit) and also switches from narrow FOV to zoom (2×). This combination can create the illusion that the target suddenly shoots off, whereas in reality the camera lost lock and the object, which was moving at a constant speed, simply left the frame due to the camera’s own movement[17][65]. He notes the object was always moving left relative to the background, and when the auto-track disengaged, the apparent velocity jumped – “This is perfectly consistent with something like a distant aircraft just flying along quite normally, making no sudden movements”[65]. In short, West argues the video does not demonstrate any impossible acceleration; it’s only our misunderstanding of the sensor display. Furthermore, he highlights that infrared glare can make a jet at distance appear as a featureless blob. The Tic Tac’s lack of detail on FLIR (no wings, etc.) could simply be because it’s an IR glare of a plane’s hot engines, saturating the sensor and appearing as a white oval[44]. He points to the patent for the ATFLIR’s gimbal, which notes that as the gimbal rotates to track objects, bright points can appear to rotate due to how the optics stabilize (this was used to explain the “Gimbal” UAP video’s rotating aura; similarly, the Tic Tac’s orientation change could be a camera effect)[44].

Skeptics also mention parallax as a factor: if the object was relatively stationary or slow but closer to the camera, and the background cloud/horizon is far, the object can seem to zip by rapidly as the jet moves. This was an explanation applied more to the 2015 “GoFast” video (Mick West calculated that supposed fast-moving UAP was likely a slow-moving balloon, with apparent speed created by parallax and the moving jet[66]), but the concept is relevant: visual perspective can deceive. In the Tic Tac case, the pilots’ depth perception at 20,000 ft with no reference could be off. If, for instance, the object was smaller and nearer to Fravor than he thought, its movements might not need to be as fast as assumed. However, this runs into issues: radar had it at certain ranges, etc., so the parallax notion doesn’t fully account for all data.

2. Misidentified Aircraft or Drone: Another straightforward explanation is that the Tic Tac was actually a known type of object – like a high-altitude drone, missile, or even a balloon – that went unrecognized. For example, could it have been a stray weather balloon? Balloons can hover and then catch winds that make them scoot; from a fighter pilot’s perspective, a balloon’s lack of wings/exhaust fits. However, balloons don’t typically dart 60 miles in a minute. What about a classified UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) test? Some have speculated the Tic Tac might have been an early demonstration of a hypersonic or high-performance drone, possibly tested by a U.S. agency or contractor without the Navy’s knowledge (it’s happened before that secret units test defenses by sending fake bogeys). If, for instance, a program was testing a high-speed drone or decoy with novel propulsion, it could appear very strange to observers not read into it. The U.S. did have some experimental craft in 2004 (e.g., Falcon Project concepts, but nothing publicly known that matches Tic Tac’s performance).

Others point abroad: could it have been Chinese or Russian? In 2004, Chinese drones were not very advanced; Russian tech was also not at that level. It seems unlikely foreign drones would operate impunity in a U.S. Navy exercise area and outperform U.S. fighters, but intelligence officials in recent years have genuinely considered whether some UAP might be “technologies deployed by China or Russia to probe U.S. defenses”[61]. If so, the idea is that these incursions provoke U.S. radars to turn on and reveal capabilities, essentially acting as reconnaissance. The 2004 incident’s location (off California) and timing don’t obviously fit a known foreign testing pattern, but it’s not impossible. However, it’s worth noting that the ODNI report explicitly said no evidence was found that any UAP were foreign operatives[59] – it remains a hypothesis.

3. Radar Anomalies and Spoofing: On the radar side, skeptics ask: could the radar data be faulty or spoofed? Modern radars like SPY-1 are very powerful, but they can have software glitches or track anomalies (e.g., “multipath” returns, where radar beams bounce and create false targets). The Princeton crew did recalibrate the radar and still saw the objects, which suggests it wasn’t a simple glitch. But a more intriguing possibility is electronic warfare (EW) spoofing: an adversary (or friendly tester) could inject signals into the radar to create false targets that appear to move in extreme ways. This is not science fiction – militaries have long worked on fooling radars with ghost targets. If some entity spoofed the Princeton’s radar and even the Super Hornet’s radar, the pilots might chase something not actually there, while perhaps a real small drone or visual cue (like a balloon or nothing at all) kept them confused. In fact, some U.S. officials speculated that certain UAP encounters could be due to “radar spoofing by an adversary testing our systems.”[67]. This theory would explain why multiple radars saw it but no one recovered physical evidence: the objects were essentially sophisticated hallucinations on the sensors, possibly paired with slight of-hand (like a drone dropping flares to create the water disturbance). The challenge to this theory is the visual sighting by Fravor and Dietrich – spoofing can’t directly make a visible object that four people see up close. Unless what they saw was a decoy (like some experimental hovering device or even an optical illusion – but that’s stretching). It’s easier to spoof radar than the human eye at close range.

Skeptics note that the Tic Tac didn’t do anything that directly violated physics, aside from perhaps extreme acceleration (which could be overstated if perception was off). It didn’t shoot beams, didn’t vanish into thin air (just air to Fravor but radar still saw it elsewhere). It’s theoretically possible some combination of sensor error and pilot misinterpretation is at play: e.g., maybe a distant airliner’s track was mis-correlated on radar, and the water disturbance was a separate event (like a sub or whale), and Fravor’s brain combined them. While possible, that seems unlikely given the coherence of the accounts.

4. Human Perception and Memory: Psychologists would remind us that even the most trained observers can misjudge speeds and distances, especially in the air with no reference points. The pilots might have overestimated how “instant” the acceleration was (maybe it was a couple of seconds but felt instantaneous in the moment). Additionally, memory can embellish over time. However, Fravor and Dietrich have given accounts within a few years of the event that match what they say now, so there’s consistency.

4. The “It’s Ours” Hypothesis: One enduring skeptical interpretation of the 2004 Tic Tac UAP encounter suggests that the object may have been a highly classified U.S. aerospace vehicle. According to this theory, the U.S. military or an affiliated contractor—potentially operating under a Special Access Program (SAP)—may have been testing advanced propulsion or stealth technologies against a Carrier Strike Group to gauge real-world performance under authentic threat conditions. These scenarios are not without precedent, as certain black programs have operated independently of conventional oversight.A noteworthy coincidence often cited by proponents of this idea is that just two days after the Tic Tac event, NASA’s X-43A scramjet aircraft broke a world speed record off the coast of Southern California—roughly the same region. While the X-43 was part of a known experimental program, its proximity in time and geography opens the door to the possibility that other, more secretive platforms might have flown during that window. Since the Navy already had airspace secured and tracking assets deployed, piggybacking a SAP-level test might have allowed for operational secrecy under the radar of even commanding officers.Recently, journalist Ross Coulthart suggested in an interview that Lockheed Martin may have been directly involved, implying that the Tic Tac could be the product of highly compartmentalized aerospace development. Though Coulthart provided no documentation to support this claim, it aligns with longstanding speculation that defense contractors—particularly Lockheed’s Skunk Works division—may house exotic aerospace prototypes that remain deeply classified.Some researchers also point to a set of U.S. Navy patents filed by engineer Salvatore Pais, which describe high-speed, inertia-reducing craft potentially capable of extreme performance characteristics. While most physicists doubt the Pais patents reflect deployable technology, their existence fuels theories that advanced propulsion research may be further along than acknowledged.Still, this hypothesis carries substantial counterarguments. Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, former Chief of Naval Operations, acknowledged in a public statement that most UAP incidents reviewed during his tenure remained “unresolved”. If the Tic Tac had been a known military asset—whether from a U.S. program or defense contractor—some internal clarification would likely have surfaced. Instead, all available evidence shows that no one, including senior Navy officers or Aegis radar personnel, was ever briefed that the incident involved a friendly platform.Until more transparency emerges, the theory that the Tic Tac was “ours” remains plausible—but unproven.
5. Natural or Atmospheric Phenomenon: The official UAP briefing slide shows “unknown weather or natural phenomena” as a possible explanation[28]. Could the Tic Tac be some kind of rare atmospheric event? For instance, ball lightning or a plasma ball could appear bright and move unpredictably – but those are usually short-lived, small, and not known to zoom 60 miles. Or perhaps a mirage or reflection? In some cases, thermal layers can cause objects to appear at different positions (superior mirages). Conceivably, a distant plane might have had its image displaced by atmospheric refraction. But it wouldn’t account for radar locks. There’s also been speculation about high-energy plasma creating radar ghosts – for example, a ball of plasma (from some electrical anomaly) could fool radar and appear bright to pilots. Again, extremely speculative and no known natural phenomenon matches what was observed in duration and behavior.
6. Skeptic Reception of Evidence Quality: Many skeptics, such as Michael Shermer (of Skeptic magazine), acknowledge that something happened but assert the evidence is not strong enough to leap to “alien”. Shermer said of the trio of Navy videos (including Tic Tac): “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How extraordinary is the evidence? It’s not even ordinary. It’s piss-poor.”[69]. He and others emphasize that a fuzzy infrared video and anecdotes, even from credible people, are not definitive proof of amazing tech – it could be many mundane things. Shermer cautions against the “leap from unknown to extraterrestrial” as a logical fallacy[70]. Indeed, skeptics often point out that historically, many UFO cases that had solid evidence eventually found mundane explanations (e.g., the 1970s “Saturn-like” UFO that turned out to be a misidentified aircraft, or the Chilean Navy UFO case Mick West solved as a jet with contrails[71][72]).
7. Specific Debunks Attempted: Mick West, in addition to the FLIR analysis, also addressed Fravor’s account. He does not claim Fravor is lying, but suggests Fravor’s recollection could be flawed or incomplete. For instance, West says: whatever Fravor saw with his eyes isn’t captured on the FLIR – that video likely depicts a different moment or object that doesn’t perform crazy maneuvers[38]. It’s possible that the FLIR video shows a separate object than the one Fravor chased (timing-wise, Fravor had no FLIR, Underwood did the filming after). If so, some skeptics argue maybe Fravor’s visual encounter was some kind of optical illusion caused by the relative motion of his plane and a small object. Perhaps the Princeton’s radar returns at high altitude were real objects (like debris or balloons that confused the system). The water boiling could have been a submarine exercise (though none reported). It’s a stretch, but skeptics try to break the incident into pieces that could each have an explanation rather than one grand explanation for the whole.

Counterpoints to Skeptics: It’s important to also note the counter-arguments to these skeptical takes (for balance):

– The instrumental artifact arguments (camera glitch, radar spoof) don’t easily explain the convergence of multi-sensor and visual data. For the Tic Tac to be a distant jet misidentified, one would have to believe that simultaneously the Princeton radar was fooled into tracking something descending from 80k ft and the pilots at close range couldn’t recognize it as a jet (no wings visible, etc.), and the object then outran a jet. Pilots like Fravor refute the idea it was an airliner or drone.

– Radar spoofing is real but usually creates simple false targets; making one that can appear to maneuver and then show up 60 miles away on cue would be a highly advanced capability – an act of war if an enemy did that. Also it wouldn’t create a visual object unless something physical was also there (like a drone or decoy).

– Classified drone: If we had such technology in 2004, it’s odd we haven’t seen it manifest in other ways in the two decades since. A craft that can hover silently and then go hypersonic would revolutionize aviation; it’s hard to imagine it’d remain only used to spook a training exercise once. Unless it was a one-off demo that failed or remained too secret to use.

– Human error: Always possible, but having four aviators and multiple tech systems all erring in a coherent way strains that line.

Skeptics maintain a valuable stance: they are not dismissing the pilots’ integrity, but they urge caution in jumping to exotic conclusions. They stress that unidentified does not equal unexplainable; we should exhaust all conventional possibilities. As Mick West said, “Any time something unidentified shows up in restricted airspace, that’s a real problem – but believers in ‘alien disclosure’ encroach on these real issues of UAPs”, meaning the focus should be on safety and security, not on sensational assumptions[73]. He also noted that the lack of data (high-quality data) makes people fill in blanks with aliens, but “a lack of data does not mean aliens are the likely answer”[73].

In summary, skeptical and debunking arguments for the Tic Tac incident revolve around these key ideas:

– The FLIR video likely doesn’t show extraordinary motion – it’s a camera artifact; the Tic Tac didn’t demonstrate physics-defying acceleration on that video[17][65].

– The object could have been a conventional craft or some kind of drone, observed under unusual conditions that made it seem exotic[44].

– Perceptual effects, instrument quirks, and potential deliberate spoofing might explain various elements of the encounter without invoking unknown technology[67].

– There is as yet no hard evidence (like debris, high-resolution imagery, or multiple synchronized recordings) proving the Tic Tac was something beyond the realm of known human capability – so the default position should be to assume it might have an ordinary explanation that we just haven’t nailed down.

The skeptics’ work has actually been welcomed by many in scientific communities, because it frames hypotheses that can be tested or falsified (for example, by analyzing the FLIR’s behavior, by checking for known traffic etc.). And notably, even the most ardent skeptics are not saying “nothing happened; the pilots are crazy.” Instead, they typically acknowledge the pilots saw something but are offering that the interpretation of what that something was could be mistaken. This push-and-pull between believers and skeptics has led to deeper investigation – e.g., the Navy was prompted to confirm the video’s authenticity partly due to public debate, and Congress asked if there were data to rule out things like spoofing.

One final skeptical perspective: caution about “exotic” explanations. Even if not a drone or illusion, some skeptics like physicist Adam Frank propose a more down-to-earth scenario: maybe some novel natural phenomenon or a tech concept we haven’t thought of – not necessarily aliens from Zeta Reticuli, but perhaps something like a self-guided plasma ball or a new type of UAV using disruptive propulsion that we simply haven’t encountered before[61]. The point is, we should not jump to the least likely explanation (alien visitors) when many likely ones (though less sexy) haven’t been conclusively eliminated.

In the end, the Tic Tac incident remains a Rorschach test: those inclined to think outside the box see a potentially groundbreaking mystery (even evidence of non-human intelligence), while skeptics see a case of “interesting, but not yet convincing”. Both sides agree on one thing: more data would resolve it. Unfortunately, after 2004 we didn’t get more on Tic Tac specifically – but going forward, the military is trying to ensure future incidents are captured better, in part thanks to the scrutiny this case received.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Radar Jamming Controversy: Did the Tic Tac Engage in Electronic Warfare?

One of the more debated technical aspects of the 2004 Tic Tac incident is whether the UAP actively jammed radar systems—a tactic that would be considered hostile in military doctrine. While Cmdr. David Fravor has repeatedly stated that jamming occurred, the story becomes complicated when reviewing early documents and later testimony.

The original Executive Summary authored closer to the 2004 event includes the statement that “the radar could not take a lock … there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, ‘any normal EA indications’).” This appears to quote Lt. Chad Underwood—pilot of the F/A-18F who captured the FLIR1 video—as saying there was no evidence of electronic attack.

That assessment was echoed in the BAASS Full Report, which noted Underwood’s radar “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it,” suggesting possible sensor limitations rather than interference.

However, years later, Underwood changed his stance. In a 2023 interview with filmmaker Jeremy Corbell, Underwood described radar “jam strobe lines” as appearing during the encounter, noting: “Once I got the target of interest on my radar I took a lock and that’s when all the kind of funky things started happening… we started seeing what we call jam strobe lines. Strobe lines are vertical lines that show up on your radar that are indications that you are being jammed.” (Source)

This discrepancy is significant. Researcher Dave Beaty, who produced The Nimitz Encounters documentary, noted on social media: “Underwood initially said no jamming in the executive summary and BAASS report—then later changed his story and disavowed the interview in the document. This contradiction could reflect a cover-up, or simply confusion. Either way, Fravor appeared to ‘correct’ the record later, stating it was an act of war.”

While Fravor’s telling remains consistent (asserting radar jamming occurred during Underwood’s attempt to lock the target), the early documentation tied directly to Underwood makes no mention of such an event—and in fact explicitly denies jamming was detected.

This unresolved contradiction complicates efforts to assess the Tic Tac’s capabilities. If jamming occurred, it implies intentional electronic warfare and technological sophistication far beyond drones or balloons. If not, it may point instead to sensor anomalies or over-interpretation in hindsight.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Unresolved Questions

The USS Nimitz Tic Tac encounter leaves us with many unanswered questions, some of which might have answers that are simply undisclosed (kept secret), and others that are truly unexplained given our current knowledge. It’s important to distinguish between what is still a mystery because we lack information versus what is a mystery because it defies explanation even with the information we have. Here we outline the key unresolved questions, categorizing them where possible as unexplained vs. potentially undisclosed:

• What exactly was the Tic Tac object? – This is the central question. As of 2025, neither the U.S. government nor independent investigators have publicly identified the object. It remains an “unidentified aerial phenomenon.” Was it an aircraft? A drone? A natural plasma event? An elaborate hoax or spoofed signal? Or something truly exotic (alien technology or an unknown atmospheric physics phenomenon)? Unexplained. Despite extensive analysis, no conventional explanation fits all aspects, and no evidence of an unconventional one (like a recovered craft or direct communication) has come forth. If the object was a secret human-made vehicle, that information remains undisclosed by any authority.
• What capabilities did it demonstrate, and are they achievable by known technology? – The Tic Tac was reported to hover with no lift surfaces, accelerate instantaneously to hypersonic speeds, and possibly jam radar. These capabilities, if taken at face value, exceed publicly known aerospace technology. Are these performance aspects real, or were they misperceptions/sensor anomalies? This is partially unresolved because some of the performance (like instant acceleration) might be an artifact of perspective or sensor limits – we don’t have exact telemetry. But the radar data (if accurate) and pilot accounts suggest something real. If real, then how could it achieve that? Unexplained, unless one posits new physics or engineering (e.g., some kind of field propulsion). On the other hand, if it’s a misidentification, then the capabilities might have been more ordinary; that answer is undisclosed insofar as no one has proven the mundane explanation either.
• Who (if anyone) was controlling the object? – Was the Tic Tac object under intelligent control (responding to the Navy jets), and if so, whose intelligence? Options include: human remote operators (if a drone), an AI or automated system, or perhaps a non-human operator (the ETH – extraterrestrial hypothesis). Witnesses felt it reacted to them[12], implying intelligent control. But we have no proof of who/what controlled it. If it was a US black project, that is a deeply undisclosed secret. If foreign, equally undisclosed by whoever sent it. If neither, and something truly other, that remains unexplained within current scientific paradigms.
• Why that time and place (Nov 2004 off California)? – Was there significance to the location? The Nimitz CSG was preparing for deployment; could the Tic Tac have been observing military exercises intentionally? The Pacific off San Diego is also not far from various Navy and Marine installations (and historically, a lot of UFO reports cluster off Southern California and Baja – even the History Channel map shows a hotspot near Guadalupe Island[45][74]). Did the UAP choose to appear there, or was it coincidence? If adversarial, maybe they knew a carrier group was training. If it was a US test, they chose their own carrier to test against. If neither, the coincidence is puzzling. This question is unresolved; any answer would be speculative.
• Were there multiple objects or just one? – The radar indicated multiple contacts over several days[2]. On the day of engagement, the accounts mainly focus on one Tic Tac that Fravor engaged, but others were reportedly aloft at the same time (the Princeton’s radar operator Day spoke of seeing groups on radar). Did those represent a fleet of objects? If so, where did they all go? Only one was engaged and filmed. Did the others disappear concurrently, or go elsewhere? The presence of multiples could suggest either a systematic cause (like multiple false returns, or a squadron of drones, etc.) or a coordinated action by unknown craft. This remains unexplained, and the declassified info hasn’t clarified if one craft was doing all the maneuvering or if many were in play (some speculation: multiple objects were “drones” or decoys and the one Tic Tac was the main “mothership” – but that’s just theorizing).
• What was the source of the water disturbance? – Pilots saw turbulent water like “something just below the surface,” about the size of a plane fuselage[5]. Did the Tic Tac come from underwater (e.g., launched from a sub or submersible)? There was a submarine in the group (USS Louisville) that detected nothing. If not a sub, could it have been marine life or upwelling? Unlikely to form a nearly circular boiling patch spontaneously. If the Tic Tac had some field propulsion, maybe it agitated the water from above. Or possibly a second object (an “USO” – Unidentified Submersible Object) was there. This remains unexplained. No data confirms a submersible craft, but witnesses felt the disturbance and Tic Tac were connected.
• Why was there apparently no immediate high-level investigation in 2004? – From witness accounts, after the incident there was no formal debrief from e.g. Office of Naval Intelligence or any special unit (aside from rumored data collection by unknown persons). Officially, the Navy didn’t convene an inquiry then. Why? Did they quietly know or suspect what it was (hence no need to investigate because it was “ours” or known)? Or did they dismiss it to avoid embarrassment or paper trail? Or did someone classify it and take it offline? This question likely falls under undisclosed – internal Navy actions might have been taken that we’re not privy to. Or it’s an organizational failing that’s now being corrected via UAP Task Force, etc.
• Is there more data that hasn’t been released? – For example, the original high-resolution FLIR video (reportedly several minutes long) – we only saw a snippet. Radar data recordings from Princeton and Nimitz. Radio communications transcripts. The full 13-page report unredacted. If such data exist, they could answer some questions (like exact speeds, altitudes). The Navy and DoD have been reluctant to release more, citing classification and security. It’s likely additional information remains undisclosed. Indeed, FOIA requests often come back heavily redacted or denied (e.g., at least 24 pages were denied in the NRO Sentient release regarding another incident[75]). The lack of publicly available comprehensive data keeps some questions alive that might otherwise be settled if we had it.
• What do experts behind closed doors think it was? – It’s possible that within the Pentagon or intelligence community, after studying it, many believe one explanation over others (for instance, perhaps some analysts lean towards “probably some kind of drone test” and others “couldn’t be ours or theirs, truly unknown”). We, the public, don’t know that consensus. Undisclosed. However, statements like those in the ODNI report suggest even internally, they cataloged it as unexplained.
• Could it be connected to any other UAP incidents? – There have been other famous UAP cases (e.g., 2015 Roosevelt incidents, 2019 West Coast drone swarms, etc.). Is the Tic Tac event related? Interestingly, the 2021 NRO Sentient detection (discussed later) found a similar “tic tac” shaped object, implying possibly a recurring phenomenon[76]. Are these all the same things coming back, or different? This is unresolved. The legacy of Tic Tac is partly that it doesn’t stand alone – it’s now one data point in a series of UAP events that share characteristics (solid objects with no wings, extraordinary performance). The unanswered question is: are we dealing with a singular phenomenon or multiple unrelated ones? The consistency hints at something systematic.
• If it was a foreign adversary, where is that technology now? – 19 years later, neither Russia nor China (nor the US) have unveiled anything that matches the Tic Tac’s described abilities. If it was foreign, it represents a staggering leap that they haven’t used overtly. That leads to further puzzles: was it a one-off? Did it fail? Did it exist at all? If it was our own, same question – why hasn’t it shown up elsewhere (or maybe it has in other UAP reports)? This remains speculative and unanswered.
• What are the implications if truly unexplained? – This is more philosophical, but an unresolved question is: What does it mean if a bona fide craft with these capabilities is operating out there? It raises questions about physics (could it be exploiting something like warp fields, as some scientists have hypothesized in speculative papers?), about surveillance (are we being monitored by someone with tech way beyond ours?), and about security (how to defend against something that can outrun and outmaneuver our best fighters?). The US government’s current position is essentially: We don’t know, but we’re concerned. That’s why they talk of potential “breakthrough technology” and the need to investigate[33]. But until answered, those implications hang in the air as open-ended questions themselves.

