Hypothesis: Fravor's Tic Tac was Kurth's FA18

[John J.]

In the end I think this entire story is BS and the pilots didn't think they saw something exotic. They must be ALL lying...

I don't think that's at all likely.
If they saw something classified, all they would have to do is not talk about it. Normal, and expected, professional military behavior.

But if Fravor, Dietrich etc. were lying, why are you so convinced (it seems to me) that their descriptions reliably describe something spectacularly unusual?
If I believed someone had deliberately lied about something in connection with an extraordinary claim, the extraordinary elements of their story would be the first things I would doubt.

 

[Perene]

I don't think that's at all likely.
If they saw something classified, all they would have to do is not talk about it. Normal, and expected, professional military behavior.

But if Fravor, Dietrich etc. were lying, why are you so convinced (it seems to me) that their descriptions reliably describe something spectacularly unusual?
If I believed someone had deliberately lied about something in connection with an extraordinary claim, the extraordinary elements of their story would be the first things I would doubt.

The pilots (Fravor and others) weren't immediately questioned and made to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Chad Underwood wasn't debriefed, too. He remarked: "The interesting thing was, normally, if you see something out in the middle of the ocean that's a test project, we would get debriefed on it, one-on-one, in a dark room. Whether it's from the folks at Edwards test site (a Californian Air Force installation) or something like that".

If this was a test project, according to him, the government would say "Hey, yes, we were testing a project. This is what you saw... This is project "Umptysquat" and basically, this is what you saw. Don't talk about it."

That never happened, so Chad says "which leads me to think that it was not a government project". He held a top-secret clearance, too. It couldn't have been a classified program.

This is what he and Fravor, who were aboard the USS Nimitz, claim, that no one was concerned with confiscating data relating to the encounters.

But other personnel in the Nimitz strike group disagree.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kycZgGc-Yec

For example, Patrick Hughes, which was the aviation technician on the Nimitz in November 2004... his friend Roger, Petty Officer Ryan Weigelt, Gary Voorhis, cryptologic technician Karson Kammerzell...

That last guy said the following about David Fravor's suggestion these reports are not true: "I disagree with Fravor's claims that nothing was hidden, nothing was taken, and there were no debriefings. A debriefing did occur, on the Nimitz and information was taken from the Princeton".

AEGIS and CEC could, in theory, create convincing false radar targets, which might explain why data was seized and why leadership focused on systems rather than pilots. But they cannot explain why multiple trained pilots visually observed, maneuvered with, and filmed (nevermind if the footage is useless) a physical object behaving in ways inconsistent with known aircraft or sensor artifacts.

NEMESIS (publicly acknowledged years later) is an electronic warfare concept that can inject false tracks, distort radar returns and confuse sensor fusion systems.

What if the Princeton's AEGIS/CEC was being tested or stressed, and the system generated convincing false tracks? If that were true, leadership would care deeply about the sensor data, not pilot impressions.

If CEC or AEGIS correlates bad data, it can create a convincing but false target. That false target can then appear stable in altitude and speed, be handed off between sensors and look "real" on multiple displays. To a pilot, this looks like a legitimate aircraft track. So we are talking about data fusion errors or deliberate electronic manipulation.

Even so, that goes against visual confirmation from Fravor/others.

 

[John J.]

The pilots (Fravor and others) weren't immediately questioned and made to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

They're United States Navy personnel. The USN doesn't maintain operational security by relying on non-disclosure agreements.
Like all military personnel, if they inadvertently see or hear about something secret that they shouldn't have, they're not free to talk about it.
And they don't have an automatic right to be told about anything they see other military units etc. doing.

The Chad Underwood quotes were interesting, thank you, but I'm surprised about his viewpoint: I wonder how many times he unexpectedly saw something secret and then got debriefed about whatever secret project it was? Not many I suspect. And why in a dark room?
It wouldn't be a very effective means of maintaining security, would it
("Hey, this serviceman got to see a test of Project X, which he's not involved in. Let's tell him all about it. Instead of reminding him about his service obligations.")

He held a top-secret clearance, too. It couldn't have been a classified program.

That isn't how security clearances work. Information is shared on a "need to know" basis.
Having top-secret clearance (or whatever title is used) in one area doesn't mean that you are entitled to view or know about all other information classified at that level (or even all information at a lower level of classification, if it isn't relevant to your role).

Re. your comments on EW,

That false target can then appear stable in altitude and speed, be handed off between sensors and look "real" on multiple displays. To a pilot, this looks like a legitimate aircraft track. So we are talking about data fusion errors or deliberate electronic manipulation.

Fravor and Dietrich's aircraft did not get any radar contacts, so they didn't get anything looking like a "legitimate aircraft track".

And again, if you (@Perene) think Fravor, Dietrich et al. are liars, why do you nevertheless find the extraordinary parts of their accounts credible?
If the aim is to cover up something they'd seen or experienced, there is a far more elegant solution: Don't talk about it.

 

[jackfrostvc]

@Perene


Don't foget that if they saw something like an early version of Nemisis. Not saying they did BTW. But if they did, it's not true to say that there is nothing the pilots could see. NEMISIS involves real assets including aircraft and drones

 

[Perene]

And again, if you (@Perene) think Fravor, Dietrich et al. are liars, why do you nevertheless find the extraordinary parts of their accounts credible?
If the aim is to cover up something they'd seen or experienced, there is a far more elegant solution: Don't talk about it.

I am open to all possible explanations, contrary to everyone here that insists the ships/radars were 100% defective, that because we are all humans and everyone involved is so blind and dumb, this couldn't be aliens.

However, there are major red flags in this whole thing, that also blow away the chances of anyone believing anything at all, even ALIENS.

Let's pretend I am embracing the theories about alien objects, and trust everything really happened as described. How am I going to convince you (and myself) of that, when I have later found:

a) Contradictory statements (skip to 1m10s below)


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OhTbTtK_I

And b) Lack of any investigation about the multiple people claiming there was a cover-up.

How is that going to work? It's quite easy to know who was telling the truth and who did lie (remember I said earlier there are only 2 explanations, LIARS or ALIENS?).

Within the LIES, you may have ALIENS or NON-ALIEN tech.

If this was a Tomahawk missile or advanced drone, it remains a fact no serious inquiry happened (not as far as I know) into why they got rid of the proof that could tell a lot more about what they were doing it.

Instead, more than 2 decades after these events we are still wasting time trying to guess if Kurth was actually flying above Fravor and Dietrich when they saw the Tic-Tac (but Kurth didn't see it), if the disturbance in the water was a submarine, if the object we have that lousy footage was a plane...

I'll tell you how we can easily find out what kind of shady thing they were doing back then.

Spoiler: this isn't going to be "solved" if Mick (West) posts a video, or if he interviews David Fravor (which insists he is 99.9% certain the object was not of this world).

That's how you do it:

1) Gather all the people that witnessed the 1st event (and recorded the 2nd)
2) All technicians that noticed the odd readings, took care of the jets, etc. and the ones in charge of everything back then.
3) Find everyone that says there was a cover-up;

Put them in the same room at the same time, then you will find what happened.

For #3, I'll list a few (not all of them, of course, to cut this explanation short) that are relevant:

Patrick Hughes was the aviation technician who was on the USS Nimitz in November of 2004. His job involved removing hard drives from planes that had landed and locking them in a safe, so if need be, they could be analysed at a later date.

He said:

"Our commanding officer never bothered us... all of a sudden, there is a knock on our door. There's him (the commanding officer), he's in his flight suit, two guys behind him in flight suits. They weren't our officers, they weren't shipborne officers, I had no clue who they were…. He's (the commanding officer) like "I need the bricks that were on the plane (the Hawkeye)'... And that was the last we saw of those".

+++++++
It should be easier to identify who were the "two guys behind him in flight suits". I guess his commanding officer was a human being, right? That has a name, and is probably still alive? Go get him.

So no one thought about this before, and everyone's concern is chasing ghosts? No wonder the aliens come and go so easily, because we are so retarded we can't even investigate ourselves.

There's more:

Shortly after relinquishing the Hawkeye's bricks, in what Hughes describes as unusual circumstances, Hughes friend 'Roger' walked in the door, not looking like his normal self. Roger was an inflight technician who had just disembarked the Hawkeye. Roger was one of the five people on board the Hawkeye during the period that Fravor encountered the tic tac. It was the bricks from Roger's flight on the Hawkeye that had just been confiscated.

Hughes recalls what Roger told him, "The same object referred to by Commander Fravor (the tic tac) comes up alongside the Hawkeye, forms up where everybody can see them, then takes back off again". Hughes then informed Roger that upon landing, the five-person Hawkeye crew were met by someone who escorted them to be debriefed. The five-person group "Got talked to, they were told not to repeat it. They signed non-disclosure agreements and it was after that Roger came back to the work centre to hint to us what was going on".

Hughes never managed to hear Roger's full story, "He starts to tell us what happened and never really got to the point of telling us the whole story because our division chief walked in and basically put a squash to it and said 'If you are told not to talk about it, we're not talking about it'. So before we could get the whole story, it got squashed, it got shut down and we were basically told not to talk about it".

Get me this guy Roger, and try to make a sketch and identify everyone responsible for the cover-up. Where are these NDAs and what this was all about.

