2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR footage (FLIR1)

I took some time to get up to speed on the topic, but forgive me if I bring up something that has been discussed before or make useless repeated comments. I went through the first two pages and the final few, I hope it's fine that I haven't read through every word of this 5-year-old 900+ comment thread.

Not in this case. The SPY-1 radar is phased array, no rotation.

I don't think the 0.78 seconds figure occured three different times. It's just three retellings of the same story.

Some phased array systems also have a sweeping frequency, like in the image below.


This one seems to be able to track a number of objects, as in, it can lock a beam at an object to track it continuously.

Anyway, since the claim is that this 0.78 sec time was figured out from looking at logs on the next day, the data-logging system must have a sampling rate of some sort. Knowing it could be useful.

It would be one thing to have a target detected at around 28k feet for a few seconds and then, the very next log entry, which happens 0.78s after the previous one, have it detected at close to sea level.

Another thing would be to have, say, a 0.01 second period, or 100Hz sample rate of the log, with it showing the target being tracked as it zips down like the graph below.
1668798116043.png

Another possibility, which I find to be more likely than the second option, is that the object wasn't actually tracked. The sample period could be some fraction of 0.78 seconds. There was a detection at 28k (or 80k, or 60k, it depends where you're looking or who you're listening to) feet for some time, then nothing for a few samples, and then another detection at close to sea level.

The first and third possibilities are explainable by reflection or weather phenomena, the second one would support the "impossibly fast movement" story. Anything in between is murky.

I don't think these logs are likely to be retrievable by now, or that we should trust anyone's memory about what exactly the data looked like.

Going over the executive report, where it described detection by the AN/SPY-1 scanner, it describes:
According to Senior Chief [redacted], the AAVs [Anomalous Aerial Vehicle, i.e., the UFO] would descend from a very high altitude into the scan volume of the AN/SPY-1 at a high velocity. (...) Senior Chief [redacted] added that based on his experience, (...), the AAV exhibited Ballistic Missile Characteristics in reference to its appearance, velocity, and indications on the radar. Since the radar wass in the mode to handle Air Intercept of conventional aircraft it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs and was quickly "dropped" by the radar meaning it was eliminated by the computer to reduce the amount of clutter on the radar, as any other false target is handled.
Content from External Source
Highlighted text suggests the nice smooth tracking graph is unlikely, to say the least.
 
Interestingly it has this in it, seems they didnt have much data other than the testimonies
With this, the topic has now probably finally been manoeuvred to a dead end. Even indications that the data were transmitted from the fleet to "the beach" and that data carriers were taken off board, etc., are no longer being pursued. Question mark.
 
My understanding is the older F-18C/Ds have green CRT displays and the F-18E/Fs color-capable LCDs (caveats apply; hard to find authoritative stuff on this, plus it may be different for different operators, etc). A little hard to see but here's an example of a Super Hornet:



As far as I know these videos are captured by literal cameras pointed at the instruments and should reflect the actual color seen by the pilots.
 
The videos are captured from the video feed to those screens, so not necessarily the same color. It's monochrome video.

Technical details:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...-temp-to-of-the-gimbal-uap.12486/#post-272637
My source was the A1-F18AC-NFM-000 NATOPS document relevant to F/A-18A through D (entirely possible it's different for the Supers);

2.13.8 Cockpit Video Recording System (Aircraft 164945 AND UP and Aircraft 163985 THRU 164912 AFTER AFC 207). The Cockpit Video Recording System (CVRS) consists of three color auto aperture cameras, two electronic units (EUs), and two 8 mm video recorders. One camera records the HUD and the other two record the left and right DDIs in the front cockpit. One video recorder is dedicated to the RDDI while the other is switchable between the HUD and the LDDI. The DDI cameras, Video Sensor Heads (VSHs), are mounted on top of the canopy frame, one on each side, aft of the DDIs. An EU is mounted directly aft of each VSH.