To clearly distinguish categories:

– Unexplained (truly unknown): The nature and origin of the Tic Tac object; the mechanism of its motion; the intelligence behind it (if any); the connection to any broader phenomena.

– Undisclosed (possibly known to some but not public): Data recordings and analysis conclusions that are classified; whether it was a secret test (if yes, that’s a kept secret); any potential identification that is being withheld for security reasons.

At this juncture, the Tic Tac incident remains a mystery. Some of that mystery might dissolve if hidden information were released – for example, if tomorrow the government declassified “the Tic Tac was an experimental hypersonic drone, here’s the proof,” that would resolve it (though raise new questions about the tech). Alternatively, it might remain a mystery because it’s genuinely not understood by anyone yet.

In forums and hearings, officials often frame Tic Tac and similar cases as “unresolved but under examination.” Congress has even set a deadline for the DoD and Intelligence Community to review historical UAP incidents and report findings. Perhaps in that process, some of these unanswered questions will finally get answers (even if those answers are simply “it was X,” where X could be a mundane explanation or confirmation of something exotic). Until then, we have a case where multiple credible people saw something astounding, and yet we cannot emphatically say what it was or why it was there.

Thus, the Nimitz encounter lives on as an open case, fueling both scientific curiosity and intense speculation. Each unresolved question is a piece of the puzzle, and only with more evidence (or admissions) will the puzzle form a clear picture. For now, the Tic Tac remains, appropriately, an enigma in plain sight – observed clearly, documented on film, but still not understood.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Impact and Legacy

The 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac incident has had a profound impact on multiple fronts: it shaped the trajectory of U.S. government programs dealing with UAP, it influenced public and scientific attitudes toward UFO reports, and it left a lasting legacy in defense and intelligence circles as a cautionary tale of an unsolved encounter. Here we explore how this single case reverberated through policy, research, and culture in the years since.

1. Catalyst for AATIP and UAP Research: The Tic Tac case was one of the key incidents that caught the attention of those who would go on to form the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) in 2007. According to reporting and statements by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the compelling nature of encounters like the Nimitz one – with credible military witnesses and sensor data – helped justify funding a secret study program[7]. The 2009 report on the Nimitz incident became part of the library of data AATIP/AAWSAP used to analyze what they termed “advanced aerospace threats.” In fact, private contractors like Bigelow Aerospace (which ran AAWSAP) took great interest in the case; they even interviewed witnesses and likely helped compile the Executive Summary. The legacy here is that Nimitz provided a template for how to investigate a UFO case within the defense/intel framework: collect radar logs, pilot interviews, etc., and do a scientific assessment. It arguably nudged AATIP toward considering “beyond next-generation” technologies, since they had to contemplate how something could perform like the Tic Tac (leading them to commission theoretical studies on warp drives, wormholes, and other exotic concepts[77]).
2. Influence on Navy and DoD UAP Policy: Fast forward to the late 2010s, the resurgence of the Nimitz story influenced the Navy to get ahead of the issue. By 2019, as mentioned, the Navy rolled out formal UAP reporting guidelines (in part to destigmatize reporting for pilots). The Navy also publicly confirmed and embraced the authenticity of UAP encounters – a stark change from decades of dismissal. One direct legacy of Nimitz was that naval aviators were encouraged to report unusual sightings without fear. In fact, later pilots (like those from USS Roosevelt 2014-15) have said that because of the efforts to normalize UAP reporting (which Nimitz’s publicity helped drive), they filed reports about the “cube-in-sphere” UAPs off the East Coast[78], which then became data for the UAP Task Force. Senior Navy officials have cited Nimitz in classified settings to brief Congress as an example of why “We need to take this seriously; our pilots are seeing things we can’t explain.” The creation of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force in 2020 can be seen as a direct legacy: it was essentially an official acknowledgment that “We have cases like 2004 that we still haven’t resolved; let’s get a dedicated effort to collect and analyze these.” Without the high-profile nature of Tic Tac, it’s arguable that such a task force might not have been established so soon.
3. Congressional Engagement and Oversight: The Nimitz incident’s credibility caught the attention of lawmakers, especially after the 2017 NYT article. Key members of Congress (from both parties) have referenced the case when demanding answers from the military. For instance, former Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio and current members like Representatives in oversight committees have explicitly talked about the Nimitz case in interviews or hearings, basically saying “These are not just crackpot sightings; trained military personnel witnessed something extraordinary and we need to know what it was”[56]. This helped push legislation such as the Intelligence Authorization Act’s UAP provisions (which led to that ODNI report in 2021) and later the inclusion of UAP offices in the 2022 and 2023 National Defense Authorization Acts. By 2023, Congress even held a hearing specifically to address UAP, at which David Fravor testified — his presence as a witness underscored how the Tic Tac incident was foundational to the whole topic. The legacy here is a newfound institutional seriousness: Congress is actively engaged on UAP issues, requiring reports and setting up whistleblower processes, largely because cases like Nimitz proved to them this is real and unexplained, not just tinfoil hat stuff.
4. Cultural and Public Perception Shift: The Tic Tac incident became something of a “case that made it safe to talk about UFOs” in serious circles. When decorated military aviators come forward and say “I saw this, it wasn’t ours,” it carries weight. The legacy is visible in media – since 2017, mainstream outlets treat UAP sightings with more gravity and less giggle-factor. Polls show increasing belief that the government knows more or that UFOs could be real unknowns. On the flip side, it’s also led to some public over-exuberance (lots of people concluding “It’s aliens!” because of how famous this case became). But overall, Tic Tac broadened the conversation: scientists who would normally shy away have started to say “We should investigate these phenomena.” For example, in 2022 NASA commissioned a study on UAP – something unthinkable years prior – and they cited the need to respond to pilots’ sightings and the ODNI report. One can indirectly thank the Nimitz case for providing a credible backbone to those efforts.
5. Enhancements in Data Collection and Tech: Recognizing that part of the problem in 2004 was lack of robust data retention (no one kept the radar tapes long, no multiple angles, etc.), the legacy has been improvements in how new incidents are recorded. The Pentagon’s UAP office has been working on a centralized database, encouraging pilots and ship radars to save data whenever possible. It’s even been reported that new encounters are being logged in better detail (some jets have better cameras now). The Navy also updated flight encounter protocols to incorporate UAP as a category. While these changes aren’t visible to the public, internal communications (from FOIA releases) indicate that after 2019, Navy instructions were modified such that UAP sightings would be taken and forwarded to the UAP Task Force[58][33]. So Tic Tac’s legacy is an impetus for the military to say: “We got caught flat-footed in 2004. Next time, we’ll have our cameras on and radars set to record.”
6. Sentient and Advanced Surveillance Systems: One fascinating direct legacy is how the intelligence community has started looking for UAP using AI and advanced sensors. The NRO’s “Sentient” program is a prime example. Sentient is an AI-powered analysis system that sifts through satellite data. Because of increased interest post-2017, apparently someone turned on a UAP detection mode in Sentient by 2021[79]. And indeed, as we will detail, in May 2021 Sentient detected a Tic Tac–like UAP via satellite imagery[8][9]. This event, disclosed via FOIA, shows that Tic Tac (2004) set a precedent that helped analysts recognize a similar pattern years later. In 2021, they literally said the object “vaguely resembled similar detections… by US Navy aircraft and vessels in the [redacted]Operating Areas”[76] – clearly referencing Nimitz and perhaps other Navy cases. The fact they even had a model for a “tic tac” in the AI (the email that said “Sentient has a UAP model to look for UAP… we need a customer to ask to turn it on”[79]) is incredible – it means the legacy of Nimitz is codified into the algorithm of a spy satellite system! This is a concrete example of how a mystery encounter spurred innovation in surveillance: we are now using our most powerful orbital assets to try to capture these things. The 2021 Sentient detection remains unresolved (no identification made), but it shows progress: the event was captured on multiple sensors and recognized as unusual in real time, which is a step forward from 2004 where everyone was caught by surprise.

Let’s elaborate on the 2021 NRO Sentient sighting here as a part of the legacy:

– On May 6, 2021, the NRO’s Sentient system flagged an object under 10 meters in size, Tic Tac-shaped, that “did not match the visual signature of typical aircraft”[80]. It was captured by at least two satellite images 15 seconds apart, confirming it wasn’t an image artifact[81][82]. Analysts found it had a “rough similarity to the previously-reported ‘tic-tac’ shape” (i.e., the 2004 incident)[9]. They noted it was likely not a sensor glitch because of multi-sensor confirmation[81]. Another interesting detail: Sentient also detected a “vessel” about 15 miles away from the UAP at the same time (identity redacted)[83]. They speculated that could be coincidence or maybe related (perhaps the vessel was observing or controlling the UAP?). Because of heavy redactions, we don’t know more. But clearly, this 2021 incident is a modern echo of Nimitz – an unknown “tic tac” in our skies, observed by our most sophisticated systems, and still unresolved[8][82]. It underscores that whatever the Tic Tac was, it or something like it is still around and being tracked in the 2020s. The legacy therefore is that the Nimitz case isn’t closed; it’s part of an ongoing phenomenon that now involves AI-driven detection. After this detection, The Black Vault reports that NRO and the UAP Task Force communicated about turning on UAP detection features (“UAP model”) more broadly[79]. So, going forward, one legacy is a sort of early warning system for UAP: the intel community is actively looking for things that match the Tic Tac’s profile in new data.

7. Driving Scientific and Academic Interest: Historically, academia shunned UFO topics. That’s changing ever so slightly – in part due to cases like Nimitz that provide something to chew on. We’ve seen the emergence of efforts like Harvard’s Galileo Project in 2021, where scientists are planning to gather their own UAP data. When explaining why now, they often mention “Navy pilots have seen objects we can’t explain” – essentially referencing Nimitz and similar. The legacy then is a grudging acceptance that studying the unknown is not pseudoscience if the unknown is backed by credible observations. The incident has been cited in scientific articles and conferences about aerospace safety and atmospheric phenomena, bridging what was once a gap between UFO lore and legitimate research.
8. Legacy in Defense Preparedness: Military training now at least contemplates UAPs as a factor. Pilots deploying now have heard of Tic Tac and are perhaps more likely to report if they see odd things. The Air Force (which historically said nothing on UFOs for decades) has quietly started cooperating more (they’re part of the AARO effort now). The stigma among service members has been reduced: Ryan Graves, a former F/A-18 pilot who encountered UAP in 2014, said it went from taboo to openly discussed because high-level folks took Nimitz-type events seriously. This culture shift is intangible but important – if such phenomena represent a potential threat (mid-air collision risk, or foreign drone spying), the military is now more inclined to gather intel on them rather than sweep it away. One could say the legacy is that UAP are now considered a potential security/safety issue worth tracking, whereas pre-2017 they were largely dismissed in officialdom.
9. Continuing Mystery – a Legacy of Inspiration and Concern: Finally, the unresolved nature of the Tic Tac leaves a legacy of inspiration for further inquiry. It’s become a case study in investigative communities (like The Black Vault itself, which has filed numerous FOIAs because of it). It keeps the conversation going, ensuring that UAP remain in the news and on public agendas. It has also arguably influenced foreign governments; for example, after the US report in 2021, other nations like Japan, France, etc., have spoken more openly or renewed their own study programs.

In conclusion, the 2004 Nimitz encounter’s legacy is multifaceted:

– It may have played a role in triggering new programs (UAPTF, AARO).

– It changed policies (Navy reporting).

– It engaged lawmakers and leadership to pay attention.

– It advanced surveillance tech usage for UAP (like Sentient’s UAP model).

– It inspired the public and scientific community to take the topic seriously.

– It remains a benchmark case against which other UAP incidents are measured.

Whether or not we ever get a definitive explanation, the Tic Tac incident has already made its mark on history. If one day it’s revealed to be something mundane, its role in shaping UAP discourse will still be significant. If it turns out to be something extraordinary, then its legacy will be even more foundational – akin to how we look back on early unexplained events prior to major scientific breakthroughs. For now, its legacy continues to evolve, as we see with the ongoing FOIA releases and the attention of oversight bodies. The “little white candy-shaped dot” that danced around Navy jets in 2004 has had outsized consequences for government transparency, scientific curiosity, and our collective imagination about what might be out there.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Conclusion

The 2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac incident stands as a landmark case in the study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, distinguished by the caliber of its witnesses, the richness of its sensor data, and the enduring enigma it presents. Over the course of this deep-dive, we have assembled the narrative of that day’s events and examined them from multiple angles: eyewitness accounts, technical documentation, media reception, official investigation, and skeptical scrutiny. The picture that emerges is one of a real, yet unexplained encounter that has challenged our assumptions and sparked significant changes in how such incidents are handled.

What happened off the coast of California in November 2004 is not in dispute – an object with extraordinary capabilities was observed and recorded by a carrier strike group during routine operations[36][16]. This object – the “Tic Tac” – demonstrated flight characteristics that experts struggle to replicate or rationalize with known technology. Nearly two decades later, despite serious inquiry, we still do not know the true nature of the Tic Tac UAP. No definitive explanation – whether prosaic or extraordinary – has been confirmed. In that sense, the incident remains open.

However, what has become clear is the impact this encounter has had. It acted as a catalyst for the U.S. government to reckon with the UAP issue after years of inattention. The incident gave credible cover for pilots and personnel across the services to report other strange encounters – essentially saying, “if a Top Gun commander can talk about his UFO experience, so can I.” It helped remove stigma and encouraged a data-driven approach to phenomena once relegated to fringe. Congress, too, took notice, exercising oversight and demanding answers in a way it never had before. This led directly to unprecedented transparency: official confirmation of UAP videos[29], public reports acknowledging dozens of unresolved cases[33], and open hearings discussing what was once a taboo topic.

We also saw how the Nimitz case has been re-examined with new tools and context. Intelligence analysts fed the “tic tac” profile into AI systems like NRO’s Sentient, which detected a similar UAP in 2021 – suggesting that whatever it was, something like it is still out there and attracting attention from the most advanced surveillance platforms[76][81]. Meanwhile, skeptics have diligently deconstructed the available footage and testimony, in some cases offering plausible conventional explanations for specific aspects (such as the FLIR motion being camera-induced[17]) but no comprehensive debunk has emerged that accounts for all evidence. Healthy skepticism remains invaluable, preventing us from leaping to conclusions, yet the fact that no prosaic consensus explanation exists after rigorous analysis by many smart minds underscores the anomaly.

The intelligence context surrounding the Tic Tac has also evolved. Initially a baffling blip on the radar, it’s now considered in light of potential adversarial drone tech or electronic warfare – possibilities the Navy and DNI have floated[67][61]. Yet, the admitted absence of evidence for those hypotheses leaves open the tantalizing prospect that the Tic Tac (and similar UAP) might represent something truly novel, perhaps even beyond human ingenuity. Importantly, officialdom has not ruled that out; instead, it has frankly said “we don’t know” while encouraging further analysis[59].

Commander Fravor, reflecting on his experience, said in Congress: “What we encountered was far beyond any technology we had.”[37] That admission encapsulates why the Nimitz case fascinates and unsettles. If true, it implies there is a gap in our scientific and technical knowledge waiting to be bridged. Whether the Tic Tac turns out to be an exotic atmospheric plasma, an adversary’s breakthrough drone, a clandestine U.S. project, or something genuinely “other”, its story has already served a purpose: it has shaken us out of complacency and encouraged a more open-minded exploration of our skies.

The search for answers continues. Investigators like those at The Black Vault persist in prying loose documents that might hold clues (for instance, the full Sentient reports, or Navy communications about the incident). The Department of Defense’s new UAP office is compiling a historical archive, presumably including the Nimitz data, to look for patterns. Independent researchers and scientists are stepping up with projects to gather fresh evidence using modern sensors aimed at UAP hotspots. Each of these efforts carries forward the legacy of the Tic Tac encounter, driven by the curiosity and concern it ignited.

In conclusion, the USS Nimitz Tic Tac incident remains relevant and emblematic. It is a case that demands we ask hard questions about our world: Are our assumptions about physics complete? Could a strategic rival have leapfrogged in technology without our knowledge? Or, most provocatively, is it possible that we are not the sole technologically advanced actors in our atmosphere? The answers to these questions are not yet in hand. But thanks in large part to the 2004 Nimitz encounter, we are at least now asking them openly, with data in hand and eyes wide open – a significant step forward from where we stood before a white “Tic Tac” skipped across the eyes of Navy pilots on a clear November day. The journey to demystify the Tic Tac continues, and as it does, it is forcing the boundaries of science, defense, and intelligence to expand. Until the day comes when the Tic Tac is fully understood, it will remain, in the words of one Navy officer, “the one that got away” – a reminder of the mysteries still lurking just beyond the horizon, and a motivator to keep watching, keep analyzing, and keep investigating.