All ships in that area need to be investigated, not just one, all their crew, everything you can imagine in terms of people and documents, need to face public scrutiny.

Finally:

Gary Voorhis' role on the USS Princeton involved managing the Princeton's AEGIS's Co-operative Engagement Capability system. For some extra cash on the side, he also helped out with the smash and crash team; a group of personnel on the Princeton whose role is to run out, douse fires and rescue those aboard if a helicopter crashes. Within 12 hours of Fravor and Underwood's FLIR encounters, Voorhis recalls a helicopter landing on the Princeton, a helicopter that Voorhis suspects had just flown across from the USS Nimitz. Disembarking the helicopter, Voorhis witnessed "Plain clothes guys come on board in just normal suits and it looked like a couple of officers".

Fifteen to twenty minutes later, Voorhis was called down to the Princeton's Combat Information Centre. The plain-clothed officers asked Voorhis to hand over all of the Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) data. The CEC is a radar and sensor network that houses a large amount of data from various sensors situated on different vehicles in the strike group, such as ships and aircraft. This data is combined into a live, picture of the surrounding battle area. The CEC would have potentially held a treasure-trove of information relating to Fravor's tic tac encounter, Underwood's approach of the tic tac and the general behaviour of the tic tac objects over the preceding days.

Voorhis was accompanied by his Chief as he signed custody for the CEC tapes. Voorhis has recalled the event, "Basically I signed my name and this person picked them up, I have no idea who they were, I signed them and they took it. I was told if there was any other tapes to delete them, even if they were brand new".

How uncommon is it for CEC tapes to be taken by officials? Voorhis has provided an explanation on the rarity of such an event, "If we did field testing or if we went out to the missile range, stuff like that, they'd come take the tapes but it was basically only for environmental data, to see how well the system's working, stuff like that…The only other times that we had anyone come and take tapes was when he had a drone crash into our ship…It wasn't like this, they waited (regarding taking the tapes for the drone crash) until we hit port then they came in and said 'hey, we just need your tapes for the drone crash' and we just handed it over to them. There was no chain of custody, nothing".

Two days after the officials had confiscated the CEC tapes, the Princeton docked in Puerto Vallarta. According to Voorhis, whilst the Princeton was docked here, another batch of non-uniformed officers came on board (Petty Officer Jason Turner also confirms that the Princeton docked in Puerto Vallarta and that individuals came on board). According to Voorhis, when these people came onto the docked Princeton, "Everything on the ship got wiped". This included virtually everything that was unrelated to running and navigating the Princeton. Voorhis has continued on to explain that manufacturer representatives then had to board the Princeton to reinstall the CEC which was quite an undertaking.

Voorhis has outlined the invaluable nature of the CEC data removed from the Princeton by the officials, "You could literally plot the entire course of the object (the tic tac), you could extract the densities, the speeds, the way that it moved, the way it displaced the air, its radar cross-section, how much of the radar itself was reflected off its surface. I mean you could pretty much recreate the entire event with the CEC data."

I don't think further discussing these events will lead us anywhere, until all these people are identified and all their stories checked.

I can't even postulate the Tic-Tac was an alien object or some exotic tech, such as an advanced drone, until we get to the bottom of this.

But no one seems to care about finding out more about what I mentioned, all I see is the pathetic insistence in validating hearsay.

Because in the end, let's be honest, the last thing UFO enthusiasts want is to discover the whole thing was a fraud, and something non-alien, happened. That doesn't help with their grifting.

 

[JMartJr]

I am open to all possible explanations, contrary to everyone here that insists the ships/radars were 100% defective, that because we are all humans and everyone involved is so blind and dumb, this couldn't be aliens.

You are mischaracterizing what other people think and paraphrasing them inaccurately. Please do not do that.

For example, speaking for myself, my position is "The radar MAY have been defective, or memories of what it was showing MAY be defective. Since no evidence exists to show us what the radar actually was doing,we cannot know, so the evidentiary value is low. Similarly, the witnesses MAY have been in error (witnesses often are) and without any evidence to back up their claims we cannot ever know which points (if any) they are reporting correctly, and which (if any) are in error. Therefore the evidentiary value is low." Note that concepts like knowing 100% that something was defective or that anybody was blind or dumb are not in any way a part of what I just said.

Further, nobody here so far as I am aware has said it cannot possibly be aliens. That is unknowable. The plane that is flying over my house MIGHT be perfectly disguised aliens pretending to be a plane. But there is no evidence to suggest that the plane is aliens. If I claim it is aliens, then it would be up to me to present evidence. And I'd be in trouble!

With the Fravor UFO case, and with all others, it is not up to skeptics to prove it is not aliens. It is up to people making the claim that it IS aliens to back up their case. All WE can do is point out other explanations that also fit the data we have and would explain the case. If all of the evidence for a case would fit "it's aliens" or "it's a balloon," the case is not evidence for aliens as there is a simpler and more likely explanation.

(For this reason, in my opinion NO case that relies on nothing but witness claims of what they remember seeing will ever be useful evidence of aliens, as there are other, simpler explanations for anything a person might report -- such as faulty memory, faulty perception at the time or, sometimes, hoaxes, before even getting to maybe it was a balloon or meteor or whatever...)

How is that going to work? It's quite easy to know who was telling the truth and who did lie (remember I said earlier there are only 2 explanations, LIARS or ALIENS?).

Disagree on two counts. First, it is NOT easy to tell who is lying and who is telling the truth. It is impossible, without evidence to work with. Even then,it may not be possible.

Second, in any case that is a false dichotomy. There are other options. Such as, they may be telling the truth as they remember it but they are simply in error. This is not the same as lying. Recognizing that witnesses are wrong at least some of the time is not the same as accusing anyone of lying. UFO proponents and others need to stop saying that we think people who are wrong about UFO reports are liars, that is not correct.

Instead, more than 2 decades after these events we are still wasting time trying to guess if Kurth was actually flying above Fravor and Dietrich when they saw the Tic-Tac (but Kurth didn't see it), if the disturbance in the water was a submarine, if the object we have that lousy footage was a plane...

But note that the object for which we have lousy footage is not whatever Fravor et al were looking at -- we have NO footage of that incident.

I'll tell you how we can easily find out what kind of shady thing they were doing back then.

...

1) Gather all the people that witnessed the 1st event (and recorded the 2nd)
2) All technicians that noticed the odd readings, took care of the jets, etc. and the ones in charge of everything back then.
3) Find everyone that says there was a cover-up;

Put them in the same room at the same time, then you will find what happened.

It would not help -- that just creates more witness testimony which may be in error, plus by putting them all in one room you create the opportunity for stories to merge and converge, away from whatever may actually happened.

Sadly, it looks like we are now stuck with the most famous recent case(s) in "UFOlogy" being cases where the supporting evidence, beyond the leaked videos, was not retained, and memories have been morphing, merging and deteriorating for way too long. The cases of Fravor and the leaked Navy videos of unrelated incidents will always be popular as fun stories for UFO fans , but they will never have much evidentiary value at this point. The evidence, if it existed, is now lost.

I don't think further discussing these events will lead us anywhere, until all these people are identified and all their stories checked.

There stories cannot at this point be checked, other than against each other, which is by this time worthless as so many of their stories have "gone public" creating the opportunity for reading and hearing each other's testimony, and that changing each persons memory.

all I see is the pathetic insistence in validating hearsay.

All we have is hearsay, and three videos that do not show any provably unusual behavior by the "objects" videoed. Any other evidence that might have existed is long gone.

Because in the end, let's be honest, the last thing UFO enthusiasts want is to discover the whole thing was a fraud, and something non-alien, happened. That doesn't help with their grifting.

Agree. Because Fravor's story whether accurate or not, whether true or not, is exciting and sounds inexplicable, and the unrelated videos look odd if you don't know what is going on, these cases will be fooling people forever into believing they are good evidence for aliens.

 

[Perene]

Disagree on two counts. First, it is NOT easy to tell who is lying and who is telling the truth. It is impossible, without evidence to work with. Even then,it may not be possible.

Second, in any case that is a false dichotomy. There are other options. Such as, they may be telling the truth as they remember it but they are simply in error. This is not the same as lying. Recognizing that witnesses are wrong at least some of the time is not the same as accusing anyone of lying. UFO proponents and others need to stop saying that we think people who are wrong about UFO reports are liars, that is not correct.

Uh, no, the people that claim there was a cover-up are either telling the truth or lying.

I don't see a 3rd option. Do you?

What you debunkers are implying is that Fravor and others were simply mistaken in their assessment of what the Tic-Tac and other supposed objects detected before were (not just the pilots, I'm including the ones that noticed the anomalous readings). So you suggest they were not lying, but "telling the truth by simply not recognizing their error".

But you are missing what follows next, which hints at the possibility all these reports were accurate, and what they witnessed was not a regular missile or anything easily explained.

Even if was not ALIENS, if there was a cover-up, that suggests the military cared enough to hide their tracks. If the UFO was not a big deal, why bother?

If what they say happened, it's up to you to decide why. Perhaps they hid ALIEN tech, or some exotic human object that behaved the way Fravor says (and I doubt that 2nd option a lot more - no Area 51 with recovered alien crafts, no wonderful drones that can do impossible feats - if any of this could be true, the entire world would know by now).