2.13.8.1 DDI Video. Weapon video, provided by television or infrared sensors, and radar video, provided from the radar receiver, is available for display on the DDIs and recording on the CVRS tapes. The weapon and radar video recorded on the tape includes the mission computer system symbology displayed on the DDIs.

With AFC 408, selecting ENABLE on the NUC WPN switch located above the left console next to the canopy manual handle permits raw video from the FLIR to be recorded when the HUD/LDDI switch is in LDDI and the FLIR display is on the LDDI. With the NUC WPN switch in ENABLE, only the LDDI will be recorded even if the mode selector switch is in AUTO.

2.13.8.2 Video Tape Recorders. One video tape recorder accepts video from the HUD color video camera or the LDDI VSH, and the other video tape recorder accepts video from the RDDI VSH. Both recorders accept headset audio and each provides a minimum of 120 minutes recording time on removable video tape cartridges. The headset audio is only available for recording when the KY-58 encryption function is inactive
Content from External Source
A little hard to parse but it looks like both recording modes are supported. The fact that it's monochrome would suggest it's indeed the raw.
 
I have no idea if this is related or relevant to the Nimitz tictac and this thread but figured I'd post here in case. Maybe its already been discussed?

Noticed these circular contrails on zoom.earth's satellite imagery from Nov 4, 2004 which was 10 days prior to the tictac event.
2004-11-04_contrails.png
https://zoom.earth/maps/satellite-hd/#view=31.628249,-117.14836,10z/date=2004-11-04,pm

They appear close to the location of the tictac encounter on the map included in the AATIP report as seen in the following post. The location it shows is W-SW of Ensenada Mexico

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ni...ncounter-missile-hypothesis.11838/post-252421

Can it be determined if these contrails are related to military activity?

That location seems to be within a known Tactical Maneuvering Area (TMA-P1) (a training area?) previously shown in a map here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ni...ncounter-missile-hypothesis.11838/post-252419

If found to be military, does this support or contradict the existing timeline? Was the Nimitz or others known to be training in the area 10 days prior to the Nov 14th event? Maybe it is a common occurrence for this part of the ocean.

Is this location evidence for one of the CAP points?

Mick West references an interview he had with the radar operator Kevin Day who mentions seeing the radar contacts for 10 days. (not sure if that means for 10 days prior to the tictac sighting on Nov 14)
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-283809

Could this mean they were flying during these prior radar contacts? Although I believe I read that the radar contacts were much closer to Catalina Island, so maybe not close at all. However the proximity to the location on the map from the AATIP report seemed odd to me.

I apologize if this was already posted. I searched but didnt have much luck.
 
Last edited:
Funny
So here is a transcript of the interview between Corbell and Chad Underwood that Corbell posted today

JEREMY CORBELL Okay, we got to talk about that. So there’s a funny story that you shared with me that I’d love people to hear. You’re the man that named the Tic Tac UFO, how did you come up with the name Tic Tac UFO, can you tell us how you came up with that term?
CHAD UNDERWOOD Of course, anyone who knows me, friends, family, etc. yourself, knows that my sense of humor is very rooted in these 80s and 90s. I love like the slapstick comedy of Airplane, Naked Gun, Top Secret, Fletch, Caddyshack, etc, that kind of physical slapstick humor. And so when we went out there and we had this encounter, Dave Fravor had already debriefed his flight. And so everyone on the carrier, at least in the aviation wing, knew about this by the time I landed and I went to the Intelligence Center. And so I brought my tapes back and they were like, Hey, did you see a UFO too? And I’m like, actually, I got here on video. They were like, you know, their eyeballs, just, you know, we’re like, whoa. And so we popped the tapes in and they were like, what would you describe this as? And my thoughts going through my head where the scene from Airplane where the reporters are asking that guy Johnny, one of the ground controllers, Can you describe this plane? And he’s like, Oh, it’s a big white shiny plane with wheels. And you know, it looks like a big Tylenol.
‘AIRPLANE’ CLIP What kind of plane is it? Oh, it’s a big pretty white plane with red stripes and curtains in the window and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
CHAD UNDERWOOD And I knew if I described it as a big Tylenol that that’s too much not taking it seriously. And anyone who knows me, I don’t take a whole lot of things seriously, but I was like, ah, I probably shouldn’t say that. It’s just it’s too on the nose. And so I was like, well, it looks like a big Tic Tac, you know, and it did. Like just kind of this white, oblong, featureless thing. It looks like a Tic Tac and it just kind of became the name for it for the next few days, little did I know that 17 years ago, it would still be a thing. So it’s rooted in humor, It’s rooted in slapstick, and it’s rooted in my interest in that kind of stuff. And so that’s really how the Tic Tac was named.