[ Return to Table of Contents ]

Citations and Sources

1. <a href=”https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/heavily-redacted-uap-briefing-between-uap-task-force-and-nasa-released/” target=”_blank”>The Black Vault – John Greenewald, “Heavily Redacted UAP Briefing Between UAP Task Force and NASA Released” (October 10, 2024).</a> – Provides details from a FOIA-released slide deck where the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac incident is described (“solid white, smooth” 46-ft craft, etc.) and notes on limited data and potential explanations[4][28].
2. <a href=”https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classified-nro-system-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/” target=”_blank”>The Black Vault – John Greenewald, “Highly Classified NRO System Detects Possible ‘Tic-Tac’ Object in 2021” (February 27, 2023).</a> – Reveals FOIA-obtained documents about the NRO’s Sentient program detecting a Tic Tac–like UAP on May 6, 2021. Confirms the AI noted a <10 m “tic tac” shaped object with similarities to the 2004 incident, seen by multiple sensors[8][9], and discusses emails about turning on a UAP detection model[79]. At least 24 pages of the related NRO report were fully redacted, highlighting classification issues.
3. <a href=”https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO12/20241113/117721/HHRG-118-GO12-Wstate-ShellenbergerM-20241113.pdf” target=”_blank”>U.S. Congress (House Oversight), Hearing Documents (e.g., Michael Shellenberger testimony, 2023).</a> – Contains references and an appendix timeline summarizing UAP incidents. Notably quotes the 2009 Nimitz “Executive Summary” obtained by George Knapp, saying it included statements from seven pilots and radar operators and noted the Tic Tac’s “extraordinary capabilities”[25].
4. <a href=”https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/ufo-sightings-pentagon.html” target=”_blank”>The New York Times – Helene Cooper et al., “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program” (Dec 16, 2017).</a> – Broke the story of AATIP and the Nimitz incident to the public. Describes Cmdr. Fravor’s encounter with a “white oval object, about 40 feet long” that “accelerated like nothing he had ever seen” (supporting details found across sources[10][85]). Published the FLIR1 video.
5. <a href=”https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos” target=”_blank”>VICE (Motherboard) – Matthew Gault, “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Pentagon’s UFO Videos” (June 2020).</a> – Features extensive input from skeptic Mick West on the Navy UAP videos. Discusses West’s analysis that the Tic Tac FLIR video likely shows a distant plane, with apparent sudden movement caused by the camera losing lock and changing zoom[17][65]. Also quotes Michael Shermer’s skepticism (“the evidence is… ‘piss poor’” and unknown ≠ alien)[69].
6. <a href=”https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why” target=”_blank”>The Guardian – Mick West, “I study UFOs – and I don’t believe the alien hype. Here’s why” (June 11, 2021).</a> – An op-ed by Mick West summarizing his skeptical take on notable UFO videos. He specifically notes “‘Tic Tac’ did not show a craft moving like a ping-pong ball, but looked more like a distant plane with the apparent movement caused by the camera switching modes and gimbal rolls.”[53]. Provides context on how initial media framing can be misleading versus technical analysis.
7. <a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos” target=”_blank”>Wikipedia – “Pentagon UFO videos” (summary page, with citations).</a> – Offers a collated overview of the Nimitz (2004) and Roosevelt (2015) incidents and subsequent developments. Cites statements from officials and skeptics: e.g., Rubio fearing advanced Chinese/Russian tech[56], West’s caution that most cases likely mundane (balloons, aircraft, parallax, etc.)[60], and astrophysicist Adam Frank speculating UAP could be adversary drones luring radar signals[61]. While secondary, it leads to primary references.
8. <a href=”https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/normalizing-ufos-retired-us-navy-pilot-recalls-tic-tac-encounter-2021-06-25/” target=”_blank”>Reuters – Pavithra George, “‘Normalizing’ UFOs – retired U.S. Navy pilot recalls Tic Tac encounter” (June 25, 2021).</a> – Interview with Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich just before the ODNI UAP report. Describes the 2004 incident from her perspective: noticing “an unusual churning of the ocean surface” then a “smooth, white oblong object resembling a large Tic Tac” flying at high speed[39]. Mentions Fravor’s attempt to engage and the object’s lack of visible means of propulsion[43]. Dietrich says “we don’t know what it was… it was weird and we couldn’t recognize it”[40], and advocates reducing stigma (hence the “normalizing” title).
9. <a href=”https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/” target=”_blank”>CBS News – Aliza Chasan, “The story behind the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO sighting by Navy pilots in 2004” (July 26, 2023).</a> – Published the day of/after the 2023 House UAP hearing, summarizing Fravor’s testimony and 60 Minutes interview. Details how Princeton’s advanced radar tracked vehicles descending 80,000 ft in <1 second[86], Fravor and Dietrich seeing a “little white Tic Tac” above whitewater[35], and the object’s size (similar to an F/A-18F) with no wings or exhaust[13]. Notes it disappeared and reappeared 60 miles away in under a minute[15]. Also quotes Fravor’s belief that the tech was “far beyond” anything we have[87].
10. <a href=”https://www.flyingmag.com/what-on-earth-or-beyond-is-going-on-in-u-s-skies/” target=”_blank”>Flying Magazine – Jack Daleo, “What on Earth (or Beyond) Is Going on in U.S. Skies?” (July 27, 2023).</a> – An article covering the 2023 UAP hearing and background. Relevant excerpts include mention that DoD officials speculated some UAP could be enemy electronic warfare (radar spoofing) to give false impressions of speed/trajectory[88], and that November (2022) statements to NYT said many UAP might be foreign surveillance or even Air Force exercises, with no evidence of extraterrestrial origin[84]. Also, it recaps how UAP Task Force’s 2021 report found 143 of 144 cases unexplained, with 18 showing unusual flight characteristics[33]. In context, ties how Tic Tac prompted serious official action.

[1] [3] [10] [12] [16] [18] [19] [21] [29] [32] [48] [49] [50] [56] [57] [60] [61] [63] [68] [73] [85] Pentagon UFO videos – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

[2] [5] [6] [7] [14] [20] [23] [47] Detailed Official Report On Harrowing Encounter Between F/A-18s and UFO Surfaces

https://www.twz.com/21000/highly-detailed-report-on-harrowing-encounter-between-f-a-18s-and-ufo-off-baja-surfaces

[4] [26] [27] [28] Heavily Redacted UAP Briefing Between UAP Task Force and NASA Released – The Black Vault

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/heavily-redacted-uap-briefing-between-uap-task-force-and-nasa-released/

[8] [9] [75] [76] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Highly Classified NRO System Detects Possible “Tic-Tac” Object in 2021 – The Black Vault

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/highly-classified-nro-system-captures-possible-tic-tac-object-in-2021/

[11] [13] [15] [35] [36] [54] [55] [86] [87]  The story behind the “Tic Tac” UFO sighting by Navy pilots in 2004 – CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tic-tac-ufo-sighting-uap-video-dave-fravor-alex-dietrich-navy-fighter-pilots-house-testimony/

[17] [30] [31] [38] [64] [65] [66] [69] [70] The Skeptic’s Guide to the Pentagon’s UFO Videos

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos/

[22] [45] [46] [51] [74] [77] UFO Investigations: Revealing Documents from HISTORY’s ‘Unidentified’ | HISTORY

https://loki.editorial.aetnd.com/news/ufo-investigations-revealing-documents-from-historys-unidentified

[24] [25] BAASS Ten Month Report 2009 – Leaked Document | Metabunk

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/baass-ten-month-report-2009-leaked-document.14241/

[33] [37] [58] [62] [67] [78] [84] [88] What on Earth (or Beyond) Is Going on in U.S. Skies?

https://www.flyingmag.com/what-on-earth-or-beyond-is-going-on-in-u-s-skies/

[34] The Black Vault: Heavily Redacted UAP Briefing Between UAP Task Force and NASA Released – Lemmy.World

https://lemmy.world/post/20718157

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [52] [59] ‘Normalizing’ UFOs – retired U.S. Navy pilot recalls Tic Tac encounter | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/normalizing-ufos-retired-us-navy-pilot-recalls-tic-tac-encounter-2021-06-25/

[44] [53] [71] [72] I study UFOs – and I don’t believe the alien hype. Here’s why | Mick West | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why

The post The Vault Files: The “Tic-Tac” Incident, November 14, 2004 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The Vault Files: The “Tic-Tac” Incident, November 14, 2004 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Note: The Black Vault did not receive these documents directly, and full credit for that is given to “Omega Click” for the release and the permission to host the records for others here on this archive. Although not included here for privacy reasons, emails between the DGAC and “Omega Click” were seen to verify the release.

Also please note: The Black Vault holds no view on what the object is. Some have pointed that this is an explainable case, and the going theory is post below the newly released data.

The full description from “Omega Click” about this case, and the records released, is below, followed by the document and video releases.

On November 11, 2014, A Chilean Navy helicopter, an Airbus Cougar AS-532 was engaged in a routine daytime patrol mission flying north along the coast,west of Santiago. On board were the pilot, a Captain of the Navy with many years of flying experience, and a Navy technician who was testing a FLIR infrared camera, military camera often used for covert mid-altitude intelligence operations, surveillance and reconnaissance device, which on this occasion, resumed a UAP.

The aircraft was flying at an altitude of approximately 4,500 feet on a clear afternoon with unrestricted horizontal visibility and air temperature about 10 C. 

The Chilean Navy helicopter was flying at about 240 kilometers per hour when something unusual was picked up by the Chilean Air Force FLIR camera. 

The video in question has been circulating on the internet for years and has often been considered as an airliner landing (a conclusion that the Chilean government considers absurd) once the case was addressed, I contacted the email on the SEFAA website who replied giving me all the information to make a formal request for access to the documents. About 10 days later I had the material released by a DGAC government mail shared me a drive which I pledge to send you in full. There are internal letters, forms (from the pilot and the official who used the FLIR camera) information (with all the analyzes done by external consultants), the flight track and the high resolution video. I manage the largest Italian youtube channel of ufology and related phenomena. I translate documents pursuant to the FOIA and in my country it has never happened that a foreign government has granted UAP documents to an ordinary citizen.

The government release kindly granted by the Air Force of Chile includes internal letters between members of the DGAC (General Directorate of Civil Aviation) and some letters are written by General Ricardo Bermudez himself, director of SEFAA (Sección de estudios de fenómenos aéreos anómalos – Anomalous Aerial Phenomena Studies Section of the Government of Chile) which confirms and organizes SECRET MEETINGS by a committee specially created to study the UFO case. One letter also includes a transcript from the helicopter operator who used the FLIR MX HD WESCAM camera to film the object. I was shared the helicopter flight tracks (Airbus Cougar AS-532) the meteorological data and the analysis of the Chilean Air Force Photogrammetry Department. The file of the French GEIPAN which ran to help SEFAA to study the phenomenon (it concluded in a very inopportune way that the phenomenon was PROBABLY due to a landing plane) Not that a whole series of accessory documents. In the meteorological report it is written in black and white “a meteorological phenomenon is excluded” In the report of the department of photogrammetry of the air force it is written that “it’s not a bird. It’s not a hang glider, it’s not an airplane, it’s not a flying insect, it’s not an unmanned aircraft, it’s not a parachute, the object has control of its movements, you observe that has a volume, is not disturbed by the wind, the object reflects light, emits a certain type of energy”

In a PDF in my possession and presented in my latest video where I translate document by document (I am attaching the video subtitled in 6 languages) the Photogrammetry Department demonstrates with data in hand that the object has a structure, exists in three dimensions and that it has reflected the light. The GEIPAN file also demonstrates that the object was traveling at almost the same speed as the helicopter that filmed it. about 240 kilometers per hour. Alberto Vergara (director) comments at the end of the PDF writing “Finally it can be concluded that the object has all the characteristics to be classified as an unidentified aerial phenomenon”

Some documents present forensic analyzes carried out by external consultants, such as the pdf drawn up by Mario Avila, nuclear physicist and scientific consultant of SEFAA who, after various analyzes regarding the brightness of the object, concluded that it is a sort of UAP apparently composed of two rotating spheres. Documents in the release include letters presenting the case to government officials and other VERY interesting documents that help clarify the seemingly UNIDENTIFIED nature of the object captured by the Chilean Navy.

In my country the news hasn’t had THE MINIMUM CIRCULATION and I hope that by being published on your site, the media in my country will also start to seriously address the issue. I think this new release can put a big question mark on the convenient conclusion that the debunkers have drawn.

I think it’s a very interesting case that remains open for me.

If you can let me know a little in advance when the story and the documents are published on your site, I advertise a lot on my social networks and invite people to come to your site to view the story.

I am attaching my links and my video analysis. The files and the screenshot e-mail. 

Document Archive

The following files were obtained originally in 6 .zip files. The Black Vault uncompressed them, and offers a directory listing of the contents of each file, headed by the original file name.

CORREOS (English: Post)

	CORREO MARIO AVILA.pdf		498K
	CORREO MARIO AVILA 2		1.1M
	CORREO RICARDO BERMTDEZ 1		424K
	CORREO RICARDO BERMTDEZ 2		420K
	CORREO ROBERTO BORE 1		756K
	CORREO ROBERTO BORE 2		480K

FORMULARIOS (English: Forms)

	DIBUJO CARLOS RODRIGUEZ		289K
	FORMULARIO CARLOS RODRIGUEZ		1.1M
	FORMULARIO MARCELO NEIRA		1.4M

INFORME GEIPAN (English: GEIPAN Report)

	INFORME GEIPAN EN ESPANOL		4.9M
	INFORME GEIPAN EN INGLES		5.0M

INFORMES ASESORES (English: Advisory Reports)

	Caso Armada Mario Avila		4.0M
	INFORME ALBERTO VERGARA		3.9M
	INFORME ARMADA LUIS BARRERA		1.4M
	INFORME CARLOS GONZALEZ		2.9M
	INFORME LUIS BARRERA		37M
	INFORME LUIS SALAZAR		2.1M
	INFORME MARCELO MOYA		7.8M
	INFORME MARCELO SCHONHERR		366K
	INFORME RICARDO BERMTDEZ		864K
	INFORME ULISES FATNDEZ		1.1M

TRACK DE VUELO (English: Flight Track)

TRACK DE VUELO ACOUGAR (PowerPoint)

5.1M

FAA

Video Analysis by Omega Click

Possible Explanation?

Noted debunker Mick West has long put forward a theory that the above incident was flight IB6830. In January of 2017, he put out the below video. The Black Vault checked with Mick to ensure his explanation still was the going theory, given the new information above. He says he still believes this explains it all:

The plane theory is refuted, and some Twitter posts by “Omega Click” were posted to refute the above explanation. The Black Vault holds no stance on what the above is, or isn’t.

Translation "All of the above, combined with the search for graphical information on stealth aircraft, leads the undersigned to think that it is an advanced design device of unknown origin, capable of evading radar detection and remaining airborne indefinitely" @blackvaultcom pic.twitter.com/aZUAdG89q1

— Omega Click Official (@OmegaClickOffi1) January 13, 2023

Translation : 1. It is not a bird. 2. It is not a flying insect. 3. It is not a manned nc type aircraft. 4. It is not a parachute or hang glider (paraglider).
5. The object has control over its movements. 6. The object has a shape similar to a sphere. @blackvaultcom pic.twitter.com/wSRv5jyMwx

— Omega Click Official (@OmegaClickOffi1) January 13, 2023

Subtitles are in English:

The post Documents Released on the November 11, 2014, Chilean Navy Helicopter UFO Encounter first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Documents Released on the November 11, 2014, Chilean Navy Helicopter UFO Encounter appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations. There was no formal investigation to the case, and is offered here for informational purposes.

Originally, it was posted on Twitter in real time, by Steven Greenstreet, Creator & Host of The Basement Office, New York Post. Below, you will find a breakdown of those posts, with time stamps and videos.

The Testimony

Chronological Breakdown

The follow is a collection of posts on Twitter by the witness, Steven Greenstreet. They are archived here to tell the story and explain the evidence posted below. Where applicable, they are also inserted in the below captions.

Photos and video of my “UFO” sighting today in Laguna Niguel, CA. This object remained, more or less, in the same location of the sky despite constant east-to-west winds. My wife first saw it, then me, then another adult. We all agreed it was stationary #ufotwitter

This is the first photo I took. 12:13pm PST. With my Samsung Galaxy S20. I did not observe obvious linear movement until 12:41pm PST (per timestamp of video I took), when it moved off into the northern horizon and disappeared from sight.

Here is the first video I took of the object. 12:14pm PST. You’ll hear the wind in the microphone. It was indeed windy. The object remained in the same point of the sky for roughly 30 minutes. No size change (indicating moving closer or further away).

Another video. 12:15pm PST. I walked in between 2 trees to use the branches as reference for where the object was in the sky. Super bright sun limited my vision.

Video at 12:18pm PST. I kept thinking it was a balloon and was expecting to do balloon things like move away with the wind or rise up into the sky further. Didn’t really happen.

Video at 12:31pm PST – 18 minutes after my first photo/video, I walked up the street a bit into the shade. You’ll hear 2 teenagers on the sidewalk comment “It’s not moving”

Two zoomed-in shots from 12:33pm PST. The only real motion I noted at this point was perhaps a slow rotation.

Video taken at 12:34pm PST. Actually decent quality I guess. You’ll hear me note a slight movement, but this is now 21 minutes after first sighting. I thought, if a balloon, it would’ve moved away by this point with the consistent winds that were present. Strange.

Video taken at 12:38pm PST. Now 25 minutes after first visual sighting.

Photo taken at 12:39pm PST.

The last video I shot. 12:41pm. 28 minutes after first visual sighting. You’ll hear me note the object is moving. “This is new”. It disappeared behind that tree then became smaller and smaller into the northern sky until I couldn’t see it anymore.

Case Summary

The red X is where I was and the arrow is the direction I facing while filming the object. Over the course of 30 minutes, I walked towards the object maybe 5 blocks. I did notice it rose above me slightly as I walked towards it. Inferring I was walking more underneath it?Some great analysis of my sighting happening on Metabunk.

The Evidence

The following is the evidence captured by Steven Greenstreet. It is also all available (raw photos and video) in a .zip file.

A Full .zip Download

All of the photos and video below are available in a raw data download via this:

[ .zip file – Please Note: File is a 3GB ]

Video

These are all the videos captured, put in a single montage with time stamps. The sighting occurred on January 30, 2022, and the time zone stamps are Pacific time.

Photographs

The Analysis

Information Case Only; No Formal Investigation by The Black Vault.

However, the witness Steven Greenstreet himself has put forth a going theory, as of February 1, 2022. He stated:

A lot of folks asking for an update. My current theory is some kind of coaxial drone. But since the object was estimated around 1000-2000 feet up, its size was probably similar to the one in this photo. Who was flying it and why is unknown to me so far.

Conclusion

Information Case Only; No Formal Investigation by The Black Vault or conclusion posted.

The post UFO over Laguna Niguel, California – January 30, 2022 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Laguna Niguel, California – January 30, 2022 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

A report of a UFO was received from Mr. Dale F. Spaur, Badge #15, Portage County Sheriff’s Office, Ravenna, Ohio., 17 Apr 66. Sighting between 0300 and 0600 hours. “First sighted in Ravenna, Ohio along Routes 224 – 44, followed object to Conway, Pa., for about 80 miles. Object seemed to be taking off from ground, oblong shaped, with antenna projecting from it. There were no colored lights only a very bright silvery radiance. Object flying about 500 feet over vehicle. It would slow down in speed and then go very fast. The glow from object was so bright it blinded driver of vehicle. Object was flying due east. This has witnessed by people along the route between Ravenna, Ohio and Conway, Pa. There were three (3) men from sheriff’s office and two (2) patrol cars that followed object along this route.”

The case file is below, complete with numerous documents and supporting records. There are also many newspaper articles that were archived.

Document Archive

Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 [90 Pages, 20.2MB]

The post Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Blue Book: Ravenna, Mantua, Ohio — April 17, 1966 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

This case comes from the social media network Reddit. Numerous photographs of a black triangle splashing in the water were posted, then apparently quickly deleted. Savvy users of the thread /u/ufos did download and save them to later repost them for analysis later on.

The Black Vault has archived them below. There have been many within hours of these being posted, who have submitted legitimate observations that point to these being a hoax. That analysis, with credit to all those who did it, is also below for consideration.

When the original poster put up the photographs, he did so with no context. Here is a screen shot of the original post, along with the moderator’s “stickied comment” showing the original poster deleted the thread.

It appears the island in the background is Catalina, and “Pimu” as noted on the original post is the name given to the island by the native American tribe Tongva.

Photograph Archive

The Analysis

Within hours, numerous people posted analysis of different forms throughout Reddit, Twitter, and beyond. Some are archived here (with more added as they are seen) with credit to those who originally did them.