Those that were aboard the Princeton related unknown people arrived in there AFTER the Tic-Tac sighting, and Chad taking that footage.

Their accounts may not be exactly the same (as you said, memories and such...), yet they all agree that crucial data was removed, that was related to these events.

The number of witnesses who viewed this process adds credence to this claim.

The only person denying this happened is David Fravor. The evidence says otherwise (and in this case, you either believe it happened, or that it's all a lie).

Fravor was positioned on a different ship, amongst 5000 others, and it seems likely that someone ranked much higher in the US military made the decision to remove the data, bypassing his knowledge of such an event.

This is what, in my opinion, is really relevant, because it's the strongest (or only lead) that would clarify once and for all what happened. I don't think all of them decided over night to invent others confiscated any data.

Why no one cared about investigating these statements? Either most are ignorant about them, were unable to act on it, or want the grifting to continue.

 

[Mauro]

Uh, no, the people that claim there was a cover-up are either telling the truth or lying. I don't see a 3rd option. Do you?

Uh uh?

You said:

(remember I said earlier there are only 2 explanations, LIARS or ALIENS?)

You were not claiming people that claim there was a cover up are LIARS or ALIENS, I guess? You were claiming instead the only explanations for Fravor etc. witness accounts are 'they are LIARS', or 'ALIENS visit Earth and were observed by them'.

That was what @JMartJr was responding to, and he correctly pointed out it's a false dichotomy (as it was already pointed out many times, btw). Your answer just tries to muddle the waters by deflecting @JMartJr 's answer towards an unrelated claim.


By the way, I would not be as bold as you in telling that even people that claim there was a cover up are either telling the truth or lying. If you interpret 'telling the truth' and 'lying' as purely psychological factors I can agree: one is consciously telling the truth, or is consciously lying. But beware not to re-interpret 'telling the truth' as 'telling a true thing'. One can be consciously be telling the truth (not lying), but be telling something false.

Just to be clear, there are 4 options cases:

1) Say what one consciously believes to be the truth, but telling a falsehood
2) Say what one consciously believes to be the truth, and telling an actually true thing
3) Say what one consciously believes to be a lie, and telling a falsehood
4) Say what one consciously believes to be a lie, but telling an actually true thing

 

[Mendel]

contrary to everyone here that insists the ships/radars were 100% defective,

nobody claims that the radar is defective. a radar sends out a signal in a certain direction, the signal gets reflected and received back by the radar, and based on the time the radar plots the signal at a certain distance. Fast returns are closer, slow returns are farther awey.

This is great when the reflection comes directly from an aircraft. But it might also come from a flock of birds, or the atmospere might bend or mirror the signal, or the return might not be a signal, but interference from another radar.
Every radar has that.
But in modern radars, filtering is employed that is intended to suppress these spurious returns.

You can see spurious returns precisely because the radar is not defective.

I think the Nimtz radar really saw two returns at about the same spot, one high up, and one low down.
I just don't see any reason to assume that these returns came from the same object.

 

[JMartJr]

Uh, no, the people that claim there was a cover-up are either telling the truth or lying.

I don't see a 3rd option. Do you?

Yes.

1: They are telling the truth
2: They are lying
3: They are telling the truth as far as they know it but are wrong. They honestly believe there is a cover up even though they are not. In which case, they are not lying, which implies intent to deceive, but are simply honestly mistaken.

(There may be a language issue here? In English, lying implies intentional saying something that is not true. It differs from saying something you believe nut that is incorrect.)

 

[Perene]

Yes.

1: They are telling the truth
2: They are lying
3: They are telling the truth as far as they know it but are wrong. They honestly believe there is a cover up even though they are not. In which case, they are not lying, which implies intent to deceive, but are simply honestly mistaken.

(There may be a language issue here? In English, lying implies intentional saying something that is not true. It differs from saying something you believe nut that is incorrect.)

#3 is what you all have been saying about the Tic-Tac sighting. Again, you are implying they believe they were experiencing a cover-up, but instead it was just regular procedure. I don't think so.

IF this was a regular man-made object (doesn't have to be ALIEN for my LYING alternative to be correct), it was important enough, and perhaps worked in such a way, that the US military hid its nature (if that had not happened, we would have by now proof of how it behaved). I suggest you look into what all the people that claim there was a cover-up had to say about it.

If this was part of a secret test program, a debrief of Fravor/Chad would be standard protocol and the military would like to hear what they saw. If the "Tic-Tac" was something new and exotic (even if was an advanced drone), they would like to at least hear what the pilots thought. It's funny how the US military was not curious about an unknown flying object in the area. It could easily be an enemy, spy...

They didn't question them because they knew what that UFO was. Bingo.

And what follows next? Cover their tracks. Which is what they did.

 

[JMartJr]

If what they say happened, it's up to you to decide why.

No. If they make a claim, it is up to them to support that claim. They need to present evidence. Just they making of a claim by itself with no evidence is not sufficient -- though anybody is of course free to believe them, they have not proved their claim.

Even if was not ALIENS, if there was a cover-up, that suggests the military cared enough to hide their tracks. If the UFO was not a big deal, why bother?

I have not seen proof that there is a cover up. I have seen claims. I do not think that is something that can be proven at this point, barring some new evidence coming from the military -- which may not be forthcoming, either because they are continuing the cover up or because there is not a coverup!

If what they say happened, it's up to you to decide why.

No, not unless they offer some proof that what they say happened, did in fact happen. I have no need at all to decide why a thing happened if it did not happen. If I say my cat burst into flame and flew away like the Fantastic Four's Human Torch, you have no obligation to figure out why that might happen, unless I can show that it did!

Perhaps they hid ALIEN tech, or some exotic human object that behaved the way Fravor says (and I doubt that 2nd option a lot more - no Area 51 with recovered alien crafts, no wonderful drones that can do impossible feats - if any of this could be true, the entire world would know by now).

I would doubt the first option a LOT more -- we know humans exist, create tech, fly it around in the atmosphere, and often try to keep it hidden from adversaries -- we do not know that aliens do ANY of that. To my mind, given the lack of evidence, a third option is even more likely -- Fravor's account is not accurate.

Those that were aboard the Princeton related unknown people arrived in there AFTER the Tic-Tac sighting, and Chad taking that footage.

Their accounts may not be exactly the same (as you said, memories and such...), yet they all agree that crucial data was removed, that was related to these events.

Yes, people make a lot of claims.

The number of witnesses who viewed this process adds credence to this claim.

Not much. As we have seen with the recent drone flaps, or the creepy clown flap, or other mass panic cases, people can be wrong about what they claim to have witnessed, individually or together.

The only person denying this happened is David Fravor. The evidence says otherwise (and in this case, you either believe it happened, or that it's all a lie).

No. Please stop pushing that false dichotomy. Again, lying implies intent to deceive. It is possible to testify honestly but be wrong. That is a third option.

Fravor was positioned on a different ship, amongst 5000 others, and it seems likely that someone ranked much higher in the US military made the decision to remove the data, bypassing his knowledge of such an event.

Unless it did not happen.

This is what, in my opinion, is really relevant, because it's the strongest (or only lead) that would clarify once and for all what happened. I don't think all of them decided over night to invent others confiscated any data.

Then the first step would be to show that this is what happened.

 

[JMartJr]

#3 is what you all have been saying about the Tic-Tac sighting. Again, you are implying they believe they were experiencing a cover-up, but instead it was just regular procedure.

No, I am not saying nor implying that. I am saying, not implying, flat out saying that this is a third option. When you say there are only two options, you are wrong. No matter how many times you repeat it.

I don't think so.

That is your privilege, you may think whatever you want. But if you assert that belief here, you'll be asked to bring your evidence.

 

[John J.]

Uh, no, the people that claim there was a cover-up are either telling the truth or lying.

I don't see a 3rd option. Do you?

Yes, some people might believe there was a cover-up when there wasn't one.
Saying something that is wrong or inaccurate is not lying if you believe it is true (even if that belief seems obviously incorrect to others).

Sometimes, when someone reports seeing a UFO, a probable cause is identified. It turns out the claimant was mistaken; that doesn't mean they were lying. Even where a probable cause is identified, the claimant doesn't always agree; that doesn't make them liars (though we might politely question the accuracy of their perception/ recall of the event if there is strong evidence that they're mistaken).

There might have been a normal exercise of operational security after an event which has been interpreted by some as a cover-up.
What constitutes "a cover-up" might be arguable; we tend to use the phrase as a pejorative label: I feel it implies that someone is hiding evidence of wrongdoing or stopping others from receiving information they are legitimately entitled to.
We don't normally describe the people who helped hide Anne Frank's family (and others), 1942-44, as orchestrating a cover-up.
Where nuclear-armed nations safeguard information about how to build such weapons, we (well, most of us) don't describe this as a cover-up.
On the other hand, Harvey Weinstein's NDAs were part of a cover-up; Nixon was involved in an attempted cover-up in the wake of the Watergate complex break-in.

Where are these NDAs and what this was all about.

Has anyone involved shown their copy of an NDA? (Not necessarily the details, perhaps just the date, who it is addresses and who the issuing authority is). As already explained, the military do not (AFAIK) usually rely on NDAs to maintain security.