Source: www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/otpq6w/transcript_of_underwood_interview_navy_aviator

The interview


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbYwwwePTQ


The irony about calling the UAP a "Tic Tac" is that Chad Underwood, who recorded the FLIR footage and called it a Tic Tac, was inspired by the movie Airplane where an airplane was described as looking like a big Tylenol, because airplanes look like a Tylenol or a Tic Tac. So perhaps he really did record FLIR footage of an airplane.
 
Tylenol pills are probably a better fit for what is described than Tic-Tacs. They have straighter sides, and more of "propane tank" look.

2023-08-05_16-51-45.jpg

2023-08-05_16-53-07.jpg
 
Tylenol pills are probably a better fit for what is described than Tic-Tacs. They have straighter sides, and more of "propane tank" look.

2023-08-05_16-51-45.jpg

2023-08-05_16-53-07.jpg

We would've been calling it the Tylenol UFO had Underwood gone with that description.
Reminds me of a silly elephant joke:
Q: Why is an elephant big, grey and wrinkly?
A: Because if it were small, white and smooth it would be an aspirin.
Q: Why are golf balls small and white?
A: Because if they were big and grey they would be elephants.

And if the Tic Tac/Tylenol were big and had a tail, it would be an airplane.
 
Fravor tries intercept the AAV but is unable to lock on and it suddenly accelerates away, behind his F-18 and he loses visual contact.

Alternatively, Fravor completely misjudged the distance of the object and it was much closer than he thought. This would have the effect of making the object appear to 'shoot past him' as he banked towards it.....when it would actually have been him who shot past the object. Thus we can end up with a tale of tremendous UAP speeds and acceleration.
 
The biggest mystery for me is what altitude Douglas Kurth came in at, and what alt Fravor and co were at. Because the things written on this from Douglas don't make sense to me. In one, he said he saw what he thought was Fravor etc on radar coming in at 500-1000 feet.
 
Me too! :D I wonder are we getting too deep into our little debunkers' wabbit hole when begin to see Grusch everywhere like that Beautiful Mind guy saw his mental phantoms following him everywhere.
I think there's a physical resemblance. Maybe Grusch could play the role in a remake.
 
Alternatively, Fravor completely misjudged the distance of the object and it was much closer than he thought. This would have the effect of making the object appear to 'shoot past him' as he banked towards it.....when it would actually have been him who shot past the object. Thus we can end up with a tale of tremendous UAP speeds and acceleration.
In my memory, at least Alex Dietrich saw that tictac the way it is described. Plus WSOs who did not say anything yet. Btw. Very sad, nothing to here from them. The Hearings could be more interesting, if they had joined as whitnesses.

I mean, the fravor-stuff could be handled seperated from Grusch, in my opinion. But if they invite Fravor, than they should definetely invite the WSOs.
 
Last edited:
In my memory, at least Alex Dietrich saw that tictac the way it is described. Plus WSOs who did not say anything yet. Btw. Very sad, nothing to here from them. The Hearings could be more interesting, if they had joined as whitnesses.
Generally, the more witnesses from different vantage points the better. But that can cause even more confusion when the exact verbal descriptions of a brief event 20+ years ago don't line up exactly.