My aim here is to have a central spot of some of the most critical analyses found.

Reddit User /u/IsaKissTheRain

One of the most popular Reddit comment analysis posts was from /u/IsaKissTheRain. Anchor links have been preserved, as the poster described his technique:

Ok, here is what I found.

I passed these images through some analysis, both with Photoshop features and with the tool ‘Forensically’.

In photoshop, the edge detection of the UFO seemed consistent with other parts of the image. A colour DNA analysis—which is basically turning up the saturation—showed that the UFO has the same “colour DNA” as the surrounding sky and water; meaning that I do not think it is an object copied into another image. It still could be, of course, but they will have had to take special precautions to copy in an object that had the same light bounce as the original image, or would have had to manipulate it further to match. It is likely that this isn’t another image that has been pasted in.

In forensically, the clone detection tool did not detect any cloned areas. I got a few false positives on the edges of the individual slides, but that’s because the tool is just detecting the straight arrangement of pixels on the slide borders. However, as another user pointed out, this could be a border overlay. it could also be a drop shadow applied to the UI of the program the pictures are being viewed on. Nothing jumped out to me in the error level analysis, either.

However, in Slide image 2, with the magnifier set to histogram Equalization, there is an unusual halo of white pixels around the UFO. At first, I thought it was a clear indication of manipulation, but… I’m not sure. I don’t know what to make of it. In my research, I’ve come across accounts of UFOs having sort of a luminescence or halo around them. This is the only image I can find such an artefact in, however, and the light is relatively bright behind it. It could, therefore, be a halo of light bounce off the object.

So, from what I can tell, the images do not look manipulated. I should point out that other users have commented that the grain of the images seems to be a film grain filter placed over it….but the clone tool did not detect any obvious patterns in that grain. It could still be the case that it is a filter, of course.

My conclusion is thus: Either this is excellent CG/Photoshop, or it’s an image of an actual object. That doesn’t mean that we are looking at an alien craft, but I guess it doesn’t mean we aren’t.

Reddit User /u/RollerDerby88

The following is from Reddit user /u/RollerDerby88. Per their original post critiquing the photographs, they feel they found the original “splash” photo used by the hoaxer. They posted the following montage:They added:

I searched “whale splash ocean”. I may or may not have spelled the word occean wrong and scrolled a lot farther than I care to admit.

Also, I might be completely insane.

Pic Link: https://twitter.com/baltimoresafari/status/1314660283533668358

I do VFX as a hobby so it is just a line of thinking I am accustomed to. If they are grabbing assets for comping, they probably won’t go too deep when searching. Maybe using a stock background? Paste the images onto a transparent sticky app. Search for catalina horizon, island horizon, ocean horizon, sun horizon cloud, ocean hdri, ocean hdri 8k, etc. (specifically looking for the cloud, island, and the sun) > 1 hour later > can’t find a match. Did they do a water sim for the splash? Probably not because that’s a pain in the ass. Equivalent reference pic at approximate scale? Maybe a whale jump. Whale jump > whale surfacing> whale splash > see something that looks familiar… boom, match.

Moderator “Trailblazer” on Reddit, based on the above, posted the following:

Looks fairly indisputable to me that this image was used to create the fake. Boosting the contrast of the “UAP” photo, you can also see a trace of the land skyline behind the splash (red circle).

Metabunk User jarlrmai

MetaBunk User jarlrmai posted a video showing how possibly two photographs showed identical waves, also supporting the hoax theory:

…there seems to be match between the waves in the second island shot and the 1st zoomed in shot.

Mick West

Mick West, noted skeptic and debunker, immediately posted the photographs to his site MetaBunk. His initial analysis/finding was:

What looks fake to me is the grain. It looks like the photoshop “Add Noise” filter, which adds noise at pixel resolution, rather than some actual film grain. So you get lots of random short lines. 

Here, I’ve recreated it on the left, with the “photo” on the right.

By comparison, here’s a crop of photo I scanned in at 600dpi

The post Black Triangle UFO Photos Surface on Reddit — June 2021 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Black Triangle UFO Photos Surface on Reddit — June 2021 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The original article was in Italian, however below, you will find the English translation.

All credit is to Noiegliextraterrestri for the below article. It is archived here, in English, for archival and research purposes.

HISTORICAL UFOs – THE CASE OF MARESCIALLO CECCONI

Today we present a historical case of the Italian UFO case that happened from a military flight in 1979. A case that still today makes the public debate and divides but we look beyond and trust the testimony of Cecconi. Here’s the story.

On June 18, 1979, the then pilot marshal Giancarlo Cecconi (born in 1933, in Florence) was returning from a photographic survey carried out on the Ligurian Apennines.

He was flying over the area between Rovigo and the Colli di Abano Terme, when he received by radio from the control tower of the military airport of S. Angelo di Treviso, where he was stationed, the invitation to connect with the aerobase of Istria ( TV), whose radar had signaled an unidentified flying object, approximately on the vertical of Quinto di Treviso and therefore in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned airport.

Mr. Cecconi, who belonged to the 14 ‘Group of the 2’ Fighter Bomber Reconnaissance Wing of the Italian Air Force, was on board a G 91 / R, equipped with four VINTEN cameras, located in this way: two on the sides of the front of the cockpit, one in the front position and the fourth in the ventral position. With these, in fact, he had carried out the photographic surveys he had been in charge of. He then arranged with the Ground Control Body staff to go and identify the object detected by the radar.

At the moment of the sighting, it occurred to him that it could be a solar UFO; then he realized it was something different. The day was beautiful and he soon realized that that “black spot” had very different characteristics.

It appeared to him in the shape of a dull black “fuel tank” and, on its slightly flattened upper part, he noticed a fairing with two “mustaches”; this was underlying something clear and white which, in his opinion, was a kind of milky white “dome”. The characteristics of the surface did not allow the refraction of light. The object appeared to have a length of about 6-8 m and a width of about 3 m.

At the time of the close encounter with the unusual “aircraft”, this was on the vertical of the Treviso military airport at a height of about 1300 m.

Having made contact with the UFO, he took a first series of photographs with the front camera and after having made, in a very short period of time, the “noose” (maneuver that consists in reversing the course), he noticed that the object was still in the same position, so that he could take another series of photographs using the side cameras this time.

He understood that it was something having a certain rigidity and deduced it from the fact that, when the plane approached him at a speed of about 300 knots (450-500 km / h), the object “… did not suffer from any turbulence…”. The pilot had had the opportunity to see UFO Solar on other occasions. However, they felt the turbulence caused by the nearby passage of the plane and their movement could last even a quarter of an hour; this object, on the other hand, appeared to remain static and did not vibrate even though Mr. Cecconi had passed it at a distance of about a hundred meters.

During the sighting, which lasted about five minutes, Mr. Cecconi was able to take more than eighty photographs that showed the object always in the same frontal position, or slightly angled; in fact, this was never completely visible from the side, it was as if the “thing” wanted to “aim” the plane.
According to the witness, he appeared to have taken a defensive attitude. It never fully exposed the side and he had never managed to photograph it entirely from the side; for this he was impressed.

While the pilot was completing a turn, the Istrana radar center told him: “we lost it! It’s no longer on the screen!”. It had suddenly vanished between hits on the radar.

Also from the control tower of the S. Angelo airport they reported that the object had inexplicably disappeared from sight within a few moments. He looked where the UFO was supposed to be, but he couldn’t see it anymore.

After the plane had returned to the Treviso base, the specialists, as usual, removed and took delivery of the film containers and took them to the laboratory of the Development and Printing Department.

As soon as the photos were developed, he checked them out and asked a friend (photo lab worker) for a copy.

Years passed and after Mr. Cecconi retired, ufologists asked the Ministry of Defense to release the documentation concerning this case, and they were told that: “the object in question, immediately identified, was photographed with edge and unequivocally identified by the personal photo interpreter in a cylindrical balloon, made with black plastic bags.”.

The answer left the ufologists baffled, especially in consideration of the experience and preparation of Mr. Cecconi who boasted a curriculum like few others and was one of the best known and esteemed pilot figures for seriousness and competence.

UFO Casebook also did a write-up about this case, which is archived here, with permission.

1979 – Military Pilot Photographs UFO over Italy

Pilot Giancarlo Cecconi, in his G-91R fighter and attached to the 14 Group 2nd Air Force Fighter Wing was returning to Treviso Air Base, Italy after having carried out a reconnaissance mission on June 18, 1979, at 11:30 AM.

The Istrana radar center (TV), registered the presence of an intruder on its radar screens, and gave Cecconi directions to approach the unidentified craft that had penetrated a prohibited area.

Having unused film in his aircraft cameras, the pilot activated them and approached the UFO up to a distance of 70-80 meters and at speeds estimated at 300 knots (450-500 km.

The airport ground staff followed the scene with binoculars. The Treviso Control Tower personnel called Cecconi to warn him that the object was discharging a strange “blue trail.”

He was in close pursuit at 7,000 feet altitude but did not know its wake. When the Pilot closed on the object it made up and down movements at 1,000 feet at a time, climbing up to 13,000 feet.

Cecconi made seven to eight passes close to the object and each time took gun camera film of the UFO resulting in a total of 82 frames depicting the intruder.

The apparent UFO was stationary relative to the G-91, but the radar center confirms to Cecconi that it was moving, course and speed defined.

The witness recalled a “gas tank” of matte black and the presence of a small white or clear “dome,” located on the upper side, of the slightly flattened object.

The “dome” was like a kind of shaped like those found on sports cars. While Cecconi was making yet another tack to get back to doing another round of photographs, Istrana radar called to report the object suddenly disappeared from theirs and other radars.

After a few seconds, the Treviso control tower confirmed the UFO had visually disappeared. A few minutes later, the plane landed and the films were removed and quickly developed.

The pilot was very curious to see the pictures that he took including the white “dome.”

The object was a cylindrical tank at least eight meters long (26 feet) with a maximum three in diameter suspended in the sky at thirteen thousand feet high.”

The case is important because of the gun camera film, radar, and visual confirmation with several witnesses including a highly respected fighter pilot.

The post The UFO Case of Maresciallo Cecconi – June 18, 1979 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post The UFO Case of Maresciallo Cecconi – June 18, 1979 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

The Government Needs To Be More Forthcoming About The Ongoing UFO Mystery: UFO Sightings Reported Yearly in Pennsylvania by Stan Gordon

by Stan Gordon, UFO Anomalies Zone

While the media is currently giving more than usual attention to the UFO Phenomena, it is not showing the extent of the sightings reported throughout the world. The crux of the matter is that numerous credible detailed UFO sightings have been reported for years by not only military pilots from various branches of the service, but also from civilians throughout the US and the world as well. I want to make this clear to my readers so they are aware of the extent of the sightings, as most of the recent media focus has been limited to the observations by experienced Navy pilots and to the objects observed and tracked by personnel on Navy vessels- which is from only one branch of the military.

Over the years, I interviewed commercial, private, and corporate pilots, all of whom had observed objects in the sky that they could not identify. The public that is reading some of the news stories might get the impression that UFO sightings are a relatively new or insignificant phenomena. That is definitely not the case. There are Pennsylvania newspaper accounts of unusual objects seen in the sky dating back to the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. Through the 1940’s and 1950’s, observations of mysterious objects in the sky continued to be reported and the sighting reports have never stopped.

This year will mark sixty two years of my research into the ongoing UFO Phenomena. I have been out in the field conducting on site investigations of UFO sightings and other phenomena reported by the public since 1965. Those of you who are reading this may find it surprising that I have never personally seen a UFO. In 1969 I began to take phone calls from the public to report UFO sightings. My phone still rings at all hours of the day and night with calls about strange observations in the sky.

In 1970, I organized the first of three volunteer research groups that investigated UFO incidents in the Pittsburgh area and around the state of Pennsylvania for many years. Since late 1993, I have continued my investigations as an independent researcher. Most of the people who were involved with my research teams had some type of specialized background or training that was helpful with the research we were conducting. Among the team members were scientists, engineers, technicians, police officers and other first responders, former military personnel, and educators. My investigations have focused on my home state of Pennsylvania, although I do maintain contact with researchers throughout the country.

It became very apparent to me when I started my investigations that many UFO sightings, while being reported by credible eyewitnesses, were indeed explainable. Over the years, many sightings were determined to be misidentifications of natural or man-made objects.

Some UFOs were determined to be, for example, bright planets and stars, lights on aircraft, navigational lights on radio towers, bright meteors, re-entry of space debris, automated searchlight displays, weather phenomena, lights reflecting off the bodies of birds and insects, transformer explosions, various types of balloons, sky lanterns, kites, blimps and in recent years, many sightings of the Starlink Satellites as they passed across the sky.

Now that we have that out of the way, there have been countless UFO incidents that have occurred for years from across the Keystone state that are not so easily explained away. The 1960’s was an interesting time period. I investigated a number of very detailed close range UFO sightings of what appeared to be large solid metallic objects that were seen at very close range. In one instance, the object was so close that a witness could see what appeared to be an instrument panel through portholes that were positioned around the side of the object.

The 1970’s were very active with numerous detailed UFO observations, especially during 1973 when Pennsylvania experienced multitudes of UFO incidents throughout the year. Many local and statewide newspapers covered some of those sightings and my groups investigations. Sightings of cigar or elongated oval shaped objects similar to what the Navy has been referring to as Tic-tac shaped objects have been reported over Pennsylvania since at least the early 1970’s. Those sightings have  continued to be reported during the last few years and even in recent months. There have also been ongoing sightings of large spheres, triangular and rectangular shaped objects reported across the commonwealth.

While the subject of UFOs is becoming quite popular and is beginning to be discussed more seriously in the news media, there still remains a cloud of ridicule that lurks over the head of witnesses who report encounters with those mysterious flying objects. I have interviewed thousands of UFO witnesses over the years and many of those people asked that they not be identified when relating their experiences. Many of them, because of their educational or professional backgrounds, were concerned that publicly discussing their strange experiences could affect their job positions or personal life. That is one reason why these ongoing UFO encounters rarely make it into the news.

Encounters with Mini-UFOs

It was during the 1960’s when I began to receive reports of odd maneuvering flying objects that were small in size, low to the ground, and approached surprisingly close to the human observers. I have been calling these objects, “mini-UFOs” for years. This is an aspect of the UFO phenomena that has been rarely discussed, even though similar incidents have been reported from around the country.

The smallest of these objects range in size from about one to two inches in diameter and resemble oversized fireflies. The more common observations are of an object about one to two feet in diameter. They are generally described as being spherical in shape, however, some other configurations have been reported. Some observations describe an object that looks solid and metallic, yet in other reports they are transparent or just luminous spheres of various colors. I have interviewed people who were close enough to reach out and touch these objects if they had wanted to. These objects have been seen in daylight and at night and during all types of weather.

Even more interesting are reports of these small objects pacing and at times entering moving vehicles through open windows. There are also reports of these objects entering homes through open windows. Residents have reported for years seeing these small objects hover in front of the windows of their homes and near their properties. Some of these observations seem to have some similarities to what Navy personnel have been referring to as drones which have reportedly been observed around Navy vessels in recent years.

What are we dealing with?

The UFO subject is very complex and there are many different components to it. Many people have brought forth their theories over the years as to what the UFO phenomena could be. Some of the most popular theories have been spacecraft from an extraterrestrial source, time travelers, interdimensional visitors, unknown atmospheric life forms and demons.

I have been of the opinion for years that there may well be more than one origin to unexplained category of the UFO phenomena.  I would not exclude the possibility that some of these observations  could be of extraterrestrial origin. I have, however, investigated many cases where some of these objects seem to have both a physical and non-physical component to their appearances. We could be dealing with a phenomena that is beyond out present scientific understanding and, for lack of a better term, might be interdimensional.

Until there is definitive evidence, I keep an open mind as to what these unknown objects might be. I don’t have the answers and I don’t think our government has all of the answers either to this ongoing mystery in our skies.

Some of the cases I have investigated suggests that, at times, these objects just suddenly appear in the sky. Some UFOs have been reported to physically transform into another shape. Large solid looking objects have reportedly faded away and vanished. These objects seem to have the ability to suddenly appear and disappear. On occasion in daylight, large solid objects have been observed entering clouds but never exiting or being seen again.

The following is a brief synopsis of some of the many UFO cases that have come to my attention over the years. Most of the cases mentioned were incidents that I investigated. These close range UFO cases provided detailed observations and information and are not easily explainable.

* Spring of 1966-Latrobe– At about 4 AM, a woman was awakened by her dog that was making an odd whining sound and spinning in a circle. Thinking the dog was sick, she took the dog outside. She looked up and noticed a large solid metallic object shaped like a child’s top hovering and spinning about eighty feet over the roof of her home. The object was surrounded in a red glow and was completely silent. The witness became quite upset from what she was seeing but watched as the object suddenly rose into the sky and quickly moved out of sight.

* August 22, 1966-Adamsburg– That evening two women driving on Route 30 eastbound when they noticed a strange object hovering over the high tension power lines up on the hill to their right. The object looked as though it was nearly touching the wires.

As they approached closer, the object dropped below the wires and began to move in their direction. That is when a dark oblong shaped object described as long as an MG sports car passed so low over the car that the two women ducked their heads thinking that it was going to hit them. The object, whatever it was, made no sound. When the ladies arrived at their home, they made a call to the state police.

* February 1968-Rural Westmoreland County- It was early evening when a man happened to look out his window to check on the snow that had been falling. That witness (now deceased) had just retired from the Navy and had a high security clearance. He was very familiar with the latest aircraft that the military had in their inventory. He was a devout UFO skeptic until that day.

What first caught his attention was a gray metallic rod that was positioned about twenty feet from his window. When he took a better look, he realized that this long rod was one of three that were connected to a metallic gray object that was oval shaped with a dome on top. He estimated that the object was fifty to sixty feet in diameter. The bottom of the object appeared to be hollow. The object was positioned about fifty feet away from him and was hovering only about fifty feet above a fishing pond.

The man told me he saw what appeared to be windows or portholes in the dome and lower section of the object. He said he could see what looked like instrument panels and at times flashes of different colored lights through the portholes. The hollowed out bottom of the object looked to be about twenty feet in diameter and there were numerous lights spinning within it. The witness called to his wife who upon seeing the object exclaimed, “Oh my God! What is it?”

The man called his brother and wife who lived several miles away in Greensburg. His brother was a UFO believer so he wanted him to come out to see the object as well. When his brother and wife arrived, the object was still there but had moved slightly higher into the sky. They all got into the car and watched the object as it moved to about fifty feet directly above them. Suddenly, the object accelerated higher into the sky until it looked like a bright star, then it turned red as it quickly was lost from sight. They later called the Latrobe Airport and were told that other people were calling in similar reports. The initial witness told me, “If I hadn’t seen it for myself, I could not have been convinced.”

* April 15, 1973-Between Penn and Manor, Westmoreland county- Over twelve witnesses reported seeing large solid objects low to the ground within a one mile radius around this rural area. At about 9:15 PM, two cars full of people pulled off the Penn-Wegley Road to watch a strange object that was just drifting very slowly only a short distance away. The silent elongated object was estimated to be about sixty five feet in length. There were two bright round lights in the front vertical area separated about ten to fifteen feet apart. There was a gray haze surrounding the object making it difficult to see the exact shape of the object. The object was in the vicinity of a power transmission line and of the Manor Power Substation.

Later that same evening, another man driving in the vicinity of the Manor Power Substation observed a large glowing object stationary about ten feet over the trees. The glow from the object was illuminating the surrounding area. The man pulled off the road and lowered the window as he watched the object. The witness told me that the object looked like a glowing spinning top over thirty five feet in diameter. The object continued to spin while hovering and lit up the area with “a burning white glow”.

The man noticed two or three rows of square windows that emitted various colors of light that were positioned around the center of the object. The witness had kept his engine running and headlights on during the observation. However, while looking at the object, his vehicle suddenly shut off and his headlights became very dim. When the object took off at high speed, he noticed that his headlights became very bright again. The man traveled down the road and stopped at a phone booth to report the experience to the state police who then referred him to my UFO hotline.

* October 25, 1973-Near Uniontown, Fayette County– The UFO Hotline was busy ringing with many UFO reports this day. At 10:30 PM that evening, a report came in from a state trooper from the Uniontown barracks. He had just investigated a multiple witness UFO landing at a farm outside of the city. (There were some other unusual elements to the case in addition to the UFO sighting.) At about 9 PM, fifteen people observed a barn sized red spherical object about one hundred feet in the air. The object soon began to descend toward a pasture on the property.