Personnel are attested or swear oaths of loyalty. Breaches of secrecy or security are punishable under military law (for US forces, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_justice); there is no need to demonstrate that someone has violated an NDA for this to occur.

If a serviceman/ woman inadvertently sees something that they can't explain or think is interesting while in service, their chain of command (or other units involved) isn't under any obligation to explain what was seen*. Conversely, if they are formally told not to talk about it, they would be expected (and might be legally obliged) to abide by that. Military personnel of all ranks, even in non-glamorous roles, might encounter equipment or learn things outside of their trade/ unit, but that doesn't mean they're free to discuss it. They're not asked to sign NDAs every time they might encounter sensitive information.

I wouldn't be surprised if (hypothetically) contracted civilian caterers at Area 51 had to sign NDAs; this probably isn't done for an airman involved with catering at a forward operating base. Nonetheless, that airman isn't free to post photos of some exciting new aircraft that he can't identify on the internet and ask what it is, and he has no right to be told by his chain of command or the aircraft's operators.
If anything, more senior ranks will be expected to abide by operational security to a greater degree; with rank comes responsibility and officers are expected to lead by example.

That's how you do it:

1) Gather all the people that witnessed the 1st event (and recorded the 2nd)
2) All technicians that noticed the odd readings, took care of the jets, etc. and the ones in charge of everything back then.
3) Find everyone that says there was a cover-up;

Put them in the same room at the same time, then you will find what happened.

Who is going to pay for/ organize this? What if people involved don't want to attend? What would be the legal basis for forcing attendance?

Remember:
No-one was hurt.
No equipment was lost or damaged.
There is no evidence of a crime being committed.
Many (perhaps all) involved have left the military and are now private citizens in a free country. You can't tell them where to go, or reasonably draw inferences about their motives if they don't comply with your invitation to some ad-hoc enquiry where we've said we can definitively establish what is true.

You (@Perrene) have already stated the Tic Tac sighting is either due to aliens or the claimants are liars. As others have said, that's a false dichotomy**. Anyone invited to your proposed enquiry would have to be nuts to attend if that were a premise for the investigation:
"Commander, we think we know what you saw, and it wasn't alien. Therefore, you're a liar."
Not even "You might, in the absence of clear distance cues, have misjudged the speed and range of what you think you saw" which might be more likely to be objectively true. We have given you examples of aircrew making serious errors (much more serious than misidentifying a small oval of light as a craft with unusual performance).


*There might be exceptions, where e.g. the claimant alleges a serious crime was witnessed.

**Either way, "believers" (and perhaps some others with different motives) get what they want: (1) It's aliens, (2) There's been a cover-up, and we need more disclosure from the government. We need to know about service radar specifications, missile testing and experimental aircraft/ RPV programs, so we can be sure it's not aliens. If we don't have that information, it might be aliens.

 

[John J.]

Those that were aboard the Princeton related unknown people arrived in there AFTER November 14 (when they reported the Tic-Tac and Chad took that footage).

Unknown to the claimants, i.e. people who don't have "need to know".
US warship crew probably don't routinely accept unidentified helicopter landings, allow unidentified visitors on board and hand over radar logs (or whatever) just because the visitors ask.

If those events took place, it is obvious that the "unknown people" had appropriate authorisation and the relevant USS Princeton officers (i.e. those with need to know) were made aware of this.

 

[Perene]

John J.:

Such inquiry would be 100% fair, if based on all the people involved in said events that claim there was a cover-up (they assert others got rid of the data that could have determined what the UAPs were, or at least attest their odd nature).

First, it needs to be said that under US law, it is entirely lawful for the military to develop classified platforms, test novel propulsion, sensor, flight-control technologies, fly them without informing operational units, conduct tests under Special Access Programs, withhold technical details even from combat pilots...

They don't need to inform the carrier strike groups of black programs, to tell pilots the nature of what they encountered, or the Congress be briefed in real time on every test. Black programs exist precisely to prevent disclosure, even internally.

So even if the Tic-Tac was an advanced drone, or a missile-derived test vehicle, a sensor spoofing platform, or a classified adversary-replication system, that fact alone violates no law.

The problem here is how the aftermath of that encounter was handled. I think such claims of a cover-up hint at the destruction of federal records. If radar, CEC, or avionics data were wiped or overwritten outside authorized records-retention procedures, this potentially violates the "Federal Records Act" or DoD regulations.

Classification status, alone, does not authorize destruction. Classified records are retained, not erased.

Then, there's the misuse of classification authority.

US law also explicitly prohibits classification to conceal violations of law, prevent embarassment, or hide administrative errors. If data were retroactively classified solely to justify removal or silence personnel, that is unlawful, even if the underlying program was legitimate. That's because classification must precede action, not be used as a cleanup tool.

There's also improper chain of custody, since sensitive operational data is governed by custody logs, transfer authorizations and audit trails. If personnel took data without identifying authority, proper receipts or documented tasking, that is not "normal black-program handling."

That is procedural violation territory, considering that even "SAPs" generate paper trails.

Besides, NDAs are lawful, but limited. They cannot be used to prevent reporting to Congress, lawful whistleblowing, override subpoena authority or silence testimony about unlawful acts. If NDAs were used as intimidation rather than lawful secrecy instruments, that is potentially unlawful.

And if later reports to DoD, Congress, etc. omitted known actions (data seizure, wiping, coercive debriefs), that creates exposure under false-statement statutes. This applies even if the program itself was legitimate.

There is no evidence of a crime being committed.

Investigations do not require proof of a crime, they exist to determine whether one occurred. Oversight bodies routinely investigate potential misuse of classification, improper destruction of records, unlawful secrecy and abuse of authority.

All that before criminal liability is established. If "evidence of a crime" were required beforehand, no investigation would ever begin.

No-one was hurt.

"No one was hurt" is legally irrelevant. Many federal crimes and violations involve falsification of records, obstruction, unauthorized destruction of government property, false statements, abuse of classification authority... none of which require physical harm.

Many (perhaps all) involved have left the military and are now private citizens in a free country. You can't tell them where to go, or reasonably draw inferences about their motives if they don't comply with your invitation to some ad-hoc enquiry where we've said we can definitively establish what is true.

"They're private citizens now" is not a shield. Former military or intelligence personnel remain subject to subpoena for congressional inquiries, inspector general investigations and criminal proceedings.

And NDAs do not override lawful subpoenas, they only restrict voluntary disclosure.

Finally, this isn't ad-hoc inquiry, if conducted by an entity with proper authority. I don't think I proposed an informal / civilian-led tribunal.

In the end, it's all up to the United States Congress.

Why they never realized there's a need to gather further evidence for the cover-up allegations, is the real mystery here. Am I the first one that thinks it's really strange no one bothered to check?

If it's possible in any way, of course. If the military were doing illegal stuff (aliens aren't needed for that), they are not going to cooperate.

Sadly, said Congress was only concerned with Fravor's wild story, and making ridiculous claims of "interdimensional beings".

 

[Ann K]

Sadly, said Congress was only concerned with Fravor's wild story, and making ridiculous claims of "interdimensional beings".

That is true of A FEW MEMBERS of Congress who were on a committee to investigate the event, and of course they are merely people who won a vote, not necessarily people with the appropriate training to carry out a knowledgeable investigation.

 

[John J.]

First, it needs to be said that under US law, it is entirely lawful for the military to develop classified platforms, test novel propulsion, sensor, flight-control technologies, fly them without informing operational units, conduct tests under Special Access Programs, withhold technical details even from combat pilots...

Absolutely.
Why should combat pilots have access to information that isn't directly relevant to them?
The less people who know a secret, the more likely it is to remain a secret. And some of those secrets might help maintain an advantage, or hide disadvantages, which helps keep those pilots (and others) alive in wartime- better yet, a potential adversary which fears it might face defeat in combat might be deterred from starting hostilities.

Pilots captured by an adversary might be pressured to talk. Although most nations are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, which specify a captured combatant (fighting for a signatory nation) only has to state number, rank, name and date of birth, evidence from the Korean, Vietnam and 1st Gulf Wars clearly demonstrate that some nations will physically abuse prisoners of war to get information. Captured aircrew will obviously have knowledge of their own unit's strength, location, and the capabilities of their aircraft. Potential near-peer adversaries probably already know a lot about major (e.g.) US aircraft types in service, their technical teams will study downed (e.g. US) aircraft regardless of whether captured aircrew talk, and as time goes by- particularly if the prisoner is able to resist giving information for a while, which must take extraordinary courage- any operational information the prisoner has becomes less relevant (their unit will know they are missing, possibly captured and forced to talk, and will plan accordingly).
But if enemy interrogators suspect the captured pilot of a known type of aircraft might have information about secret/ newly-developed aircraft types/ weapons/ reconnaissance systems, about which their own commanders know little or nothing, they might continue interrogating the prisoner long after the prisoner's information about their downed aircraft, and the mission they were flying when captured, is obsolete or redundant (operational intelligence outdated; technical intelligence independently established by examining the downed aircraft and its systems).
Far better for captured aircrew if their captors don't have reason to believe that their prisoners have such information.

