The Vault Files: The “Tic-Tac” Incident, November 14, 2004

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
• 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 ]

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

---

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•