When three fellows went to the area to investigate, they noticed about two hundred fifty feet away that either the object had landed on the ground or was hovering just above it. At that time, they observed a huge white domed shaped object about one hundred feet in diameter that was illuminating the surrounding area and was emitting a loud whirling sound. During the incident, the object suddenly just vanished from sight and the sound also stopped. The state police were soon called concerning the unusual incident.

The investigating officer told me that when he arrived on the scene to investigate, the area where the object had been on the ground was glowing. The luminous area was estimated to be over a hundred feet in diameter and extended up from about a foot off the ground. The farm animals would not go near it. The officer also stated that if he had a newspaper with him, he could have read it from the glow. My team was on the scene within hours after being notified of the incident.

* August 30, 1983-Derry- A businessman was traveling along Route 217 toward Derry just before midnight. As the man drove down a hill, he suddenly became aware of a series of amber lights that appeared about forty to sixty feet above his vehicle. The man soon realized that he was underneath a huge solid round object that was pacing him down the road. The driver became alarmed both from the tremendous size of the object that he estimated was about two to three hundred feet in diameter, and from the odd strong bass sound that the object was emitting that was vibrating through his body. At times, the witness said he felt claustrophobic when he was under the object. He said the experience was similar to driving into a large underground lighted parking lot.

The witness was able to provide to me a detailed description of the object. The round object was battleship gray in color and had a bluish tinge to it. The bottom section was flat, but in the center was a square or slightly rectangular area outlined in black. It gave the witness the impression that it might have been something like a doorway. The entire bottom section of the object was covered in amber lights that emitted a soft yet bright glow. The lights were each about nine to thirteen inches in diameter and did not flash.

The man became frightened as the object followed overhead and he accelerated in speed to try to get away from it. Moments later, the object that had followed him down the road hovered over him a second time and then a third time. The object finally moved off into the sky and was not seen again. Soon after his frightening experience, he contacted the Latrobe police department who referred him to my UFO hotline. I found the witness to be very credible.

* June 21, 1985-Indianhead- A fellow on his way home from work at about 12:30 AM noticed an odd series of six lights in the sky. As he approached closer, he realized that the lights were attached to an object that looked like a solid elongated blimp. The object, however, had no gondola like that of a blimp. The witness soon realized that he was seeing something that was quite unusual.

The object had a silver metallic look to its surface and looked to be about one hundred feet long. The witness pulled off the road and exited his vehicle to get a better look at it. The object made no sound as it hovered, but as it began to move, he heard a whoosh sound as though something enormous was moving through the air. The object was moving about thirty feet above the trees.

The witness could see that the bottom of the object was hollow from the bright blue lights that were being emitted from that section of the object. Six bright lights at the top of the object were described as flashes of high intensity blue. Those lights spun in a counterclockwise pattern and illuminated the trees and the ground. The object then moved and hovered very low over a field. The fellow ran to the field and stood underneath the object looking for any identification markings such as Goodyear or USA, but there were none. He yelled out loudly but there was no response.

He ran back to his car and soon sped down the road to get his parents to bring back to that location. When they arrived at that location the object was gone. The fellow called the state police, and I was contacted about the sighting soon after. That same evening within hours, several other witnesses from different areas of the state had also reported seeing a similar shaped object.

* August 12, 1986-Monroeville- At about 8:30 AM, witnesses reported seeing a large solid cigar shaped object, “fat and rounded out,” that was hovering over some trees behind the Monroeville Mall complex. It then moved toward the mall and hovered about two hundred feet over the roof of a store. The size of the object was described as the length of three school buses and was completely silent. Later that afternoon, a similar sighting was reported about twenty miles away in Westmoreland County.

*September 3, 1987-Greensburg- It was about 8 PM when witnesses, including law enforcement, observed a huge metallic cigar shaped object approaching from the west. The object moved over a series of high tension power lines near what was then the Greengate Mall on Route 30 near Greensburg. The object moved across the highway over a power substation. The object that was moving in a smooth  horizontal path suddenly stunned the observers as the football field sized object turned vertically in the sky, and moments later, the power went out in the mall and surrounding area for a short time.

The silent elongated object was described as being about three hundred feet in length and moving only about three hundred feet above the ground. The object appeared to have a silver or dull gray surface and was covered with multiple white flashing lights. There were bright red flashing lights at each end of the object. The object moved out of the area in the distance.

* February 10, 1988-Cambria and Somerset counties- Between 7:45 and 8:30 PM, several reports were received from various witnesses over about a ten mile area bordering on Cambria and Somerset Counties. The first report was from the area near Blough where people observed an object as big as a house hovering over a body of water. The object was described as a solid in appearance, about sixty feet long, with two rows of colored lights that did not blink. The object hovered about fifty feet over the water and within a hundred feet of several witnesses. At one point, bright spotlights from the object were directed toward a wooded area.

That same evening in the vicinity of the McNally bridge, other cars stopped after a large object rose up from beneath the bridge and rose to the height of the bridge. One witness I interviewed was only about one hundred fifty feet from the object. He described the object as looking like a metallic football that was about fifty to sixty feet long and about twenty five feet wide. There were various lights on the object including five or six laser like lights emitting from the front. The witness was amazed that that the object had no wings or propellers and hovered with no sound.

Another witness that same evening near Davidsville reported seeing what he described as, “a small cruise ship in the sky.” The object passed directly in front of him only about twenty feet away. He described the solid object as looking like a football with tapered ends.

* May 17, 1989-Pittsburgh (Squirrel Hill)- Two witnesses had stopped at a restaurant around 3 AM in a densely populated suburb of Pittsburgh. They left the establishment and as they drove down the block approaching Whitman Street, they noticed a large luminous object hovering above the intersection of Beacon and Wightman. The driver was so shocked that she stopped the car and got out to look directly at it.

Their first thought was that the object was a blimp, but as they watched they realized that the object was a lot more elongated, and that it was brightly illuminated in a white glow. Toward the bottom of the object were three large red lights that appeared to be connected. The silent object that had been hovering for several minutes did not move off but seemed to suddenly just vanish. The witnesses were so upset that the filed a police report on the incident.

* September 2, 1989-Ebensburg- A man was sitting by his pond on this beautiful afternoon. Suddenly a strange object began to approach from the north and then hovered about thirty feet above the ground only about fifty feet from the witness. The solid silver object was round and about fifteen to twenty feet in diameter. The bottom section however was colored orange-red. The center of the object was divided by a glass-like amber-colored window with one green flashing light. The silent object hovered and then ascended into the sky, then returned to the same spot where it originally hovered. Prior to the object departing the area, it emitted a mist from the bottom right side of its surface downward toward the ground.

* February 5, 1992-Williamsport and surrounding areas- A UFO incident involving numerous witnesses took place around Williamsburg and other surrounding areas. This incident was well covered in the local newspapers at the time. The series of UFO sightings had taken place late afternoon concerning the observation on one or more large boomerang or triangular shaped objects.

Some of the reports were over populated areas. Some reports indicated that one object seen was estimated to have a wingspan that was hundreds of feet in length. The object, at times, was moving so slowly that people who were  nearby moving in a fast walking pace could keep up with it. The object was making a rumbling sound that attracted many people to look outside or up in the sky. The object also displayed various colored lights. Whatever that object was has never been determined. Many witnesses were interviewed, and  detailed investigations was conducted.

I quickly began to make contact with sources that might have information. A dispatcher at the Montoursville State Police Barracks told me that they had received numerous reports of a large low level object in the sky. I also spoke with an air traffic controller at the Williamport-Lycomming County airport who told me he had handled about twenty calls from the public reporting the sighting. He told me that he had contacted Harrisburg Approach Control to see if they were working any military air traffic or were aware of any such aircraft in the area at the time of the sighting. They were not. I was also told that nothing unusual showed up on local radar. Whatever this object was still remains a mystery.

* July 24, 2002-North Huntingdon- Three people were standing in a parking lot of a shopping complex talking that evening when one of them noticed something approaching from behind the other couple. That is when they all saw a small sphere that was round and shiny and about the diameter of a tennis ball. One witness stated that although it looked solid you could see thickness in the wall of the object. The object moved slowly past them less than ten feet away. A man told me that if he moved forward a few feet he could have reached out and touched it. The silent object continued to move away on a straight course and was only about six feet above the ground. As it moved off in the distance, it began to move in a zigzag pattern. The wind in that area was very calm at that time.

* January 3, 2007-Youngwood- It was 8:58 PM that three people were traveling on a rural road outside of Youngwood. It was a clear and starlit night when there attention was drawn to a luminous object that was low in the sky and was either moving very slow or hovering. One witness told me the object was “oval shaped with a hump at the top and bottom”. The entire object was surrounded in a glowing effect. The object that was silent was moving slowly and very low in the sky.

At times, the observers lost sight of it as it was blocked by trees and homes in the area. At one point they had an unobstructed view of it. One passenger had a new cell phone with a camera function that had a night mode setting and snapped one picture. They all looked at the phone and were excited that they had captured a picture of the strange object. Seconds later they looked back, and the object was gone. One witness commented to me, “It was there, then it wasn’t there.”

* June 1, 2013-North Huntingdon- It was just after 10 PM when a mother and her three year old child just left a convenience store and were heading on Route 30 eastbound when ahead of her she saw a large object hovering over the highway. There were no other cars in the area, and surprised at what she saw, the woman stopped her car about one hundred fifty feet from the object. The object that was completely silent was hovering about sixty feet above the highway and took up all four lanes. Her young child yelled out, “Look Mommy, a flying I-pad in the sky!”

The woman told me that the object that looked basically rectangular, “looked like the gondola of a blimp without the blimp.” She estimated that the object was about fifty five feet long and thirty five to forty feet high. There were two tiers of odd looking lights on the object. The family had to pass under the object to get home, and the car experienced various electronic malfunctions at that time. The woman also attempted to take a picture of the object with her cell phone, but the camera function would not operate. See the following account for more details.

See also: Huge Rectangular Object Hovers Low over Pennsylvania Highway-June 1, 2013 – Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone

* July 30, 2012-Bloomsburg- It was a beautiful afternoon when a motorist traveling east on Interstate 80 near Bloomsburg had a very strange experience. The man was tuning in his radio when he looked at the passenger window and observed a white, round translucent sphere about the diameter of a soft ball following along with the movement of the vehicle. The sphere floated through the open window and entered into the cab of the truck. The object moved around the floorboard, then slowly moved along the floor toward the driver. The sphere continued to move around close to the man. The object then departed through the bed of the truck. You can read more details at this link.

See also: Small Sphere Enters Moving Vehicle – Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone

*October 2017-Fayette City- Early that morning, a man went outside to warm up his wife’s car. As he walked down the steps, he looked toward her car and saw something only about ten to twelve feet away by the right bumper. The outside lights were on and the area around the car was well illuminated. The witness said he saw an object that was about two feet tall and shaped like a haystack. The object was translucent, and shiny, and a milky-white color. There were vertical ribs that seemed to be the superstructure that looked like chrome straws that could be seen through the translucent structure. The object which was silent was gliding one to two inches off the ground, was motionless when he first saw it.

Whatever the object was, after several seconds it must have realized that the witness had approached until he stood about six feet from it. It suddenly zoomed extremely fast across the driveway to the left side of the car, then made a perfect right angle turn along the driver’s side of the car into the dark and was not seen again. The entire incident lasted only seconds. The witness wished he had his cell phone with him so he could have taken a picture. The witness has no idea what he saw but feels that it may have been some type of a probe.

*June 4, 2019-Youngstown- Low Level UFO Encounter with Strange Electronic and Animal Affects Reported near the Chestnut Ridge in Pennsylvania

On the evening of June 4, 2019, two people were traveling near the Youngstown side of the Chestnut Ridge not far from Latrobe in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. The sky was clear with good visibility. The passenger in the car suddenly yelled out, “What are those lights?” The driver was watching the road and didn’t notice them until they were pointed out. The passenger was confused about what she was seeing since it looked so unusual. She saw what appeared to be a glass tube cylinder among bright lights that seemed to be covered with a smoke or haze. The cylinder appeared to be attached to a large V-shaped object with several rows of different colored lights.

The driver pulled the car over and stopped the vehicle so he could view what the other person was watching. The man said he was amazed when he looked up and noticed the odd sight in the sky approximately eighty to one hundred yards away from the vehicle. Hovering about sixty feet over the trees was a very strange looking object in the shape of a V. The V-shape was made up of numerous small rectangular shaped white lights. These lights were glowing but would brighten and dim at times. The driver estimated that there could have been fifty or more lights.

The object was estimated to be about forty to fifty feet long. Above the smaller lights were four larger round lights that were strobing and were orange, blue, red, and green in color. The brightness of these colors appeared pale compared to the smaller rectangular white lights. These lights seem to strobe from left to right. There was a larger light that produced a beam that was scanning the sky above the object.

The driver lowered the windows as they continued to watch the object. The two observers were amazed that the hovering object was completely silent. As the witnesses continued to watch the object, some odd effects took place. The driver stated that it was as though “the electronic system of the car was having a seizure.” The radio was off at the time but they suddenly began to hear an odd clicking sound inside the vehicle but they were unable to locate the source. At the same time, it was noticed that the dash lights were dimming on and off with the beat of the clicking sound. The driver also stated that soon after he was having a problem with his cell phone dropping the signal several times.

The observers watched the object for about three minutes but became very disturbed by the encounter and decided to leave the area and continue down the road. The passenger stated,  “We were beside ourselves in awe.” They didn’t even think of trying to take a picture.

The object was still hovering as they began to drive down the road going about thirty miles per hour. That is when something else strange occurred. About thirty seconds after they left the location of the observation, a deer ran out from the woods in front of their car. The driver of the car is an experienced outdoorsman and said the deer looked dazed and confused. It was moments later that another deer did the same thing. Then just a short distance down the road a bird hit the car windshield and continued on. The driver commented, “All of these animals seemed confused and frightened. They were all crossing the road as to evade something that had scared them. I was in a state of amazement at what we encountered. I’ll never forget that strange night”.

*November 8, 2019-Masontown- This report was investigated by researcher Jim Brown. His website can be found at: www.jimsdestinations.com.  During the afternoon of Nov 8, 2019, a man traveling on a rural road outside of Masontown observed a silver gray sphere about two feet in diameter on the ground and blocking the road ahead of him. The man couldn’t figure out what it was but decided to approach the object and move it so he could continue his journey. He was about fifty feet away from the object when he opened the car door and noticed that the object was starting to fade away. It slowly continued to fade away and completely disappeared.

*October 14, 2020-Latrobe- A witness contacted me during March, of 2021, and shared with me his experience of observing a strange object in the sky. The man lives in the Latrobe, PA area. He was outside taking a walk on the evening of October 14, 2020, when he looked up into the sky and noticed a bright light moving slowly. The light, however, began to change positions and moved in different directions as he continued to observe it.

The object appeared to become larger in size and gave the impression that it was shaped somewhat like a boomerang with three separated lights. The object appeared to be hovering and not moving, and lower in altitude than the small aircraft that land at the local Arnold Palmer airport. The lights on the object were amber in color. The witness was able to obtain one picture before the object moved off. That picture reminded me of another photo taken of a UFO in Cambria county two years before this sighting.

See also: Two very Similar UFO Photos from Pennsylvania Taken Two Years Apart – Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone

*February-March 2021-A wave of UFO activity occurred in the Pittsburgh area and across the state- Residents from around the greater Pittsburgh area and other locations were reporting numerous sightings of strange objects in the sky and in some cases low to the ground. Sightings were reported from populated suburbs of Pittsburgh and from rural areas as well. There were also some interesting daylight observations. You can read more about some of these cases at this link.

See also: Numerous UFO Sightings Are Being Reported in the Pittsburgh Area and From Across Pennsylvania. March 29, 2021. – Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone

UFO sightings have continued to be reported in recent weeks as well.

During my many years of investigating UFO sightings in Pennsylvania, the following are some of my findings that have continued to surface over the years.

*UFO sightings are very common and are reported every year all year round across Pennsylvania and around the world.

*UFOs seem to be attracted to energy sources. Many low level close range UFO sightings commonly take place in the vicinity of high tension power lines, power plants, communications and broadcast towers, gas wells and gas lines, railroad tracks, etc.

*UFOs have been observed hovering low over bodies of water and have reportedly been seen entering and exiting rivers and lakes across Pennsylvania. Similar accounts of been reported from around the world showing an association of UFOs with bodies of water.

*Low Level UFO sighting are reported not only in rural areas but also in more populated areas as well.

*Many UFO sightings are reported in daylight. Sightings take place at any time of the day or night and during all types of weather conditions.

*Animals commonly react oddly when they are in close vicinity of a UFO.

*Some UFOs seemingly have shown characteristics of being both physical and a non-physical at times.

As you can see from the previously mentioned reports, the UFO phenomena has been a mystery for a long time and regardless of the source of the phenomena, it deserves a serious study by the scientific community. I am hopeful that the forthcoming government report will shed substantial light on the UFO subject- even if they don’t have all of the answers. The public deserves to know.

Contact information:

To report a UFO sighting you can contact me at 724-838-7768. I can also be contacted via email at: paufo@comcast.net. Keep checking my website for incoming information at: www.stangordon.info.

###

The post UFO Sightings Reported Yearly in Pennsylvania by Stan Gordon first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Sightings Reported Yearly in Pennsylvania by Stan Gordon appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

It is archived here for research purposes.

Background

This sighting is one of the best recorded in Argentina, but it is practically unknown to English-speaking ufologists as it has been published in Spanish magazines only. Expedia Argentina has traveling information if you are thinking of visiting Yacanto to learn more about this sighting.

Perhaps for that very reason it has escaped the attention of the professional debunkers, but a more likely cause is that it is an extraordinary case for which their usual hand-waving techniques simply would not work.

It is a single-witness case, but this witness is a high-ranking officer of the Argentinean Air Force (AAF), who by a fluke was able to obtain a remarkable photograph as supporting evidence of his encounter.

Even in Argentina, and perhaps due to the association of the witness with the AAF, the case was not given much publicity until 1977, when it finally was reported in UFO PRESS (ref. 1).

The Witness

The witness in this sighting is Hugo F. Niotti, then a captain of the AAF assigned to the Air Force School for Sub-officers located in the city of Cordoba. Contrary to what many would expect, his involvement in the case did not affect his military career, and seventeen years later, when finally interviewed by Roncoroni, he had risen to the high rank of vice-commodore, occupying a responsible position with the AAF.

The Event

On July 3, 1960, then Captain Niotti was driving from Yacanto toward Cordoba. The weather was inclement, typical of what one would expect for that area in the middle of winter. It was drizzling off and on, and the cloud deck was very low, perhaps 100-150 m.. The road was rather slippery, and Capt. Niotti was concentrating hard on his driving.

At approximately 4:30 PM, he was in the area of Villa General Belgrano, about 70 Km from the city of Cordoba. He had finished negotiating a wide S-curve, when he suddenly noticed a rather close and unusual object hovering near the ground to the right of the road.

Startled, he stopped the car, grabbed his camera, fortunately next to him on the seat, moved a few steps away, and proceeded to take a photo of the object, which was moving slowly. While he was engaged in winding the film to take a second shot, the object started to accelerate and disappeared into the clouds, which as stated, were very low.

The whole incident had lasted about 40 seconds and had developed into the most absolute silence. This eerie silence, coupled with the bad weather and the abruptness of the incident, gave Capt. Niotti a sense of irreality, which puzzled and confused him. In this mood, he jumped back into his car and continued his trip to Cordoba, where he proceeded to have the film processed.

Here is Capt. Niotti’s description of what he had seen. The object was conical in shape, with a height of 7-8 meters and a base diameter of 3-4 meters, with its axis almost parallel to the ground and its base facing the witness. It was at a distance of 80 to 100 meters from his location and moving very slowly toward the south, perhaps at 10 KPH, always parallel to the ground. It was rotating, also very slowly. It then accelerated very rapidly, attaining a speed of perhaps 200 KPH in 3 or 4 seconds, and disappeared into the low cloud bank. This sudden acceleration without any sound was inexplicable to the witness in view of his proximity.

The color of the object was a uniform dark gray. The surface was perfectly smooth without joints or rivets and had a definite metallic aspect.