US law also explicitly prohibits classification to conceal violations of law, prevent embarassment, or hide administrative errors. If data were retroactively classified solely to justify removal or silence personnel, that is unlawful, even if the underlying program was legitimate. That's because classification must precede action, not be used as a cleanup tool.

There is no evidence that any of the instances you (rightly, AFAIK) give apply to the Tic-Tac sighting.
If anyone involved in the Tic-Tac sighting has been threatened, they don't appear to have taken those threats very seriously (same applies to one or two claimed witnesses of the Rendlesham Forest events of December 1980).

Though you have repeatedly said that if Fravor hadn't seen an alien craft he must be lying, other posters here disagree and it seems likely the USN disagrees. AARO and NASA, US Government agencies, made it clear long after Fravor and co.'s sighting, that there isn't known evidence of extraterrestrials, so they don't accept that Tic-Tac was strong evidence of ETI. Yet Fravor's reputation is unblemished.

"They're private citizens now" is not a shield. Former military or intelligence personnel remain subject to subpoena for congressional inquiries, inspector general investigations and criminal proceedings.

Correct, but see above. There is no legal action against Fravor, Dietrich et al., and no evidence of wrongdoing in the handling of radar logs.
Saying "we don't know as much about the events around the Tic-Tac sighting as we'd like, so maybe a crime was committed, so let's have an investigation and subpoena witnesses" is (I feel) something of a slippery slope for an established democracy.
"In the public interest" is not the same as "what interests [a very small section of] the public".

Again; no-one was injured, nothing was damaged or stolen, there wasn't any impact on the military effectiveness of the units involved (it is possible radar were being tested and issues found, that's why they are tested and if this was the case the USN is unlikely to share the relevant technical information). Although you disagree, there is no evidence that Fravor or Dietrich etc. lied about anything (you haven't commented on examples given of aircrew making much more serious misidentifications, instead apparently claiming that Fravor's training/ experience rules out him ever making an error in judging the size, range and speed of a small, featureless white ovoid percept, by eye, in the absence of fixed landmarks).
There will (sadly) be dozens, perhaps hundreds of incidents in the USA every day that receive inadequate attention but which deserve enquiries or investigations, where people are hurt, die or are disadvantaged for bad reasons- criminality, incompetence, ignorance, neglect.
I'm interested in UFO reports, but I'd rather Congress (and its equivalents in other countries) concentrated on those issues rather than organise another round of hearings about UFOs; the 2003 hearings got widespread media attention but we learned nothing new.

 

[Perene]

Again; no-one was injured, nothing was damaged or stolen, there wasn't any impact on the military effectiveness of the units involved (it is possible radar were being tested and issues found, that's why they are tested and if this was the case the USN is unlikely to share the relevant technical information). Although you disagree, there is no evidence that Fravor or Dietrich etc. lied about anything (you haven't commented on examples given of aircrew making much more serious misidentifications, instead apparently claiming that Fravor's training/ experience rules out him ever making an error in judging the size, range and speed of a small, featureless white ovoid percept, by eye, in the absence of fixed landmarks).

No injury is required for a crime (or multiple) to be commited, read what I said before. That's not a legal defense and easily destroyed in the whole context of a supposed "cover-up".

Also, it's not up to you (or me) to decide if their statements are valid or not, I don't think we can assume anything without a formal investigation. Not even that witnesses described unusual procedures, still these could be standard for sensitive (classified testing) events (note: I don't think it was a test). Fravor and others weren't debriefed, that's a fact, but that might reflect operational norms rather than conspiracy.

My point is that no definitive answer can be given prior to an inquiry.

PERIOD.

They exist to answer if said crimes had been commited. Not to assume a single one.

If I think that's the case, and they were ALL (not just one - ALL) correct, that's just an opinion (and based on the evidence, very likely), which is no different than yours, which insist they were "mistaken".

The ammount of people saying they noticed odd stuff in the sky, Fravor and other pilot accounts (separated from them), odd radar readings, etc. PLUS such cover-up stories, indicate a strong need to do such investigation.

If it was just one set of reports, that, for sure, would make this "conspiracy angle" a lot weaker. When you combine all of them at the same time, things get a little different (that's how I see it).

It could be a regular drone for all we know, that doesn't mean no crimes were commited.

Please stop giving excuses about the U. S. military, as if they didn't have scum in their midst doing that sort of thing. I would be surprised if that wasn't the case here.

To think nothing happened is automatically presuming one of those things with no basis: GUILTY / INNOCENCE. We can't put our fingers on either, before investigating, then reaching a conclusion. Just like I can't say ALIENS were involved, without putting forth any evidence. Said evidence needs to be produced, and this is the best (or only way) to do it.

That's how investigations work, we don't assume anything, we listen to all parties involved, we identify the ones in charge (which the men telling about a cover-up said were assisting the "Men in Black" that got the data... we try to identify who those MiBs were, what kind of data was stolen or lost/wiped, etc.).

It may all be a bunch of shit and they may be inventing stories (UFO conspiracies go like this: the government denies knowledge, hides it, there's not a lot to back anything, images/videos are always fuzzy, etc. - the same trope, I know...).

Maybe, maybe not.

We can't tell, before trying to find out more about what those ships were doing it, why any data was taken and for what reason... I don't think you are going to get useful answers (if any at all) with mere FOIA requests. These are a joke.

There's a lot of work and paperwork to go through, and it may be hard to reach anywhere. Assuming it's impossible, though, is accepting defeat. Has anyone tried? I doubt it. It would be a task of the U.S. Congress, if we didn't have idiots running everything.

If these men were all willing to say a cover-up happened, I bet they weren't just spewing nonsense to appease UFO enthusiasts - rather, were putting a target on themselves, because tomorrow they can all be accused of commiting perjury, giving false statements to the federal government, obstruction of justice, defamation/fraud...

Imagine if they are all asked to talk about what they said, so far?

The fact there are multiple people from that period (2004) saying there was a cover-up and mishandling of ship's data, doesn't mean you are going to hear the same stories (or confirmation) from Fravor, Dietrich... They were involved elsewhere, not in charge of these parts of the ship, unlike the guys I mentioned. That's like assuming a mere user like me is in charge of the Metabunk forums/website.

Something specific was done to prevent information from leaking. Doesn't have to be aliens...

If this was a legit secret project, destroying records, threatening witnesses, withholding data they have a legal obligation to provide... are not OK according to the law.

UAP scrutiny is important not because we are trying to find little-green men from Mars. That's idiotic reasoning. We want to know, too, how that trillion dollar budget is being spent.

Congressional hearings featured testimonies from whistleblowers who alleged government cover-ups, including threats to witnesses and other outlandish stuff such as the recovery of "non-human biologics" from crashes. Claims of data suppression appear in multiple UAP contexts, supporting this "angle".

The cryptologic technician Karson Kammerzell, who was also aboard the Princeton, and is one of the men that spoke about it, said the crew received an email featuring Underwood's FLIR footage, and the "official statement" was: "the fast moving objects captured by the AEGIS system that the Princeton had been tracking for days were falling ice".

To which there was this reply: "Falling ice doesn't turn 90 degrees and accelerate 600 miles an hour". Gary Voorhis also explained the SPY-1 would have easily been able to identify the objects as ice crystals had they been so. Mick West interviewed him, and he talked about it after 39 minutes (LINK FOR THE VIDEO HERE).

 

[illiniflyer]

The fact there are multiple people from that period (2004) saying there was a cover-up and mishandling of ship's data, doesn't mean you are going to hear the same stories (or confirmation) from Fravor, Dietrich... They were involved elsewhere, not in charge of these parts of the ship, unlike the guys I mentioned. That's like assuming a mere user like me is in charge of the Metabunk forums/website.

Are these statements about a cover-up coming from enlisted personnel or officers? What makes you say they were in charge of anything?

I'm biased (informed?) because my first career was spent flying as a naval aviator. I was getting ready to deploy with USS Carl Vinson at the same time as this event. Nimitz was about 3 months behind us in the training schedule and they would later relieve us in the Gulf.

That's why context matters to me. Nimitz was underway conducting TSTA with the expectation that the strike group would be conducting combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fact that the training sorties continued, including the Fravor/Dietrich event, is evidence to me that nothing spectacular had happened. This idea that there was some hypersonic vehicle in the working area didn't occur until far after the fact. The idea that unknown folks came aboard a ship is merely a result of getting statements from people not in a position to actually know. Those that did, the folks in the carrier intelligence center (i.e., intelligence officers), wore tin foil hats to make fun of the encounter.

If you haven't seen it, perhaps go watch the PBS show Carrier. It is about that Nimitz deployment and features Dave Fravor and Alex Dietrich quite a bit. That should give you an idea of the culture within naval aviation. It's far more fraternity-like than conspiracy theorists make it out to be. I could go on…

 

[NorCal Dave]

If you haven't seen it, perhaps go watch the PBS show Carrier.

I stumbled upon that, or some version of it, on YouTube one day. I was kinda 1/2 watching it out in the shop, when pretty soon, everybody from the GIMBAL/Nimitiz encounter had appeared, with Fravor playing the hero roll.

So, that was filmed on the deployment that took place after the GIMBAL event? Or more accurately, the training in California where the GIMBAL event happened, was training for the deployment that was featured in the show?