One can play the "alternatively" game all day long though. There is no evidence for any of them one way or the other. If hard evidence is needed, pure pilot accounts are not going to provide any, just as a laundry list of "alternative" theories are not going to either.
 
Last edited:
In my memory, at least Alex Dietrich saw that tictac the way it is described. Plus WSOs who did not say anything yet. Btw. Very sad, nothing to here from them. The Hearings could be more interesting, if they had joined as whitnesses.

I mean, the fravor-stuff could be handled seperated from Grusch, in my opinion. But if they invite Fravor, than they should definetely invite the WSOs.
i agree but the issue is the thearings arent about debunking or getting to some rational explanation, its to hear as much stories as possible about aliens it seems
 
In my memory, at least Alex Dietrich saw that tictac the way it is described. Plus WSOs who did not say anything yet. Btw. Very sad, nothing to here from them.

The trouble is, given how much they must have talked it about both immediately after the event and in the 19 years since, its not really quite the same as totally independent witnesses who've not had the chance to influence each other's story. Maybe I've just seen too many CSI detective cases...but its a common theme in them that witness interaction can alter stories.
 
Alex Dietrich saw that tictac the way it is described. Plus WSOs who did not say anything yet.
But they've had years to tell their own story, and their lack of testimony is not evidence one way or the other. Perhaps it's an understandable wish not to contradict a senior officer?
 
Me too! :D I wonder are we getting too deep into our little debunkers' wabbit hole when begin to see Grusch everywhere like that Beautiful Mind guy saw his mental phantoms following him everywhere.

Perhaps worth mentioning that I have seen a number of claims on social media (Twitter and Reddit anyway) that David Grusch is by his own account autistic. These claims seem to arise from a recent interview with the journalist Ross Coulthart, who was one of the first to 'break' the Grusch story. I haven't seen the interview itself, just quotes from it in which Coulthart casually mentions Grusch's alleged autism.

Of course autism wouldn't in itself disqualify Grusch as a witness. If anything, autistic people have the reputation of being sticklers for accuracy. However, they also have the reputation of taking jokes or ironic statements literally. Unkind people might even deliberately feed them misinformation to see how much they will swallow.

Anyway, the autism claim may not be reliable, but I would watch out for any confirmation or denial.
 
The trouble is, given how much they must have talked it about both immediately after the event and in the 19 years since, its not really quite the same as totally independent witnesses who've not had the chance to influence each other's story. Maybe I've just seen too many CSI detective cases...but its a common theme in them that witness interaction can alter stories.
Sure. But the sceptic explanation, something ballon-like would moving eratically in the wind, would be misinterpreted by four different trained pilots/WSOs from two different angles sounds almost as weird as the UFO-story itself. Its the same with their Each-others-influenced Stories. How much influencing do you have to do to get this Kind of Story?

And I know of course, trained Pilots can mistake as well. But compared to a random Person in the supermarket, there is a difference. In my opinion. Really weird story, the Fravor-issue.
 
Were there WSO's? there are single seat variant F/A 18s. Apologies if it's been clarified elsewhere and I've forgotten.
 
Were there WSO's? there are single seat variant F/A 18s. Apologies if it's been clarified elsewhere and I've forgotten.
In my memory, there were two double seater, with 4 persons. 2 Pilots and 2 WSOs. One WSO began to talk on TV. But than there were Jokes and nothing more on the subject. It was something like that.
 
yes both had WSOs (fravor and dietrich).

dietrich's wso name was slaight, fravors i dont remember, i am not even sure it was ever revealed
 
Sure. But the sceptic explanation, something ballon-like would moving eratically in the wind, would be misinterpreted by four different trained pilots/WSOs from two different angles sounds almost as weird as the UFO-story itself. Its the same with their Each-others-influenced Stories. How much influencing do you have to do to get this Kind of Story?