The Photograph

As an officer of the AAF, Niotti was naturally reclutant to divulge his experience and initially told only a few fellow officers, who persuaded him to send the negatives and copies to the “Revista Nacional de Aeronautica” (RNA); the editors of this official magazine transmitted the photo to the “Servicio de Informaciones de Aeronautica” (SIA), a technical service available to the Air force.

The SIA gave a good bill of health to the photo, and the sighting was reported by the RNA in its issue of November, 1960. It is remarkable that never before or after have the Armed Forces made public the results of a UFO investigation.

In the years to follow, many examinations of this photo have been done except, perhaps, by the so-called debunkers, and no negative options have been voiced.

There are two interesting details in the photo which must be emphasized. When Capt. Niotti saw the object, his perception was of a uniform color; thus, he was surprised –after developing the film— that in the photographic image the base of the cone is a dull black, without any gradation of color in spite of being oriented toward the sun, which was hidden by the clouds. The rest of the cone appears much lighter, to the point that it is sometimes difficult to obtain copies showing it clearly, due to the high contrast between the base and the sky background. The edges of the base, in the original negative, appear sharp and well-defined, even more defined that other elements appearing in the photograph. It seems as if the base of the cone were a total sink of radiation, reflecting no light.

The copy of the photo presented in this report is from a second-generation negative, and its quality does not compare with the prints made from the original negative.

The other anomalous detail in the photo is the presence of a horse whose head is turned around, its attention apparently drawn by the object. As anyone familiar with a rural environment knows, horses kept in pastures near roads become totally indifferent to traffic and will not interrupt their grazing for the presence of a car. Nevertheless, the horse seems to be looking directly at the object, placed halfway between him and the road.

The existence of the horse is fortunate, as it has allowed some estimates of sizes and distances. The Argentinean investigators have performed some photogrammetry using the original negative, and report that the horse is about 80 meters from the road, which places the object at no more than 50 meters from Capt. Niotti. No wonder he was surprised by the absolute silence!.

On the basis of these estimates, the dimensions of the cone were 7 m. in height and 6 m. in diameter, and it was 17 meters above the ground, in good agreement with the numbers indicated by Capt. Niotti.

But the most interesting detail, which I have reserved for the end, is that Capt. Niotti was extremely surprised when he inspected the copies of the photo and saw the horse, as he had not noticed its presence during the incident. This is a clear indication of his concentration while taking the photo, and his disorientation after the sudden departure of the object when he just jumped back into his car and continued his trip.

Comments by the Author

A case with a single witness usually is not even considered for incorporation into UNICAT, but in this instance we have two circumstances that allow an exception to the rule.

First, we have a competent witness, trained by his profession to observe details, who did not lose his presence of mind when confronted with the unknown. On the contrary, he reacted promptly, snatching his camera and jumping out of his car to obtain a unique graphic document.

And second, the photograph by itself lends enough credibility to the case to make it deserve serious consideration. Not only has the photo repeatedly been shown to be genuine, but it is inconceivable that the Air Force officer would compromise his career with a fabrication that would bring him nothing but problems and discredit. For those who know Vice-commodore Niotti, this option is unthinkable.

From the UNICAT viewpoint, the case also offers some interesting characteristics which confirm its value. Among the many parameters searched for when studying the case, there are two that are considered as particularly significant because of their high statistical incidence. Both of them apply to this sighting:

DR: driving a vehicle LR: lonely road or place

The first of these parameters appears in the UNICAT data base with a frequency of 33.8%, while LR shows a frequency of 37.9%, both of them being included within the ten most frequent parameters.

A third parameter that is not so frequent, but that seems to occur in significant cases, is also found for this incident. It is the RC parameter, i.e., “rounding a curve”. It indicates that the witness suddenly notices the phenomenon when coming out of a curve in the road. REFERENCES:

1. Roncoroni, G.; FOTO DE ONVI AVALADA POR LA FUERZA AEREA ARGENTINA, in UFO PRESS #3, April 1977.

© 2005ufomiami@bellsouth.net

The post Yacanto, Cordoba, Argentina | July 3, 1960 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Yacanto, Cordoba, Argentina | July 3, 1960 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The attached photograph was allegedly “leaked” to the public, and represents an example of a photo within an official Department of Defense (DOD) report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. It was obtained by anonymous sources, and published by TheDebrief on December 3, 2020.

The full story can be viewed at the below presentation by The Black Vault.

The Photograph

Below, you will find the metadata of the photograph. It was surprising what appeared to be the “original” copy of the photo was used, holding the metadata that the photograph was taken in 2019, rather than the reported 2018. It was explained by the author of the piece, Tim McMillan, that it represented a “photo of a photo” and was not the original photograph. However, that seems to be in dispute.

However, after publication, the original version with the metadata was altered and scaled up, thus removing the metadata. Therefore, since the photograph is allegedly from a U.S. military document, it is believe to have no copyright, so the original is archived here for safe-keeping.

Technical Breakdown of the Original

The original was first published on a CDN at this URL and embedded into The Debrief’s article. This version was used as the top representation of the photo when the article was first published. Sometime thereafter, but prior to December 7, the photo was upscaled and the original is no longer embedded in the article.  It still appears on “Stack Path” as of the writing of this, last checked on December 7, but is not currently located on The Debrief anymore.

This can be verified via a second source at: Wayback Machine. You will note now the appendage of “-scaled” is added to the file name, thus indicating an edit and subsequent stripping of the metadata from the original.

The ORIGINAL of that one, which also holds metadata, is found at this URL. This was an even larger size than the one embedded. This is also in the .zip file below. (Thank you to Reddit user pomegranatemagnate for pointing out the original to the original.)

In order to download the original photos, unaltered the way TheDebrief published it with metadata attached, you need to download the following .zip file which contains the original “photo-2-1.jpg” and “photo-2-1-2048×1536.jpg” images as posted by The Debrief.

DOWNLOAD [.zip, 1MB]

The Mystery

To add to the mystery, the photo in question was actually published actually MONTHS earlier, by Blake S. Taylor, on Twitter.

#ufotwitter #paranormaltwitter pic.twitter.com/LlIFEk3wVf

— Blake S. Taylor Investigations (@YoungGun8140) May 12, 2020

The Black Vault reached out to Blake, and he stated he simply recalls downloading it from a site on the internet. He is unable to recall which one. He also posted a public comment explaining the same, wherein he said the following:

“Hey man, I’m pretty sure I found it while rummaging around in one of those sites where we find government documents etc. I’ve been trying to remember it’s been a while. I just remember seeing it saving it and sharing it.”

The Explanation?

Very quickly, an explanation circulated the social media channels where stories like this are possible. The shape of the object, and a subsequent style of balloon, are strikingly similar.

The debate has commenced on whether this was too high for a mylar balloon, but it appears that with the “rough” estimate of altitude of the object in the article, combined with multiple sources outlining how high a mylar balloon can go, it is definitely in the ballpark and possible.

The Source

With permission, I’ve added here a likely source of the photo, regardless of if the object is a balloon or not. The identity of the source may play a future role in uncovering more about this story, and if any true UAP connections exist.

Researcher Roger Glassel painstakingly sought out the identity of the helmet reflected in the canopy. I reached out to Roger, who submitted the following:

“As everyone was focusing on the object, I tried to look at other things. I believe that others have done that as well. The reflection of the helmet was something that caught my attention. Knowing that all the fighter squadrons have their own insignia I started looking for a match. The yellow part of the insignia seem to match VFA-15 – with the lion riding on a rocket – but it wasn’t a perfect match, so I found that VFA-32 was using a yellow lion as well. I looked up VFA-32’s Facebook page and found a perfect match with a lion, blue stripe ribbon, on an white helmet, and thought, hey, this is it. I now hope this will move the discussion forward.”

Here is a screen shot of where Roger found the comparison photo:

Here is the full photograph used for comparison (click to enlarge):

This really is excellent work by Roger, and should be commended! More updates will be posted as they are available.

The Metadata

Conclusion (thus far)

Although it seems incredibly likely this is a balloon, the story (and the case) is potentially still ongoing. It is unclear if additional stories are on the way, so although The Black Vault won’t label this a completely “case closed” case, additional data is certainly welcome should it ever be presented.

The post “Leaked” Photo of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) / UFO, Release by The Debrief, December 3, 2020 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post “Leaked” Photo of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) / UFO, Release by The Debrief, December 3, 2020 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

Multiple videos of a UFO surfaced, supposedly over New Jersey, which occurred on September 14, 2020. The result of the videos posted, also resulted in “UFOs” trending on Twitter in the morning hours of September 15, 2020.

Various accounts posted the video you see below, while others took ominous looking screen shots with no context.

The result was a lot of attention quickly, to what appeared to be something interesting.

However, investigation shows something different and explainable.

Check out the “evidence” below along with the explanation that follows.

The Evidence

Numerous videos were posted online, though the most common was:

The Investigation

It takes very little effort on this one. The videos posted online, all depict the Goodyear Blimp. The coloring is a match, but with low resolution, it is not clear to those who aren’t attempting to decipher what they are looking at.

In addition, the “coloring” at the bottom is the video project screen located on the side of the Goodyear Blimp, as indicated with the photograph below:

This explanation is also supported with the actual flight path of the blimp, on September 14, going over New Jersey:

Conclusion

There is not much to this case, except internet hype and hysteria over nothing. It is the Goodyear blimp, with supporting verifiable evidence.

The post UFO over New Jersey, September 14, 2020, Explained first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over New Jersey, September 14, 2020, Explained appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

This is the write-up in the Condon report about this incident:

At 11:25 a.m. (5 August or 15 August) Witness I, general manager of the Great Falls Electrics, a baseball team, was making an inspection of the baseball stadium (1,3) with his secretary, Witness II. In virtually all early publications (e.g., 3,5) the date for this is consistently given as 15 August 1950. However, Dr. Roy Craig of the Colorado project notes early correspondence between Witness I and Project Blue Book that raises an uncertainty about the date. A letter dated 9 January 1953, from Great Falls AFB (renamed Malstrom AFB later) to Project Blue Book, conveying results of a re-interrogation which had been requested by Blue Book, states:

“(Witness I’s) version of the incident is as follows: ‘On about the 5th or 15th of August, 1950, I, as manager of the Electrics, a local baseball team, walked to the grandstand of the local stadium here in Great Falls, Montana. It was approximately 11:30 a.m. and my purpose was to check the direction of the wind in preparation for the afternoon’s game.'”

A subsequent undated Blue Book review of the case, dated late 1956, carries the case dated “5 or 15 August, 1950”. Dr. Craig determined by checking Great Falls newspaper records that no home game was scheduled for 15 August, and, in fact, the witness’ team played that evening in Twin Falls, Idaho. Mrs. LaVern Kohl, Reference Librarian, Great Falls Public Library, determined, at Dr. Craig’s request, that the baseball team played no home games in Great Falls between 9 and 18 August, 1950. The 15 August sighting date is therefore certainly open to question.

Accounts of the incident give essentially the following information:

As was his habit, Witness I looked NNW to the smokestack of the Anaconda Copper Company in order to ascertain the wind direction. Directly in line with the stack, he saw two bright lights stationary in the sky(l) . After a few seconds, he decided they could not be airplanes, directed his secretary’s attention to the objects, and ran to his car which was 50-60 ft. away (1,2,3). Her observations were reported in Blue Book files to be identical to Witness I’s. At his car he took five to eight seconds to load his motion picture camera with Eastman Kodachrome, daylight-type (1). The camera was a Revere turret-type, 16mm. magazine loader, with a F.1.9 telephoto lens with a 3 in. focal length. He set the diaphragm at F.22 and the focus at infinity. Film speed was 16 frames per second (2). From the time of sighting until he began filming, approximately 30 seconds elapsed. At a point near his car, he began “panning” his camera slowly from right to left (2). During this time the lights had moved from a stationary position toward the SW and they continued to the SW until they faded away. The first frames were not made until the object was already in the SW.

According to the initial Air Force report of 6 October 1950, Witness I described two disk-shaped lights having a bright, clean, “aluminum quality”. He thought that the objects were about 50 ft. in diameter, 3 ft. in depth and about 50 yds. apart. In a subsequent written statement quoted in the Blue Book report of 9 January 1953, he described them as being “like two new dimes in the sky” and said they may have made whistling or whooshing noise .

According to the initial report of 6 October 1950, Witness I described a definite spinning motion (2). While in a stationary position “an occasional vibration seemed to momentarily tilt them, after which they would instantly correct their level plane to its seemingly balanced position. The two objects made an abrupt flight in an arc motion at very high speeds”. In late 1952 he estimated the speed as being over 400 mph. The Air Force report of 1950 quotes his first estimate of the speed as about 200 mph.

WItness I thought they were between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. in altitude and at an elevation angle of 30°-35° above the horizon and within 0.75 mi. or 2-2.5 mi. from him. Measurements of the motion picture film (3) indicate that in the first available frames, the lights were at an elevation of about 15° and slowly descending.

These are the official documents about it from the Project Blue Book files. It’s officially considered an unknown. The below file was obtained from the National Archives & Records Administration.

Document Archive

Project Blue Book: Mariana UFO incident, August 15, 1950 [114 Pages, 15MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [14.79 MB]

Video Archive

The post Project Blue Book: Mariana UFO incident, August 15, 1950 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Project Blue Book: Mariana UFO incident, August 15, 1950 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case, with photos from various dates, was submitted to TBV Investigations on January 8, 2019. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Michael Glenn for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The witness submitted the following testimony:

“I usually just take photos of the sky and magnify each of them later to see if I’ve got anything. Here are some photos I’ve taken over the last few months. They would be of better quality but this phone is old. Samsung galaxy mini lll. My apologies. Roland”

The Evidence

The following photographs were submitted for analysis by the witness:

The Analysis

by Michael Glenn, TBV Investigations

I first examined the photos that were included with an intention to scout the map for airports, or bases that could explain the anomalies. Upon examining image 1 I saw the object in question. I note a blurring around its edges. It is vertically oriented, and near the edge of the frame. When I examined image 2, the source of that blurring becomes apparent. The object is a flying insect whose wings can be seen beating in the image. The blurring is consistent with forward and backward flight characteristic of an insect wing. Images 3 and 4 merely show more of the same kind of insects.

Conclusion

After analysis, these photographs likely show misidentified insects in the camera view.

The post UFOs over Bolton, United Kingdom – Various Dates first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFOs over Bolton, United Kingdom – Various Dates appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

Witness Scott Dyer submitted the following case to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on 11/06/2018 at 3:58 am PST. The case was assigned to TBV Investigator Jim Kerr for investigation and analysis.

Witness Testimony

On November 6, 2018, the witness submitted the following testimony

Sunday, Oct. 14, 2018, my wife and I were out working it the yard painting our Cabana which has an N.W. to S.E. placement. Approximately 1542 with a somewhat clear sky’s the moon was up and visible to the S.E. between two layers of clouds, I caught a glint or flash of something moving from the NW to SE which was not normal since I could see it but could not hear it.

Called to Karen my wife to look up and she immediately spotted the sphere and when I asked can you hear it and she said “NO.” At first, I thought it was a balloon, but once we saw that the altitude, direction, and speed were constant, we knew it wasn’t a balloon which always gains altitude erratically and is never propelled at a consistent altitude. At least not in Fresno California

Interesting we live in the flight pattern for Fresno Air Guard, and there is a small private strip NW about 1.5 miles of us as the crow flies and there was nothing in the air at that time. It was noticeable quiet at that time.

The Sphere maintained its SE course towards the moon and I would estimate our eyes on time was about 25-30 seconds.

This is my 4th lifetime UFO siting; my first was 1966, 1969, 2012 and now 2018, Sorry no pictures or video.

Telephone Interview

On 01/25/2019, I conducted a telephone interview with witness Dyar. I found the witness to be quite credible, honest, and knowledgeable on a variety of subjects we discussed. The witness is a well-educated individual, 63 years of age, recently retired from a long career as a computer IT expert, working for a University in charge of an inventory of more than 40 million dollars worth of computer equipment.

In essence, the witness told me the sphere was approximately nine millimeters in diameter at arm’s length. He had good eyesight and did not need glasses to obtain a clear view of the object. The edges around the circumference of the sphere were not sharply defined but slightly blurred. The color of the object appeared to change slightly from a whitish color to yellowish color. The altitude of the sphere was approx 500 feet, and the distance from his location was approx one mile, estimate only. Just as the object approached the moon, it turned in an upward direction and vanished. The speed of the object was approximately the same as a jet aircraft. In the proximity of his house are many airports, an Air Force Base and a Civil Air Patrol Squadron. He is familiar with the air traffic in his area. He was adamant that the object was not a balloon and appeared like nothing that he ever witnessed in the past.

The Evidence

There were no photos or video taken of the object. Witness Dyer and his wife were working outside in his yard painting a Cabana with no camera available.

The Analysis

by Jim Kerr, TBV Investigations.

Weather

Fresno, California, 10/14/2018 at 3:30 pm. Weather source, Weather Underground.

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KFAT/date/2018-10-14?req_city=Fresno&req_statename=California

At approx 3:30 pm the temperature was 82 degrees F, Dew Point 36 degrees F, Humidity 19%, Wind Speed 9 mph out of the NW, Wind Gust 0 mph, Pressure 29.5 inches, Precipitation 0 inches, Condition Fair, and Visibility 10 miles.

Astronomical Data

https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2018/october

Searching the archives of Stellarium, (a planetarium software that shows exactly what you see when you look up at the stars and the daytime sky), I was able to view exactly what celestial objects were visible to the witness in his daytime sky from his location in Fresno, Ca on 10/14/2018 at 3:30 pm.

According to the data available on Stellarium, there were no astronomical objects or events that can account for what the witness observed.

Moon Phase/moon and sun location for Fresno, Ca. on October 14, 2018, at 3:30 pm PST. Refer to the image below.

On 10/14/2018 the moon was a Waxing crescent visible at 30% illumination, age 5.35 days. The moon’s location was approximately 25 degrees above the S/E horizon at an approx 150-degree compass reading. The setting sun was approximately 28 degrees above S/W horizon at an approx 230-degree compass reading. According to the witness testimony, the location of the sun and moon was approximately in the location as the data indicates.

On 02/01/2019 at 11:00 am, I called the National Weather Service located in Hanford, California (website) phone number (559) 584-3752. I requested information for weather balloon launch times, dates and launch locations. The information I received was very limited, but the scientist I spoke with stated the only National Weather Service/NOAA launch site in the vicinity of Fresno, Ca. was located at Vandenberg AFB 151.8 miles S/W of Fresno. He further stated he did not have the archival data from launches at Vandenberg AFB and provided a link to NOAA (ncdc.noaa.gov) that possibly could provide the information I needed.

On the NOAA website ncdc,noaa.gov, I submitted my written request for weather balloon launch dates and times from Vandenberg AFB but the documents emailed to me did not have that information. I submitted a second online request with additional search information, but again the information forwarded did not have weather balloon launch dates and times.

After two requests to NOAA for weather balloon launch dates and times from Vandenberg AFB here is a pdf document of the data I received. 

It is also important to note, High Schools, Colleges, and Universities that offer meteorology classes launch weather balloons. It is also legal for anyone to launch weather balloons.

Further research to obtain weather balloon launch dates and times will be necessary for future investigations. For this report, I wish I had the data. The flight characteristics of the object the witness described do not seem to match the flight characteristics of a weather balloon, or Helium filled party balloons. It is also important to note; weather balloons do not descend back to the ground from their altitudes of up to approx 115,000 feet. They are designed to explode at high altitudes then a parachute is deployed to return the radiosonde (electronic data transmitting computer) to earth. If located, the radiosonde is repaired/serviced then launched suspended from a new weather balloon.

Additional Information

Why Do Forecasters Still Rely on Weather Balloons?

Below: Excerpt from the above link.

“Twice every day, from nearly 100 locations in the United States, the National Weather Service launches weather balloons, carrying instrument packages called radiosondes. Radiosonde sensors measure upper-air conditions such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity, wind speed, and direction. The data is important for aviation safety, and meteorologists use radiosonde information to prepare weather forecasts.”

Upper Air Observations-Excerpt from Wikipedia-Weather Balloons

Below: Excerpt from above Wikipedia link.