This is what I found. If it's from PBS, maybe someone took parts of it to repost without any acknowledgments about PBS:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoPBLLdzjNA&t=907s

 

[Ann K]

Also, it's not up to you (or me) to decide if their statements are valid or not, I don't think we can assume anything without a formal investigation.

Make up your mind. You are the one who was so quick to call people liars, in spite of being told by many of us that it was an unwarranted conclusion.

 

[illiniflyer]

@NorCal Dave yes, that is correct. This series was filmed after the Tic Tac. The training event for the Tic Tac was TSTA. After that would have been COMPTUEX and JTFEX. They deployed in the first half of 2005.

Edit: I just looked at my logbook and it looks like I missed the Tic Tac by one day. I flew out to Nimitz on 13NOV04 and didn't go back out there until 09DEC04.

 

[jackfrostvc]

I wonder if Fravor has ever commented on whether he told Kevin Day the Tic Tac barrell rolled around his jet.

 

[John J.]

No injury is required for a crime (or multiple) to be commited, read what I said before. That's not a legal defense and easily destroyed in the whole context of a supposed "cover-up".

I agree with you that no injury is required for a crime to be committed.
The point I was trying to make is that, as there's no evidence of a crime of any sort having taken place, and in the absence of anyone present at the time of the events alleging that a crime took place, then the fact that no-one was hurt, no equipment damaged or lost etc. etc. makes it unlikely that there's any need (or justification) for a legal enquiry.
Participants in enquiries often find the experience stressful and disruptive, no matter how blameless they may be. Legislators/ legal professionals are well-paid; the US taxpayer could probably do without the expense of a legally-binding enquiry into an event that objectively didn't have serious consequences.

If any of those involved (or who claim to be involved) in the Tic-Tac events feel they have subsequently been improperly treated, or that some wrongdoing occurred, they have recourse to the law. But (AFAIK) none have done so, they just tell their stories through the usual UFO enthusiast channels, which is an unlikely way of addressing any wrongdoing. However, if they say something that is found to be incorrect at (for the sake of argument) a MUFON convention or on a YouTube channel about UFOs, they probably haven't perjured themselves.

There is no evidence that the radar logs were handed over to unauthorized personnel, just a claim by someone that they saw the logs taken by people they couldn't identify.

...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.)

The Black Vault website, "The "Tic-Tac" Incident, November 14, 2004", John Greenewald, updated 31 July 2025 https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/the-vault-files-the-tic-tac-incident-november-14-2004/

Petty officers are essentially NCOs; absolutely vital to any military but they are not senior ranks. They are junior to chief petty officers, warrant officers and commissioned officers (in most everyday use, when someone is described as an officer it normally means a commissioned officer, not a petty officer or an army NCO despite the word "officer" in those titles).

The U.S. military uses a standardized pay grade system to compare ranks across branches. This system categorizes personnel into enlisted (E-1 through E-9), warrant officer (W-1 through W-5), and officer (O-1 through O-10) grades.... ...Leadership responsibilities increase at mid-level enlisted ranks, recognized as non-commissioned officers (NCO) or petty officers. An E-4 can be an Army Specialist (SPC) or a Corporal (CPL), the first NCO rank with leadership duties. The Navy equivalent at E-4 is a Petty Officer Third Class (PO3). An E-5 is a Sergeant (SGT) in the Army and a Petty Officer Second Class (PO2) in the Navy. An E-6 is a Staff Sergeant (SSG) in the Army and a Petty Officer First Class (PO1) in the Navy.

LegalClarity website, "What Is the Navy Equivalent to Army Ranks?", 16 August 2025 https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-navy-equivalent-to-army-ranks/
E-7s to E-9s are chief petty officers, CPOs.

I haven't been able to find a break-down of the USS Princeton's rank structure, but it has a complement of 330; 30 commissioned officers and 300 enlisted (including petty officers), Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Princeton_(CG-59)
Petty Officer Hughes might have seen something he thought of as unusual, but it is unlikely that he was part of executive decision-making on the Princeton. He would not have had ultimate responsibility for security, and it would not be for him to decide who visited the ship.
He also clearly wasn't responsible for the physical security of the radar logs; the ship's crew would have the means to prevent two strangers, even if they were armed, from taking the logs (or anything else) by force. And remember, they arrived by helicopter: A warship's flight deck isn't open for just anyone to land on.
PO Hughes didn't know the (claimed) visitors probably because he didn't have a need to know. It wasn't in his sphere of responsibility.
Maybe the reports that Princeton's radars were making unusual detections was taken seriously in itself, and was seen as a problem that needed to be rapidly resolved, irrespective of Fravor's/ others sightings.

On a rather sombre note, it should be remembered that a sister ship of Princeton, the similarly Aegis-equipped USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civil airliner in 1988.

The Aegis system came under intense scrutiny when the USS Vincennes, a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, shot down Iran Air flight 655, killing all 290 people onboard, on July 3, 1988. The ship's crew had incorrectly identified the plane as a fighter jet. A U.S. Navy report on July 28—released to the public in redacted form on August 19—concluded that shooting down the plane had been "a tragic and regrettable accident." In explaining how the state-of-the-art cruiser had misidentified flight 655, authorities cited "stress…and unconscious distortion of data."

Britannia website, Ticonderoga-class cruiser https://www.britannica.com/technology/Ticonderoga-ship-class, my emphasis.

The Vincennes identified the airliner as a much smaller F-14 fighter (Iran operates F-14s). It was claimed that the plane was descending at speed towards the ship.

However, a U.S. Navy report on July 28, 1988—released to the public in redacted form on August 19—refuted these claims. It concluded that the Iranian aircraft was actually ascending "within the established air route," and it was traveling at a much slower speed than reported by the Vincennes.

In addition the crew of a much less capable frigate, USS Sales, had identified the plane as a civil aircraft.
Britannia, Iran Air flight 655, https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655

Eyewitnesses, including military pilots, make mistakes. Radar operators sometimes misinterpret what they see. And radars can malfunction.

 

[jackfrostvc]

@Perene
I do agree with you that it would be good to get all the witnesses etc around the event, in on room to discuss each claim

 

[illiniflyer]

@John J. wasn't PJ Hughes an aviation electronics technician in the VAW squadron (aboard Nimitz)? He was the one who thought he saw his Skipper with two other individuals wearing "USAF" flight suits, right? I'm curious as to why he thought they were USAF…

 

[JMartJr]

@Perene
I do agree with you that it would be good to get all the witnesses etc around the event, in on room to discuss each claim

I suppose it could be, but I would be concerned the danger that hearing each other's versions would alter what witnesses think they remember would be a real worry, especially given how old the memories that would be the topics of discussion are!

Sixteen studies tested the effects of a discussion between co-witnesses on recall accuracy. These studies were predominantly conducted in university laboratories using student samples. Fourteen of those studies found that witnesses were significantly more likely to report information they had not directly observed during an event when they were exposed to co-witnesses during or before giving their own account. There was also some evidence to suggest this exposure can lead to an overall reduction in accuracy.

Source: https://www.college.police.uk/guidance/obtaining-initial-accounts/witness-separation

A person's memory fades with time. People are more likely to remember what they did, and in more detail, yesterday than what they did a month, year or decade ago. So, interview a witness to an event as soon as possible after that event occurred.
...
Avoid interviewing more than one witness at a time. A witness may change his or her story because of the presence of another. This may be because the witness has some reservation about speaking in the presence of the other person or because the witness adapts their testimony to conform with what the other person says.

Source: https://www.acc.com/house-counsel-tips-interviewing-witnesses

 

[jackfrostvc]

@JMartJr

The thing there is that these people have told their stories.
So if they did bend their stories to be more like the others , that would be telling . Which is exactly why I want to see that group meeting happen. Along with any contradictions. Like for example, would Fravor hear Days testimony and refute the Barrel Roll aspect when queried about it etc. I mean, it's a difficult one to walk out of

 

[JMartJr]

@jackfrostvc , I suppose at this point I'd not be opposed, I guess, given that with the amount of time lost and the apparent loss of supporting evidence, the case is unlikely to yield anything else no matter WHAT is done. But it's all a bit on the moot side, since there is no real likelihood of that happening other than a few of them being guests together on a YouTube channel or UFO conference, I guess.

But in general, it's terrible practice. I recall that there was some discussion of the issue around it in the Arial School case, but I'm supposed to be looking up how to cook mussels for our Christmas Eve bash rather than browsing MB, so I guess I better go do that rather than diving into that thread now!

 

[John J.]

The thing there is that these people have told their stories.
So if they did bend their stories to be more like the others , that would be telling .

With the Rendlesham Forest witnesses (and claimed witnesses), some, notably Jim Penniston, have added dramatic new details over the years.
Penniston also changed the location of his claimed encounter, contrary to his original statement to his CO, Charles Halt.
To some of us his additions and alterations are not really credible as descriptions of real events, whether he believes them to be true or not.
Some UFO enthusiasts don't seem to have the same concerns: Penniston's revelations aren't reasons to question the reliability of his account, they are additional evidence of something extraordinary happening (a visit by time travellers who communicated telepathically with Penniston, during which his companions were "frozen" and unaware, while on a mission to visit assorted ancient religious sites and a wholly mythological island).