And I know of course, trained Pilots can mistake as well. But compared to a random Person in the supermarket, there is a difference. In my opinion. Really weird story, the Fravor-issue.

Well there is a reason that Mick stated the Fravor tic-tac encounter, for him personally, was the most baffling and hard to explain prosaically.

There are only so many unlikely/rare prosaic explanations that one can stack together before the entire thing becomes more cumbersome than accepting the story at face value. Or at least coming at the subject with a different approach might yield more rewarding conjectures.

Either way, statistics are not the arbiter of a single event. But given the current level of information and facts around the case, the Nimitz encounter will never rise to the level required by skeptics to convince them. At this point, either you believe Fravor, or you don't.

If the WSO's came forward and totally backed up Fravor, would it matter? To believers it would be further proof of what they already believe, and to skeptics, the same exact arguments against Fravor and Dietrich would be applied to the WSOs. Skeptics would parse through the exact verbiage, looking to highlight or uncover any discrepancy.

Back to square 1.
 
Last edited:
douglas kurth wrote about the nimitz encounter? do you have a link?
I mean what he is quoted as saying re alt.

One was the official not official alleged AATIP report knapp put out I think. And the other was an Interview Keith Basterfield put out someone did with Kurth. And there might have been a third wth Paco or something.

In one of them, if I remember correct, he states he saw on radar what he thought was Fravor etc coming in at 500-1000 feet. As far as I know, that doesnt seem to gell with other(s) account. I think I saw an account from someone in Fravors group that said the object came in that low from their persepective.

I dont think Ive read anywhere that fravors group came in at 500-100 feet. MAybe they did and then rose up before Fravor spiralled down again. Other than that, it's confusing
 
Last edited:
hhmm..i'm unfamiliar with any interview. will have to look into it. The other two examples noone "quoted" Kurth.


Recounted what was said perhaps might be better desc in the paco interview.
https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

Here is the interview Lambright did that does have quotes: https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-tic-tac-encounter-forgotten.html.

Don't have that alleged AATIP report link handy, if someone has it, could you post it

Not sure if the SCU interviewed him, too long ago to remember
 

Article:
"That's when they vectored Fravor's flight toward the Unidentified Contact. After a few minutes when my checks were completed, I accepted their vector toward the Unidentified Contact.

I had Fravor's flight on radar and was directly over the top of them when they were observing the supersonic tic tac. I was not on the same frequency as Fravor's flight.

I saw the visual disturbance in the water (which had been previously and accurately reported) and that is what I used as my reference point to orbit around. The disturbance on the water cleared suddenly. It all seemed odd to me at the time. I never saw the object physically myself."
 
And I know of course, trained Pilots can mistake as well. But compared to a random Person in the supermarket, there is a difference.
Just looking into cases like the one below makes clear that there is indeed not much difference between highly qualified pilots or astronauts and ordinary people. The main difference is that pilots' errors can turn fatal quickly. For example, if they would start shooting at reflections from light sources on their own iPhones or let them lead them into risky flight maneuvers instead of just sensationalizing them on social media. Activities like Ryan Graves' are also not conducive to promoting a more critical awareness in this regard.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...-aircraft-over-channel-islands-8-18-22.12616/
 
Either way, statistics are not the arbiter of a single event. But given the current level of information and facts around the case, the Nimitz encounter will never rise to the level required by skeptics to convince them. At this point, either you believe Fravor, or you don't.

You're making it sound like the skeptics' hypothesis is the unreasonable one out of the two options which, unlike the ufologist one, has plenty of priors in history. Let me remind you.

1. The Skeptics' Hypothesis:

Fravor's report is a sincere eyewitness report which adds to the mass of eyewitness reports from the general public as well as trained professionals, whereby the power of human imagination together with the brain's visual perception functions and unusual viewing conditions (such as parallax illusions and featureless objects), further informed by cultural fiction and myth, fills observational information gaps.

2. The Ufologists' Hypothesis:

Aliens.
 
Back
Top