“Upper air weather data is essential for weather forecasting and research. The NWS operates 92 radiosonde locations in North America and ten sites in the Caribbean. A small, expendable instrument package is suspended below a 2 metres (6.6 ft) wide balloon filled with hydrogen or helium, then released daily at or shortly after 1100 and 2300 UTC, respectively. As the radiosonde rises at about 300 meters/minute (1,000 ft/min), sensors on the radiosonde measure profiles of pressure, temperature, and relative humidity. These sensors are linked to a battery-powered radio transmitter that sends the sensor measurements to a ground receiver. By tracking the position of the radiosonde in flight, information on wind speed and direction aloft is also obtained. The flight can last longer than two hours, and during this time the radiosonde can ascend above 35 km (115,000 ft) and drift more than 200 km (120 mi) from the release point. When the balloon has expanded beyond its elastic limit and bursts (about 6 m or 20 ft in diameter), a small parachute slows the descent of the radiosonde, minimizing the danger to lives and property. Data obtained during the flights is coded and disseminated, at which point it can be plotted on a Skew-T or Stuve diagram for analysis. In recent years, the National Weather Service has begun incorporating data from AMDAR in its numerical models (however, the raw data is not available to the public).”

Below are several good videos showing launches and flight characteristics of weather balloons. Keep in mind; anyone can launch a weather balloon. One does not need a license, but there are liability issues to consider, i.e., the parachute does not deploy and the payload injuries someone on the ground. No insurance company will insure weather balloons. Questions regarding liability is an issue and standards have been proposed to the FAA.

Back in 2014, I investigated a misidentified object that was, in fact, a weather balloon. It was an interesting case where the witness filmed the balloon through a telescope exploding at high altitude. He claimed the balloon was a chemical device ejected from a jet as an alternative to alleged geoengineering and chemtrail activity. He referred to it as a chem.-bomb. I sent the video footage to a weather balloon manufacturer. After reviewing the footage, the manufacturer confirmed it was a weather balloon exploding as intended after reaching its maximum altitude.

Video Reference Research

Additional Links of Reference

National Weather Service-Upper Air Observation Program

National Weather Service-Maps of the NWS Rawinsonde Network

More Facts About Weather Balloons

Advertising Balloons

Advertising balloons have been popular for years and are available in many shapes, size, or color imaginable. Businesses use them for grand openings, sales or are a permanent fixture above a business. Some have no advertising printed on them and are a solid color. An internet search will find round solid color (white, yellow, blue, etc.) balloons available in sizes from 5-10 feet in diameter, even larger. These balloons can become detached from their anchor points, or ropes break causing them to be carried away by the wind. These balloons are filled with Helium. Many business use balloon companies to maintain their balloons as the Helium needs to be replaced within 4-5 days, sometimes longer. As the Helium degrades or escapes from the balloon, the balloon will still stay aloft, but if the line breaks the balloon will not reach a high altitude. Its assent rate will be much slower and altitude lower, maintaining a much lower, consistent altitude. You may have seen this happen with Helium filled party balloons inside your house. The balloon will rest on the ceiling for a day or two then begin to drop hovering in mid-air. Then a day later it will no longer float and drops to the floor. This principle can be related to advertising balloons as well. It is possible that when a 5-day-old, or older, advertising balloon escapes, it can reach an altitude of only 500-1000 feet while being carried away with the wind. It is possible that a weakened Helium filled advertising balloon is what the witness observed. However, without photos or video of the object, I can only speculate.

Link to advertising balloon company

Local Airports

The witness lives within 1-35 miles from approx thirteen airports and is familiar with the basic types of jet and propeller aircraft. (Refer to the image below for airport names and locations.)

Local Military/Air Force Bases

The witness lives within 10 miles from military air bases and is familiar with the basic types of military jet aircraft. (Refer to the image below for base names locations.)

Summary and Analysis of Witness’ Statements

As I stated earlier in this report, the witness is very credible, educated and is familiar with observing aircraft and other objects in the sky. In 1966, 1969 and 2012 he had UFO sightings. His testimony to those sightings are very interesting, and I hope he submits them to TBV Investigations.

To summarize what the witness observed. On 10/14/2018 he and his wife were working in their yard. The witness observed a reflection from the sun on an object traveling from the N/W to the S/E. The object was round in shape, Approx 9 millimeters in diameter, appeared to change colors from white to yellow, emitted no sound, and traveled straight at the approximate speed of an aircraft. The elevation of the object was approx 500 feet, and the distance from his location was approx one mile. When the object approached the moon, it curved upward and vanished. According to the witness, his wife’s observations were the same.

The witness’ statements of the elevation of the object are consistent with the data I obtained from Stellarium regarding the location of the moon and sun. The moon’s location was approximately 25 degrees above the S/E horizon at an approx 150-degree compass reading. The setting sun was approximately 28 degrees above S/W horizon at an approx 230-degree compass reading. Based on the witness’ statement that the object was approx 500 feet in altitude is consistent with his view of the sun and moon that were both low to the horizon.

The object vanishing when it curved toward the moon was most likely due to the 30% illumination of the moon washing out the object. However, this does not account for the witness losing sight of the object. It would only take a second or two for the object to cross the moon becoming visible once again, but the witness did not see it.

I spent a lot of time researching weather balloons as I felt it necessary. Many would state it was a weather balloon, but I do not believe it was. The ascension of a weather balloon is rapid and would not travel at a low maintained altitude of 500 to several thousand feet. Weather Balloons reach altitudes of over 100,000 feet, explode, and their instruments are parachuted back to earth. Refer to the information in this report on weather balloons.

An advertising balloon, on the other hand, is a possibility. If a white runaway advertising balloon with no marking had degraded helium or an alternate gas, it would maintain a low altitude similar to a two-day-old party balloon hovering between the floor and ceiling.  It is also important to note that the wind speed was 9 mph out of the NW the same direction that the UFO was traveling. However, the aforementioned would not account for the object vanishing. Refer to the information in this report on advertising balloons.

The post UFO over Fresno, California – October 14, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Fresno, California – October 14, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was originally submitted to the Black Vault and was assigned to TBV Investigations Researcher Richard Kidd for analysis.

Witness Testimony

“It was a long time ago.I was standing on the dunes on lake Michigan. Looking eastward. about 4 pm, clear day sunny sky. Brick red rectangle still in the sky over the lighthouse. about 100 ft above the lighthouse, about 100 by 300 ft in size. Had angle beams on the side, looked like circle windows on side. also large rivets and metal pieces of various odd shapes attached. Could not see anything in “windows” and there were no lights or sound. I know what I saw, after watching it sit in the sky for about 20 minutes, I went home. Also remember unusual incidences that happened to me shortly after that.”

The Analysis

Have been waiting for a reply from Gloria regarding her sighting in 1966. As of yet, I have not received any replies to my email and no call back from reporting witness. I am going to send one last email to Gloria and hopefully get a reply back within a couple days. If I do not receive a reply in response to my email, I will conclude with my investigation and submit a final report as to any information I have found connected with her sighting.

Conclusion

Due to the lack of contact of the witness, I am recommending that this case be closed due to lack of evidence.

The post UFO over Lighthouse in Michigan City, Indiana — March 1, 1966 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Lighthouse in Michigan City, Indiana — March 1, 1966 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted by witness John to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on 07/03/2018 at 1:42 am and was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Jim Kerr for investigation and analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following testimony was submitted by the witness:

“It was a cloudy Monday; I was going to take a break outside, when I spotted a light in the sky that moved, I took the opportunity to film it and take photos on the object. It moved before disappearing, disproving that it’s a meteor or asteroids. It had to be a UFO.

The photo and the video was taken in Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden.”

Witness Interview Conducted by Email on 08/15/2018 @ 11:52 pm

Q: What make, and model of camera or cell phone camera did you record the video and still photo?

A: I filmed the sighting with my Huawei Honor 8 lite, which had a built-in star track.

Q: Do you have additional still photos you can forward?

A: I didn’t have time to change the camera mode, because if I changed it, the object would’ve disappeared.
     I took a video so that It wouldn’t look like any star.

Q: What was the approx compass direction you were facing while filming?

A: I was facing southeast at 140°.

Q:  In your video, it appears you are inside a building behind a glass window, possibly inside a restaurant or store with the ambient sounds of conversations. The window is visible in front of the camera lens. Please set the stage as to what you were doing just before filming the UFO?

A: I was in my apartment, watching television, I wanted to take a look at the night sky, which is often. So I went to my window and noticed the object up there (it was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera), but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.

Q: What drew your attention to this object?

A: The fact that it was moving, and that it didn’t resemble any known aircraft in Sweden, drew me into it.

Q:  Approx how long did you observe the object before filming?

A: I observed it for a full minute.

Q: Before your sighting did you have an interest in the UFO topic?

A: Yes, I had (and still have) an interest in the topic of UFOs.

Q: Is this the first UFO sighting you ever had?

A: Yes, this is my first UFO sighting.

Q:  Have you seen any UFO’s since this incident?

A: Yes mate, I did encounter another UFO at the same location before this incident.

Q: Were there other people in your presence that also observed this UFO? If so, describe their reactions or any statements they made. I don’t need their names.

A: There weren’t any people outside during that time.

Q: Just before or even days before seeing this UFO were you engaged in conversation with anyone about the topic of UFO’s? Note; (In many sightings witnesses were engaged in conversation about UFO’s before their sighting).

A: Check the above answer.

Q: If you were in a restaurant or business, please provide the name of the establishment or the cross streets of this location. Note; (this is important to eliminate any air traffic of flight patterns from local airports).

A: I wasn’t in a restaurant during that time, I was in my home.

The Evidence

The witness submitted two forms of visual evidence. A seven-second video clip with audio and a still photograph. Both were recorded using a Huawei Honor 8 lite cell phone.

The Analysis

by Jim Kerr, TBV Investigations

My Background as a UFO investigator began in 1973 after witnessing two illuminated disk-like objects that hovered, made right angle turns at high speed then ascended into the atmosphere at unbelievable speeds. In one sighting three USAF F-4 fighter jets arrived on the scene after the UFO shot up into the atmosphere. Since that time I became an amateur photographer, videographer and astronomer. Over the years I have archived many hours of video footage of jet aircraft during daylight and night in different weather and lighting conditions. Based on my experience I am aware of how aircraft in different lighting conditions can appear as a UFO, flying saucer, etc. Even in my photos and video, I captured objects that I initially believed were UFO’s, but after carefully analyzing the images with video editing software I determined them to be aircraft, birds, balloons, bugs, etc. Always keep in mind that even with the human eye can deceive us.

On 12/11/2017 at approx 2:00 pm Witness John related he went outside to take a break and observed a light in the sky that was moving. Using his cell phone, he took photos and video of the illuminated object before it disappeared. The witness believed it was not a meteor or asteroid and must have been a UFO.

On 08/15/2018, I conducted an email interview with the witness; There are minor inconsistencies from his original statement but nothing that affects the visual evidence presented in the photo and video submitted. Due to the passage of time, it is understandable that statement inconsistencies will occur. Refer to the witness’ statements under “Witness Testimony.”

Below is one witness statement that I will elaborate on later in my conclusions.

“I was in my apartment, watching television, I wanted to take a look at the night sky, which is often. So I went to my window and noticed the object up there (it was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera), but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.”

I don’t know the witness’ exact location while filming within the city of Ronneby as he seemed reluctant to provide this information. Due to this, I am unable to determine his exact location while filming and his distance from the Ronneby Airport. Again, with the witness submitting photo and video, his location is not necessary to identify the object he filmed. Here is my analysis of that evidence:

Weather Information

Weather history searched on the weather website wunderground. The weather station is located at the Ronneby Air Base, Sweden.

Weather conditions at the time of the witness’ sighting; 34 deg, humidity 93%, wind 9 mph out of the NE, and mostly cloudy.

High temp 37 deg, low temp 29 deg, precipitation 0.24 inches, dew point 31 deg, average wind speed 12 mph, visibility 19 miles.

Surrounding Airports

Ronneby Airport is located approx 2.5 miles from Ronneby, Sweden. It is the 6th largest airport in Sweden and considered a Minor International Airport that handles approx 226,995 passengers per year. On the average, there are approx 16 incoming and outgoing flights per day.

Surrounding Military Installations

Blekinge Flygflottilj F17 Swedish Air Force Base, simply known as “F 17”, is located approx 0.62 miles from the Ronneby Airport. The base currently houses two squadrons of the multirole aircraft. A wing of the Swedish helicopter forces is also stationed at F17.

Additional information about Blekinge Flygflottilj F17:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_17_Kallinge

Astronomical Data

Searching the archives of Stellarium, (a planetarium software that shows exactly what you see when you look up at the stars), I found no celestial objects that could remotely account for what the witness observed. Below is historical astronomical data from Weather-Underground.

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the following I determined the illuminated object in the witness’ photo and video to be landing lights of an aircraft on approach to the Roddeby Airport. I used Sony Vegas video editing software to enlarge the object and adjusted the lighting and contrast in both the photo and video footage. The speed of the object along with it’s straight, steady flight path is consistent with aircraft on approach to an airport. The Ronneby Airport is located 2.5 miles from the town of Ronneby.

In my video analysis of the witness’ video, (see video analysis above), the aircraft’s white strobe light can be seen flashing intermittently within the brilliant landing lights. This is evident in the witness’ video footage. As an example, I videoed an aircraft at night with it’s landing light turned on. My footage also shows the intermittent flashing of the aircraft’s white strobe light that can be seen within the brilliant landing light. Both the witness’s video and my video are similar enough to conclude aircraft landing lights were what the witness observed, videoed and photographed.  

The witness made the statement;  “It was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera, but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.” Based on my video analysis, adjusting the lighting and contrast, I observed no flying saucer associated with the aircraft landing lights. I have personally observed and videoed aircraft landing lights and as I stated earlier, they can be deceiving and can appear saucer-like in shape. Keep in mind that aircraft in the different light setting are often mistaken for Flying Saucers. Watch the analyzed video below for further details.

I want to thank the witness for sending TBV Investigations his UFO report and visual evidence. I hope this investigation will provide answers to those who witness lights in the sky and help identify UFO’s, Unidentified Flying Objects.

The post UFO over Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden – December 11, 2017 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden – December 11, 2017 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

On October 26, 2018, this case was submitted to The Black Vault. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ research Jeremy Enfinger for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The witness/photographer submitted the following information:

I was picking my grandchildren up from elementary school when I noticed everybody looking up in the sky I too looked up there and saw what I saw on the photos. The sighting date listed above (in the initial report) is wrong it was in 2014 I believe it was April. I couldn’t change sighting date on your program.

The sighting was reported to have occurred near the intersection of Thornton Rd. and Estate Dr. in Stockton, California around (or near) April of 2014. Four photos were submitted of an anomaly in the sky witnessed by multiple people (appearing in some of the photos).

The Evidence

The Analysis

Metadata analysis indicates the images are the original files, and EXIF metadata was able to be extracted. The image was taken from a Samsung SGH-T599N (5 MP) at a resolution of 1920 x 2560 pixels, using automatic exposure control with ISO 50, an exposure time of 1/2915 sec and an F-stop of 2.7. With the jpeg quality being 97%, there is no indication that the image file has been compressed. The flash was not utilized.

The time stamp on the metadata indicates it was taken May 9, 2014 at 14:14 hours. Due to initial research, no photo manipulation techniques were employed.

Initial impressions indicated the photo was not manipulated, and no evidence of motion was present when comparing images. There were, however, subtle changes in appearance around the periphery of the anomaly which caused me to consider some sort of meteorological or atmospheric disturbance.

After retrieving the metadata, multiple Google searches for “UFO Stockton, California, 2014” and “Clouds in Stockton, California, 2014” for the months of April and May of that year yielded several results. Image results were found that matched the appearance in these images and multiple news article links varied in headlines from May 9 to include “UFO sightings” to descriptions of cloud formations that can cause this kind of appearance.

Conclusion

After consulting the numerous articles citing this phenomenon, it can be summarized as a “Hole Punch Cloud”, which appears as a large, circular gap that usually appears in cirrocumulus or altocumulus clouds. Also called a “fallstreak hole”, it can happen when moisture in a cloud is at a temperature that’s below freezing, but the moisture itself is isn’t actually frozen. According to the Huffington Post, these formations can also be caused by aircraft passing through certain types of clouds.

References

Here was a FOX 40 submitted photograph from the same timeframe:

The Huffington Post also ran a story about it:

Also CBS Sacramento was another resource that covered it:

YouTube user MrPhath posted a video of it as well:

Original Metadata Information

Each photo was submitted to Fotoforensics, but for the purpose of this report, I will only include the link to one as the JPEG quality and metadata are corroborated in comparison.

Photo #1 Metadata (from FotoForensics): http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=d6040af2eb054b5764d749de34163b5000b459b0.1704869

JPEG last saved at 97% quality (estimated).

Quality determined from the quantization tables that encoded the JPEG:

JPEG Q0: Luminance

JPEG Q1: Chrominance

The post UFO Photographed in the Clouds over Stockton, California first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Photographed in the Clouds over Stockton, California appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on May 19, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Michael Glenn for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The witness submitted the following report:

“At approximately 19:30 on May 17, 2018 I saw something extremely bright horizontal to the setting sun. I’ve seen sundogs before and have many photographs of them. This was no sundog. It hung in the air. It was huge. It had a shape. I ran inside and grabbed my phone and snapped a few shots. I also manipulated a couple of them and brought out what looks like a glowing cigar shape object of some kind. I took a few close ups and a couple of wide angles. I have to say I was amazed. I also caught a secondary object that looks geometrical with antennae protruding from the corners when you zoom in on one of the frames. Look at the photographs and you tell me what that is in the sky. Feel free to download and examine them for yourselves.”

The Evidence

The witness also submitted many photographs of the event in question. This took place over Jacksonville, NC. 

The Analysis

The image was examined using several filters, settings, and adjustments in Photoshop. The object appears to be part of the sky, and has its own brightness, equal to the sunlight. To the left of the large shape is a small, geometric object hanging in the sky. The pixelated nature of the image makes it impossible to tell for sure what we are looking at. The witness stated that the object was not noticed until examining the images later. The witness further states that the cloud shape hung there as the ones around it moved, dissipated. Some swirling can be seen in the image, but again, not definitive shapes. The event lasted ten minutes.

Image Analysis

Conclusion

It is impossible to draw a conclusion for the geometric shape hanging in the air to the left of the elliptical shape as the image is not clear enough. The elliptical shape could be described on first look as a Fallstreak hole (hole punch cloud), but the cloud type is not right for this phenomenon since Fallstreak holes occur in cirro and alto cumulus clouds. A search of images on Google turned up this example of a similar sky effect. This cloud feature is the only conclusion that can be drawn at this time as there is no discernible anomaly in the image.

The post UFO over Jacksonville, North Carolina – May 17, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Jacksonville, North Carolina – May 17, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on March 17, 2018, the day of the sighting.  It was assigned to Michael Kelly for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following testimony was submitted by the witness:

“At 0559 3/17/18 I witnessed a large object shaped similar to the space shuttle but much larger enter the atmosphere. At first I thought I was looking at a falling star. I watched and waited for it to disappear but instead it turned bright orange and grew larger and brighter. I started to see a trail of orange sparks behind it. I lost it when it went behind a house. it was still night it was going towards the coast. it lasted 20/30 seconds i was alone, on my morning walk no photos, i didn’t have time to get my phone out I don’t know what this was. I just don’t think it was a plane because I couldn’t find anything about a plane crash on the news.”

The Analysis

by Michael Kelly, TBV Investigations

The description of the object getting larger and brighter as well as shooting off sparks is consistent with an object entering the atmosphere from space. The most likely scenario of an object entering the atmosphere would be a meteor, but other possibilities are satellites or similar artificial objects.

One likely possibility is a piece of the Chinese Tiangong-1 Space Station which crashed to Earth a few weeks after the witness made the sighting. This object broke into pieces and orbited the Earth a few times before crashing down on March 28th in the Pacific Ocean.

It is possible a piece of the space station entered the atmosphere before that date.

Below is a video of the space station as it enters the atmosphere, for reference:

Additional Information:  https://www.space.com/40101-china-space-station-tiangong-1-crashes.html 

As early as January of 2018 USA Today reported that the space station and its debris would likely fall to earth beginning in March, most likely between 43 degrees North and 43 degrees South latitudes. Bakersfield, CA lies at 35.3733° N latitude, so it is not inconceivable that some of the debris from this space station could have been visible from Bakersfield.