When Penniston and Charles Halt were together some 30 years after the event, Halt just happened to notice Penniston's notebook with its binary code...

If UFO witnesses alter their accounts, believers point out (correctly) that memories change over time- however, they rarely become more accurate.
In addition, questionable theories about masked or suppressed memories, or UFO-induced amnesia, are sometimes put forward (and have been accepted in UFOlogy ever since Barney and Betty Hill, expanded upon by John Mack and Budd Hopkins and popularized by Whitley Streiber).

I think there are significant differences between the accounts given by Fravor (and Dietrich) and the evolving Penniston narrative, but if (hypothetically) any of the Tic-Tac witnesses changed their account, I don't think it would be a problem for believers just as long as the account still supported the idea that something extraordinary had happened.
If, on the other hand, Fravor or Dietrich said that their sighting had been explained to them as something mundane, and they now accepted that explanation (something that I accept is unlikely), at best believers would say they had been "got to", at worst the witnesses had become "shills" or "misinformation agents".
If there were some sort of enquiry or get-together about Tic-Tac, believers will support it as long as an element of mystery remains. If plausible non-exotic explanations emerged, believers will ignore or denounce it.

There's nothing to stop people involved in the Tic-Tac sighting getting together AFAIK (I'm sceptical about the NDA angle, just as I'm sceptical about claims of threats post-Rendlesham and Lu Elizondo's inability to tell us what he knows).
One problem is, it would be self-selecting to some extent: We'd all agree the 4 aircrew are involved, but what about, e.g., PJ Hughes?

He was the one who thought he saw his Skipper with two other individuals wearing "USAF" flight suits, right? I'm curious as to why he thought they were USAF…

(USAF and USN flight suits are often different colours). I'm guessing Hughes didn't notice any squadron patches or names on the suits, though they're not always worn.
Hughes is involved because he witnessed something that he connects with the Tic-Tac sighting. But, if it happened, which has not been established, (1) the radar logs may have been transferred due to concerns about the contacts made by Princeton's radar over the previous days, this might have been entirely independent of Fravor/ Dietrich's sighting and have happened whether or not that had taken place (2) the radar logs may have been transferred for some entirely different reason and (3) Hughes doesn't know why the logs were transferred, or to whom; this is seen as part of the mystery by some.
But we can be certain more senior personnel on Princeton did know why the logs were transferred, and who they were given to (or at least recognised the legitimate credentials of those who were given custody of the logs).
Hughes becomes a witness, part of the Tic-Tac narrative, because he saw something that he thought was unusual, something he wasn't involved in and which was probably outside of his area of responsibility/ above his level of decision-making. He wasn't owed an explanation.
Those who knew what was taking place (if the logs were transferred) are not considered part of the Tic-Tac narrative, and none have come forward to say something unusual happened or that it was connected with Fravor's sighting.

If there were issues with Princeton's radar or the Aegis system, it would be of concern to the USN. But for what I think are obvious reasons, the USN might not want to go public with the details. The performance of military radar and command and control systems (and their operators) is legitimately classified, and perhaps shouldn't be made public to satisfy our curiosity about UFO reports.

USS Princeton supposedly detected many anomalous radar contacts over several days during the exercise off the coast of California, yet (as far as we know) no additional assets were moved to the area, there was no change in the defense posture/ alert status of the ships involved, and the exercise wasn't extended. If there were lots of unidentified ultra-high-performance aircraft flying off the California coast, the USN didn't seem overly concerned, which is odd. Unless there was an assessment that there weren't lots of unidentified ultra-high-performance aircraft flying off the California coast, or maybe that scenario was never taken seriously in the first place.

 

[JMartJr]

USS Princeton supposedly detected many anomalous radar contacts over several days during the exercise off the coast of California, yet (as far as we know) no additional assets were moved to the area, there was no change in the defense posture/ alert status of the ships involved, and the exercise wasn't extended. If there were lots of unidentified ultra-high-performance aircraft flying off the California coast, the USN didn't seem overly concerned, which is odd. Unless there was an assessment that there weren't lots of unidentified ultra-high-performance aircraft flying off the California coast, or maybe that scenario was never taken seriously in the first place.

From reading about matters UFOlogical, back before the Internet replaced a good old book as the lace to learn stuff, radar systems used to be plagued by "angels," spurious targets produced by inversions redirecting the "beam" towards the ground, and presumably by other causes. But decades have elapsed since some of those books were current. Does anybody know about stuff radar-related, and know to what extent the "angels" issue has been solved? Or are spurious returns still something radar systems have to deal with fairly regularly?

 

[John J.]

Does anybody know about stuff radar-related, and know to what extent the "angels" issue has been solved? Or are spurious returns still something radar systems have to deal with fairly regularly?

Can't give a reference but I think I read somewhere that false / unexplained radar contacts diminished with the increased use of digital filters from the late 70's on. I guess that meant per system, there must be a lot more radars around now than in, say, 1978.

I haven't heard of a car-stop UFO case for a while, I wonder if more reliable electronic ignition and ECUs play a part.

 

[Perene]

@Perene
I do agree with you that it would be good to get all the witnesses etc around the event, in on room to discuss each claim

A confrontation of statements in this case only makes sense if we are interested in everyone that claims data was stolen or wiped to hide the military tracks and not tell the nature of these UFOs. You aren't going to extract anything useful from Fravor, Dietrich, Kurth, etc. because whatever they are going to say isn't going to be backed by concrete proof. That's like gathering a bunch of people that claim they saw ghosts or monsters. "Hearsay" and "anecdotal evidence" will lead us nowhere.

If there's any (legal) loophole in this entire event that can be exploited by the Congress / whoever is in charge, it's precisely what I suggested. To argue the destruction of federal records, misuse of classification authority, improper chain of custody, data seizure/wiping/coercitive debriefs...

You can't start an investigation based solely on pilots claiming they saw impossible flying objects, it could very well be a test / project the military don't want the public to know, for good reasons, and if we try to get any disclosure, even the law would be against this attempt.

Even if it's not an object of alien origin, yet capable of all the feats explained by the witnesses. We are missing the point if we think this is the main goal, it isn't.

The objective is to find out who took the data, why, and where is it. The first step is to identify each one that argue there was a cover-up, and who was in charge, who may have took it, back then. No scrutiny can happen until all this information is obtained.

Everything that happened that day, they had some sort of data / records from the ships/planes... that could clarify what the UFO(s) were or at least reinforce what people like Fravor, Day... have been saying all along (including that we had a "longer video"). Instead, we have nothing useful, and to this date still think everything they saw or registered, is easily explained, except if it does involve aliens and exotic tech. To admit that can be the explanation, is something a debunker can't afford.

If I were to believe a single thing in all of this, it would be that they did something illegal in seizing the data and coercing a few of the crew to comply and not talk about.

Could it be all of them made that up, or were not informed of something else that was going on?

100%.

I doubt that was the case, given the oddity of the situation. One of the theories is that from October the 4th to the 15th of 2004, just one month prior to the "Tic-Tac", the Navy tested a range of new military equipment in exercises known as "Trident Warrior" and "Silent Hammer". That was around San Clemente Island, where the UAPs continually appeared during the Nimitz events. But if this was new classified military equipment misinterpreted by the Nimitz strike group as UAPs, don't you think they would like the truth to come out?

That theory seems a stretch, too, if I were to trust the "Tic-Tac" allegedly dropped from 28.000 feet to the surface of the ocean in 0.78 seconds, the rapid descending from 80.000 feet, the disappearance from in front of Fravor to beyond the horizon in less than one second and the subsequent appearance at Fravor's CAP point. All of those can't be explained by advanced, foreign technology which even years after the event is leaps and bounds behind the supposed futuristic ability of the Tic-Tac.

 

[illiniflyer]

(USAF and USN flight suits are often different colours). I'm guessing Hughes didn't notice any squadron patches or names on the suits, though they're not always worn.
Hughes is involved because he witnessed something that he connects with the Tic-Tac sighting. But, if it happened, which has not been established, (1) the radar logs may have been transferred due to concerns about the contacts made by Princeton's radar over the previous days, this might have been entirely independent of Fravor/ Dietrich's sighting and have happened whether or not that had taken place (2) the radar logs may have been transferred for some entirely different reason and (3) Hughes doesn't know why the logs were transferred, or to whom; this is seen as part of the mystery by some.

Navy and Air Force have identical flight suits with different rank/patch requirements. That's why I'm wondering why he thought they were USAF as opposed to just another squadron aboard ship.

But we can be certain more senior personnel on Princeton did know why the logs were transferred, and who they were given to (or at least recognised the legitimate credentials of those who were given custody of the logs).

Hughes becomes a witness, part of the Tic-Tac narrative, because he saw something that he thought was unusual, something he wasn't involved in and which was probably outside of his area of responsibility/ above his level of decision-making. He wasn't owed an explanation.
Those who knew what was taking place (if the logs were transferred) are not considered part of the Tic-Tac narrative, and none have come forward to say something unusual happened or that it was connected with Fravor's sighting.

Which logs are we talking about? Hughes only knew about the Hawkeye's bricks. That would be unrelated to whatever was going on aboard Princeton.

 

[John J.]

Which logs are we talking about? Hughes only knew about the Hawkeye's bricks. That would be unrelated to whatever was going on aboard Princeton.

Oops, my bad, you're right of course.
I think the theory that there isn't necessarily anything mysterious about Hughes not knowing why they were handed over, or to whom, might still stand. He wasn't of particularly senior rank. Maybe the Hawkeye logs were used to check against Princeton's claimed anomalous contacts (total supposition, though).

I thought USAF pilots usually wore sage green and USN tan flightsuits, but on checking there are lots of photos of USN in green (and some USAF in tan).

 

[Perene]

What constitutes the cover-up:

1) E-2 Hawkeye "bricks" (hard drives):

According to Hughes and corroborated indirectly by "Roger", six removable hard drives from the E-2 Hawkeye were seized shortly after landing. These drives likely contained:

- Radar data;
- CEC-related sensor fusion data;
- Flight telemetry;
- Possibly recordings of the Tic-Tac approaching the Hawkeye (that's one of the things we tend to dismiss about this case, also reported);

The bricks were removed outside normal workflow, by unknown personnel accompanying the commanding officer. And never returned.

2) CEC (Co-operative Engagement Capability) tapes, from the USS Princeton:

According to Voorhis, full CEC tapes were taken by plain-clothed officials. Custody was signed, but:

- The officials were unidentified;
- No clear authority or documentation trail was explained;

Voorhis was instructed to delete any remaining tapes, "even if they were brand new."

So, the status is: seized and possibly duplicated; originals removed; remaining copies allegedly deleted.

3) Large-scale erasure of digital records aboard the USS Princeton:

According to Voorhis and Turner, after docking in Puerto Vallarta: "Everything on the ship got wiped", except essential navigation/operations. Manufacturer reps had to reinstall the CEC system. This implies loss of:

- Archived radar data;
- Sensor logs;
- Potentially system diagnostics and historical tracks;

4) Communication logs (voice/data links), from the USS Princeton:

According to Kevin Day, all comms related to the intercept were missing, only timestamps remained. This is notable because:

- The system auto-backs-up comms redundantly;
- Deletion would require intentional action across multiple storage points;

Selectively erased, for what reason?

5) Deck logs from the USS Princeton:

According to Kammerzell via a Boatswain's mate, nighttime visual observations were written into deck logs. Logs were later rewritten by someone else, so original entries removed.

Altered official ship records, why, again?

6) FLIR video copies (8mm tapes) from the USS Nimitz:

Following the Tic-Tac being recorded by Chad, Fravor copied Underwood's FLIR video onto a pair of 8mm video tapes (these are now an outdated format that was used to record video). He explained:

"I copied the tapes. I took two brand new 8mm tapes and I copied the sections that I wanted (of the FLIR video)".

He then placed these two tapes, featuring the FLIR footage, inside a shared safe on the USS Nimitz with a note attached. At some later stage, he returned to the safe only to find the two tapes with the footage missing, and suggested that the tapes weren't confiscated via some "Men in Black" style scenario but rather that someone most likely happened to see the tapes in the safe and decided to reuse them.

Fravor described the regularity in recycling tapes whilst at sea: "We use those tapes over and over again. They are consumable. Remember, I have a budget so I have to buy those tapes. I have to buy all that stuff that we use. I'm accountable for it".

What kind of crimes could have been commited? I mentioned:

1) Destruction of federal records; applies to:

- CEC tapes deletion;
- Comms logs erasure;
- Ship logs rewriting;
- System-wide data wiping;

Classification does not authorize destruction. Federal and DoD records laws require retention, even for classified material, that's obvious.

2) Improper chain of custody - applies if:

- Data was removed without clear authority documentation
- Custodians were told to delete remaining copies
- Officials were unidentified or unverifiable

Even black programs maintain tasking orders, receipts and audit trails. Absence of transparency /=/ illegality, but absence of documentation is problematic. I suppose if the US Congress asks for the paperwork, they are going to provide it, right?

3) Misuse of classification authority, which could apply if:

- Data was classified after the fact to justify removal;
- "Falling ice" was knowingly used as a false official explanation (and it was...);
- Classification was used to suppress embarrassment or system failure;

This depends heavily on intent, which is harder to prove but not implausible. Besides, FOIA requests and later answers about this event were a joke.

4) Coercive or irregular debriefs / NDAs.

Were NDAs used to suppress lawful reporting? Debriefs were conducted outside established protocol? Personnel were told "it did not happen" (according to a few of them, that was the instruction). NDAs themselves are lawful, their misuse is the issue.

5) False official records / obstruction.

Possible if logs were rewritten, known facts omitted in reports, later briefings misrepresented events... This overlaps with record falsification rather than secrecy per se.

Can all these actions be explained without any crime? After all, the Navy may have deliberately made its own systems "see" impossible objects to test sensor fusion, EW resilience, and operator response, without telling anyone involved.

That explains:

- Why the object behaved impossibly;
- Why Princeton data mattered most;
- Why pilots were ignored;

It does not explain:

- Data wiping;
- Rewritten logs;
- Erased comms;
- Internally false explanations;

- Multiple pilots visually observing an object;
- Shared visual geometry (same object, same location);
- Coordinated air intercepts guided by radar that then correlate with visual contact;
- The object reacting to aircraft presence (mirroring maneuvers?);

Even under the most generous black-test interpretation, the handling of records remains the real problem, not the Tic-Tac itself.

 

[Ann K]

A confrontation of statements in this case only makes sense if we are interested in everyone that claims data was stolen or wiped to hide the military tracks and not tell the nature of these UFOs.

That sounds like "let's ask only the conspiracy theorists", not a good strategy for getting any legitimate answers.

The objective is to find out who took the data, why, and where is it. The first step is to identify each one that argue there was a cover-up, and who was in charge, who may have took it, back then. No scrutiny can happen until all this information is obtained.

So you have decided already, based upon facts not in evidence. "Premature adjudication" at its finest.

If I were to believe a single thing in all of this, it would be that they did something illegal in seizing the data and coercing a few of the crew to comply and not talk about.

A closed (and suspicious) mind is not what is needed for a sober analysis.

Perene, I don't feel you've advanced the discussion in any meaningful way, as long as you let your imagined conspiracies override any serious discussion.

 

[Perene]

If you feel it's all a conspiracy theory, then tell that to the crew that claim a cover-up happened. I'm only reporting here what they have said. There's more to this story than mere sightings.

All these theories about what the UAPs were are not going to help those that want real evidence. Isn't that what matters? Either the truth, or building your favorite sci-fi story.

Pick one. I would take my chances with an inquiry. I guess UFO lunatics would hate to see that debunked. It doesn't help with the grifting.

It reminds me of that meme from a silent crowd, and all of them going wild for the "team".

Solving this story would be a bummer for them, believe that.

Do we have anything besides a 1 minute video, which tells nothing? And only creates doubt?

Take Kurth's story, for example. This thread (link here, from Reddit) suggests his role is more relevant than what has been reported everywhere.

Am I going to get the truth from this guy?

Or perhaps from another person commenting on his role (more "hearsay" - I prefer to listen Kurth himself confirming anything, not just PDFs or websites), Fravor (which refused to be interviewed by Mick West, last time I checked), Jim Slaight, which looks like only appeared once in a now unlisted Youtube video from a TV interview that was a mockery, or more people that don't want to reveal their names / get approached about this?

An investigation into a cover-up could be the "real deal", once the responsible (and the reasons) are identified for the actions I described.

Not surprisingly, all these people are infamous for adding secrecy into every single one of these UFO stories. So even if there is nothing out of the ordinary, they would be scumbags enough to do that.

And it's not just the cover-ups that add more mystery. Let's examine what Kevin Day has said (he operated the radar on the USS Princeton).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9iKw_Q9xQ


According to him:

- The Tic-Tac was being followed by the Princeton's radar for the duration of Fravor's encounter (meaning they saw its abrupt change in altitude, and that it went from the location of Fravor's encounter to the CAP point some 40 miles away in "seconds").

- The Tic-Tac Fravor encountered was one of a flight of five of them - the other four stayed in formation and continued to drift south at about 100 knots. Only the one Fravor encountered bugged-out. And after Fravor headed back to the Nimitz, that Tic-Tac rejoined the formation of the other "Tic-Tacs".

- The Princeton continued to track the UAPs between Fravor's encounter and Underwood's encounter, and they are the ones who vectored Underwood to the same Tic-Tac. Meaning the Princeton saw that what Underwood filmed is one of the same objects that Fravor encountered - I think this is the first time we get that nailed down this clearly (see above).

- He says Underwood got within visual range of the object.

- He recalls Fravor telling him that he initially encountered the Tic Tac at 28.000 feet, it rolled over him, and then it went to the surface. Fravor's interviews say he first saw it close to the surface.

Are we getting something useful from these contradictory statements? Or simply undermining this whole thing?

 

[Eburacum]

Day's recollections do not agree with Underwood's account, or with Fravor's.

Are we getting something useful from these contradictory statements?

One interpretation, probably the most accurate one, is that human recollection is fallible. You don't need a conspiracy to produce contradictory statements, just human nature.