Conclusion

Without more information, this object is difficult to identify exactly, but it is almost certainly a meteor or man-made satellite of some kind. It was undoubtedly an object entering Earth’s atmosphere from space, so the possibilities for what the object could be have to exclude anything incapable of being in space like an airplane or hot air balloon.

My best guess is that the object witnessed by the observer was a piece of the Tiangong-1 Space Station.

The post UFO seen over Bakersfield, California – March 17, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO seen over Bakersfield, California – March 17, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted by Geoffrey Heyman on January 26, 2018, the day of his sighting. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Monica Salazar for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following was submitted by Mr. Heyman about his sighting:

“3 orb like lights seem like they were in a bubble Separating and seemed like they were going in an out of each other. No sound just brilliant light illumination. This was at 5:38 am on January 26th 2018 in the skies over Manchester, Maryland.”

The Analysis

by Monica Salazar, TBV Investigations

I emailed the witness a few times, however I seldom received a response. I was finally able to speak to the witness via phone call. He was able to describe to me a little better what he saw that night and of course his idea of what it could have been. 

Geoffrey Heyman recalls seeing lights in the sky traveling about southeast to southwest at a relatively slow speed, and about 300ft to 400ft low to the ground, he describes it as “a plane about to land” kind of height and speed. Mr. Heyman also mentioned that an ex colleague of his saw a similar object from his home hovering just above a valley. 

Mr. Heyman describes the object as three orbs moving in and out of each other, he states he has never seen anything like this before. He remembers the objects having an orange and yellow sort of glow, however he remembers it was day break so the way he describes the objects as “almost transparent but you could see the outline, as if they were taking the color of the sky as the sun was coming up like camouflage”

There is no actual physical evidence for this sighting however Mr. Heyman did state he rushed inside his home to grab his phone and possibly take a picture of the object however when he returned the glowing lights were gone. 

Conclusion

I found the witness to be a very credible witness with knowledge of typical and familiar commercial aircraft. I am positive you could tell if the object could have been a plane or not. Objects like these have been seen in the areas of Maryland quite often. I was able to visit the “National UFO Reporting Center State Report Index for MD” http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxlMD.html 

In this site there have been several similar “Lights” reported in the area. In fact just a day prior to Mr. Haymans report, just one hour southwest in Frederick MD there was a very similar report of “… a bright orange light reflecting off the windows.”

Now I can’t really say this was definitely a UFO however with other people in the general area reporting the same mysterious lights hovering it makes you wonder if in fact there is something of interest in Maryland. 

For the sake of this report and because of lack of physical evidence I would conclude this as undetermined due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The post UFO Over Manchester, Maryland – January 26, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Over Manchester, Maryland – January 26, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to TBV Investigations on March 16, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations researcher Jim Kerr for investigation. 

Witness Testimony

The following was submitted to TBV Investigations in the initial report:

“My husband Lance and I both saw the UFO at the same time. It was at dusk around 6:05 PM but still light, and the sky was blue. We were standing on our back deck looking at birds on our lake. We had our binoculars in hand. I saw this bright shiny thing in the sky. At first we thought it was a plane, then we realized it wasn’t. It was round like a moon hovering in the sky and very bright, like a mirror reflecting light. As we watched it, it divided in half, a vertical line that divided the circle in half. You could see the sky between the two halves. The halves stayed side by side and continued to hover for about a minute or two. Then it just vanished. About 10 seconds later it reappeared still divided but this time it was moving southward, then it vanished again. It’s hard to say how far away it was, but you could see it well with the naked eye and even better with the binoculars. It would have been hard to get a good picture of it without zoom lenses.”

Witness Interview

By Jim Kerr, TBV Investigations

On 03-27-2018 at 1:10 pm PST I conducted a telephone interview with witnesses Tina and Lance. A little over a month has passed since their sighting and their description of the incident closely matches their original written statement submitted to TBV investigations. Both witnesses seemed credible, sincere and neither formed an opinion as to what this object was.

On 02-23-2018 at approx 6:00 pm, witnesses Tina and Lance related to me they were standing on the rear deck of their house which overlooks a small lake behind their property. The sky was clear with no cloud cover, the sun had set but was still light with good visibility. It is common practice for witnesses to bird watch from their deck using binoculars. Both witnesses observed a round illuminated stationary object in the western sky at approx 30 degrees above the western horizon. This initial sighting lasted for approx two minutes. Both witnesses stated the object first appeared to be the light from an aircraft but then determined the object was stationary and was not a aircraft. The object was brightly illuminated with a mirror like appearance. Witness Tina related, with her naked eye, the object was the size of a 50 cent piece held at arms length. Witness Lance related, with his naked eye, the object was the size of a dime held at arms length. During this first observation, approx one minute into the sighting, the object split vertically into two equal half’s, slightly separated, and blue sky could be seen behind the vertical split. Viewing the object through binoculars both witnesses related the edge around both split half’s of the object was blurry and not sharply defined. After viewing the object for approx two minutes it began to move slowly in a southerly direction for a short distance while maintaining the same altitude then suddenly vanished. The object did not travel out of sight but vanished from view. 

Approx 30 seconds after the initial sighting, both witnesses related the object reappeared southwest of it’s original location at approx 30 degrees above the horizon. The object was moving very slowly in a southerly direction for approx 30 seconds then suddenly vanished.

The Analysis

By Jim Kerr, TBV Investigations

With the lack of video or photo evidence, I will attempt to identify what the witnesses observed based on the following facts along with witness statements. 

Sunset in Asheboro North Carolina 02-23-2018 at 6:08 pm indicating it was still daylight. Link, https://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp?back=USANC&comb_city_info=Asheboro,+North+Carolina;79.8117;35.7198;-5;1&month=2&year=2018&time_type=0&wsom=0

Checking the website “Weather Underground” weather for this date and location at 5:55 pm, the temperature was 70 degrees , dew point 59 degrees, average humidity 68%, precipitation 0.00, wind speed 0 mph and visibility 10 miles with scattered cloud cover. Based on this weather report the witnesses had a relativity clear but very lightly obstructed view of the sky due to scattered clouds. Evaluating witness statements, I don’t believe the scattered clouds hindered their observations of the object. 

Researching Stellarium for know celestial objects on 02-23-2018 @ 6:00 pm, the planet Venus was visible at approx 30 degrees above the western horizon. Venus would have appeared bright in the sky, approx 2 millimeters in size at arms length but not the size of a 50 cent piece or dime as described by the witnesses. Additionally, Venus’s only movement would be setting in the west same as the sun. Based on witness statements Venus can be ruled out as the object they observed. 

Airports near Asheboro, NC. Based on the number of airports located near the witnesses location they most likely have observable air traffic. Even at sunset aircraft landing lights can still be quite bright and at times appear stationary in the sky for several seconds, especially if the aircraft is traveling directly toward the observer. Many aircraft have dual landing lights. When approaching closer to an observer, dual landing lights could account for an object appearing to dividing vertically in two as both landing lights come into view. Turning off landing lights could account for an object appear to vanish. Could the witnesses have seen the landing lights of an approaching aircraft then 30 seconds later seen a second approaching aircraft? Based on the witness statements they are positive the object was not an aircraft. However, if the object was in fact aircraft landing lights pointed in their direction and the aircraft turned in a southerly direction, this could explain this sighting.

Again, with no video or photo evidence I can only theorize to the identity of the object. 

69 miles: Raleigh, NC (RDU / KRDU) Raleigh-Durham International Airport
38 miles: Greensboro, NC (GSO / KGSO) Piedmont Triad International Airport
6 miles: Asheboro, NC (KHBI / HBI) Asheboro Regional Airport 

Conclusion

According to the witnesses this was a strange unexplained sighting and unfortunately no video or photo evidence was captured. With the lack of physical evidence I could only theorize as to the identity of this object.

Case is unidentified, but lacks sufficient evidence to make a conclusion.

The post UFO over Asheboro, North Carolina – February 23, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Asheboro, North Carolina – February 23, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

On June 3, 2018, a post appeared on Facebook that went viral. It was posted by Ashley Choney, the earliest post I could find when this case file was written, and it shows a photograph of a “UFO” or saucer-like craft on the back of a semi, followed by “20 police cars” as indicated by the witness.

The case was investigated by the creator of The Black Vault, John Greenewald, Jr.

Witness Testimony

The original Facebook posting, as published on June 3, 2018:

The Evidence

The only evidence was the photo updated. Here is the highest resolution available:

The Analysis

by John Greenewald, Jr., Founder of The Black Vault / Creator of TBV Investigations

There was something eerily familiar when I saw this photograph making it’s rounds. When I am writing this report, the post has had just about 20,000 shares, more than 7,000 likes and more than 3,000 comments. I recalled seeing a post nearly identical to this a few years back, and dug up a December 2011 video from YouTuber Alex Dieguez in the the same exact location as this new posting — specifically, Ponca City, Oklahoma.

In 2011, when this story and video first circulated, it too went viral. With thousands of shares and likes, it was unknown what was seen that day, but it sparked various news stories and newspaper articles.  That is, until Brooks McKinney, senior manager of public relations at Northrop Grumman, closed the mystery. He told Life’s Little Mysteries, a project by the popular LiveScience.com website, that the craft was a transport of the X-47B. According to Northrop Grumman:

“The X-47B is a tailless, strike fighter-sized unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman as part of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) Carrier Demonstration program. Under a contract awarded in 2007, the company designed, produced and is currently flight testing two X-47B aircraft. In 2013, these aircraft were used to demonstrate the first ever carrier-based launches and recoveries by an autonomous, low-observable relevant unmanned aircraft. In April of 2015, the X-47B once again made aviation history by successfully conducting the first ever Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) of an unmanned aircraft. AAR unlocks the full potential of what an unmanned surveillance, strike and reconnaissance system can do in support of the Navy. These historical demonstrations solidify the concept of future unmanned aircraft and proved that the X-47B can perform standard missions like aerial refueling and operate seamlessly with manned aircraft as part of the Carrier Air Wing.”

The source of this, was published on December 20, 2011, on the LiveScience.com website.

With the 2011 mystery solved, now we have the post again, or a similar one, in 2018.

What is interesting to note, is the fact that the truck transporting the craft, is nearly identical (or IS identical) in both make, model and color as the 2011 video.

I put a side by side comparison:

It is likely, that this is the X-47  being transported again by the same transport company using a nearly identical vehicle. Oddly, it is seen and photographed in the same exact city of Ponca City, Oklahoma.  Northrop does have facilities in Oklahoma City and an address in Ponca City, so the locale in relation to the “sighting” makes sense.

It should also be noted, that on June 3, 2018, the same day as the original post of this “saucer” craft, the following was posted by Trevor Macy, a reporter with KWCH Channel 12 in Witchita, Kansas:

Just spotted this South of Ark City. Any ideas what it is? pic.twitter.com/pH99h6q7tv

— Trevor Macy (@KWCHTrevor) June 3, 2018

Hard to tell if it is the same craft/truck, but again, you have a near identical make, model and color of the transport vehicle.

Others have also referenced an “orb” in the photograph. I believe this can also be explained fairly easily. Here is a screen shot of the orb, along with what should also be noted — power lines.

To the left of the photograph, you will see the “orb” referenced by many others posting and re-posting this photograph. This is touted as further proof this is some kind of alien spacecraft, as it has its own buddy following along.

However, I also pointed out power poles in the photograph. I believe by these, we can safely assume there are power lines running from pole to pole, and going off camera frame.  This ‘sphere’ is not a craft, but rather, is a visibility marker ball. These are often put on power lines to indicate to passing aircraft and helicopters, where the danger is if you fly too low. They mark the power lines not easily visible when flying an aircraft.

Here is a clear photograph of these markers:

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, this is likely simply a transport of the X-47B (or similar shaped craft) as talked about in 2011 by Northrop Grumman’s Public Relations Senior Manager.

This is aside from the fact that if it was anything involving a massive amount of secrecy, like an alien craft or back engineered technology, it would not be transported in the open on public highways in it’s actual form — but rather, it would be disguised, transported under the cover of darkness, or even transported in an open vehicle at all.

The “orb” that is often also cited as being in the photograph, is likely a visibility marking ball.

The post UFO Type Craft Seen Hauled on Large Semi Truck in Ponca City, Oklahoma first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Type Craft Seen Hauled on Large Semi Truck in Ponca City, Oklahoma appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

This case came through the TBV Investigations UFO Report Form. It was assigned to TBV Investigations researcher Michael Glenn. 

Upon reading the account this investigator asked for more specific details, and at this time none have been forthcoming from the witness. After one month, we have closed the case due to insufficient contact, and insufficient evidence to make a viable conclusion. 

Witness Testimony

“At first I thought it was a weather balloon in the sky. It looked shiny, clear and kinda metallic completely round. Then like a moon eclipsing it started to disappear slowly. Then in the blink of an eye it was gone. 30 seconds later it reappeared and did the same eclipsing disappearing thing. It did not appear again. I’ve never seen anything like it, and it definitely felt not of this world.”

Conclusion

Not enough data to draw a conclusion, nor to validate the event.

Possible causes for the event would only be speculative. 

The post UFO over Highway 55 and County Road 116 in Hamel, Minnesota first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Highway 55 and County Road 116 in Hamel, Minnesota appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on December 20th, 2017. The witness described the encounter as the following:

“This sighting took place in my backyard in Long Beach CA, Carson Park to be specific. I spend many hours per week sky watching in the yard and have seen and recorded many UFOs there.

When I first spotted the UFO it looked very bright and was moving steadily across the sky. There were actually two objects at first when I spotted this bright orb. From a distance it looked larger than a plane and again very bright. I then grabbed the camera and started recording the object. When it became clear in the lens I realized it was a somewhat of an elongated object and it was glowing white. From here I just tried to keep the camera steady and record the UFO as smoothly as possible. After a minute or so things got very interesting once it released what looked like a triangular formation of orbs from it’s main body. As you can see in the footage the orbs were actually pretty large and held this formation very steady as they ejected from the main object.

Many UFO sightings I’ve had have been triangle formations so this to me was a confirmation that this was likely a UFO and a signal of communication. After the triangle formation disbanded I bungled the camera and lost track of it in the viewfinder. I then got it back in the lens and followed it in the sky for a few more minutes. Towards the end of the video on my last zoom in the UFO started ejecting what looked like tons of small spheres from it’s main body. I was very surprised to see and have never seen so many orbs come out of one object. The smaller orbs formed a trail going through the sky and seemed also take different formations. It’s important to note I could only see the small spheres through the infrared camera I could not see them with my naked eye. I did my best to keep the camera steady and film the event taking place. As the UFO crossed my hard it went behind a tree and I lost track of it in the camera. In the last few seconds though I could see the object was just above my head about to go behind this tree and it looked very large and very bright! I moved to the middle of the yard to try and record the object more but unfortunately couldn’t manage to get the UFO back in the lens. I could still see it but it was heading out of range.

My arm was also very tired since I’d been filming for about 9 minutes. So I decided that was good enough and watched it go out of view towards the ocean. To this day it’s the most interesting capture I’ve caught on film. We see many UFOs at our house but this was by far the most exceptional. I don’t believe it to be skydivers or a military exercise. For one thing my infrared camera is a high end unit that has a 1345 mm telephoto lens designed for long distance shooting. The camera can easily articulate planes, helicopters, or anything in the sky with great clarity. We would for sure have been able to see that this was a plane or helicopter if it was a conventional object. This UFO also looked like many of the orbs we see and record with the bright, plasma type quality to it. They look like they’re alive in this type of plasmatic form.

There wasn’t any sound from the UFO. I could hear other airplanes flying at higher altitudes while recording the object. I live near long beach airport and see planes flying by all day.”

The case was assigned to TBV Investigations team member Christopher Connelly for investigation. 

The Analysis

Unfortunately, I am unable this object into a “shape” as throughout the video, it appears to be shifting, due to possible movement, camera angles or another reason yet to be identified.

The type of material the object was made of is impossible to determine, due to the film being in infrared.

Even though it is in infrared, it is impossible to get a heat signature from something at such a distance.

As the witness continues to watch the object, it appears to be moving slightly to the witness’ right.  As the object is being filmed, it begins dropping smaller heat signatures, or other objects, as it moves along.

Much like the main object, it is hard to make out the shape of these objects being dropped but they do not appear to be falling in a regular pattern.

At one time, you can see a triangular formation of three heat signatures falling to earth. Eventually, it appears that the object disappears behind the cover of a tree and filming ends at that time.

Corresponding Cases

The following case was filmed by the Long Beach Police Department on December 25, 2004, which looks very similar.  There is no context to the video, as it was found on YouTube, so it is hard to verify. But, it was uploaded in 2008, and appears to be very similar. The video can be found here: 

Possible Explanations

Skydiving Team – Recreational or Military

I reached out to local skydiving companies in the local area, but they would not give me any information in regards to any of the jumps.

About a hour and a half away lies Camp Pendleton, which is host to various Marine Corps and Navy units but from my military experience, I doubt that they would fly 1.5 hours out to perform jumps over Long Beach.

Another thing is that when a military or civilian jump is occurring, the craft is usually moving at a decent speed and the jumpers are dropped at intervals, not in sporadic formations that are seen in the video. There are cases of Special Forces performing small team jumps or even HALO (High Altitude Low Oxygen)  jump, but this doesn’t appear to be small teams.

I was unable to make out any sounds of the craft in the video and the witness states that there were none. I am unable to make any decision on the shape or color of the object due to the infrared and that this “jelly bean” shape may actually be its shape.

Conclusion

Due to the video, location of the sighting and the reoccurring sightings that have been reported with heavy supportive evidence, such as the object filmed by the Long Beach Police helicopter in ‘04 (see reference above), I have come to the conclusion that I am unable to identify this object using my range of scientific methods. I am unable to identify its origin as well.

The post UFO Ejects Multiple Objects, Filmed in Infrared, October 21, 2017 – Long Beach, California first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Ejects Multiple Objects, Filmed in Infrared, October 21, 2017 – Long Beach, California appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

by Michael Kelly, TBV Investigations

On December 19, 2017, Ronald Male submitted the following UFO sighting to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations, which he witnessed from his driveway in Cazenovia, New York. The event occurred on July 19, 2006 at 10:30am:

I brought my breakfast (bowl of cereal) outdoors to eat while sitting in my spring chair to be in the sun in the driveway on a very nice morning. As usual, the chair took a moment to stabilize, and when it stopped the back and forth rocking motion I was able to eat without a problem. As I leaned back slightly my eyes were able to notice an object in the sky that did not look normal. There was no sound, no evidence of flight control surfaces, and after a few seconds it seemed to linger in place. But it was actually slowely moving due east in the direction of Cazenovia Lake, which was half mile from my driveway. Its movement was regular…..no stops or starts……and appeared to be shaped round like a saucer with a shiny metalic surface. As the object transitioned from about 45° arc from the horizon to almost directly overhead, it was appearant that it did not rotate on its own axis, but the sun reflected off its surface in such a way that I could see the “skin” of the craft which looked to be paneled as individual panels reflected light in sequence as it slowely moved. Its size was hard to interupt since the blue sky offered no reference points, but from where I sat my best estimate was it was the size as a tennis ball held at arms length.

I was considering getting my digital camera, but then I might loose sight of it should it make a move.

As it reached a point over my head it suddenly went straight up so fast that there was little or no shrinking perspective that is evident when an aircraft, for instance, flies away and its appearant size gets smaller with distance traveled. That final sudden and unexpected disappearance was not associated with any noise, flash of light, or any other indication …..it simply disappeared. There were no other witnesses and the entire observation lasted for 4 or 5 minutes.

The Analysis

Aspects of this sighting fit classic UFO reports: disc shaped object, no sound, metallic surface with no flight control surfaces, almost instantaneous departure, etc. There have been sightings from the Cazenovia, NY area reported on other UFO sites, but none that match this description. The size of the object is difficult to determine without knowing the altitude.

It is possible that this aircraft is connected to Deer Run Airfield about 5 miles from site of the observation.

Conclusion

Without further information it is difficult to determine what was seen in the sky on this day. A pedestrian explanation is that this was merely an unusual aircraft operating out of the Deer Run Airfield at 4051 Argos Rd, Cazenovia, NY, 13035, which is a little over 5 miles from the driveway of the witness. This case should remain open without further evidence.

The post UFO over Cazenovia, New York – July 19, 2006 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Cazenovia, New York – July 19, 2006 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.