Nimitz Timeline Revisited

[fat_earther_]

Hello,


Source: https://youtu.be/BG4yxQm51JM?si=n-qxFpRPeejka4LG


I recently made a simple animation (top down, over head map) trying to get a better visualization of the Nimitz incident. I was wondering if Sitrec or some other model could be used to more accurately scale the geometry and timing of the events? There would need to be some adjustable sliders controlling some variables to account for the variances in testimony, general memory error, and overall assumptions required, but I think this should be able to help more accurately position the radar contacts at the time of Underwood's intercept for example.

Has anything like this been done already?

This was my first attempt at an animation. It is a little generic and I learned a lot, but I also realize someone here at metabunk could probably do a better/ more realistic job. We have quite a bit of information to work with from the BAASS report and all the interviews over the years to input into a model. One thing I have been doing is creating interview libraries, dumping every related youtube interview transcript into chatgpt and creating sort of a super data base to post questions to and pull timestamps out of interviews.

I really think this could shine some light on a lot of debated aspects of the event.

 

[Mick West]

I was wondering if Sitrec or some other model could be used to more accurately scale the geometry and timing of the events?

I could create a Nimitz scenario generator from the verbal accounts. This might be a good test for the AI integration I've been working on.

 

[fat_earther_]

I could create a Nimitz scenario generator from the verbal accounts. This might be a good test for the AI integration I've been working on.

Here is a list of assumptions I have gathered to start with. They are from a number of interviews that I don't have links for, but that's why I thought having some of the more debate-able "facts" of the case as adjustable variables.

*Nimitz: halfway between San Diego and Ensenada Mexico, about 65 miles off the coast

*Princeton positioned 5-10 miles from Nimitz (direction unknown)

*Radar contacts travel from east of Catalina Island south to 60 miles north of Guadalupe at 100 knots/ 28K ft

*Radar contacts pass east of Princeton, between Princeton and mainland

*Radar contacts in group of 5 -10, spacing 5 -10 miles

*Blue air CAP point: 40 miles south of Nimitz

*Red air CAP point: 100 miles south of Nimitz

*Kurth launched 1030, vectored to contact 30 minutes into flight (before Fravor) and saw whitewater

*Fravor and Dietrich vectored West 260°~270° towards closest contact shortly after take off.

*Intercept was 60 miles west of Blue CAP point.

*During intercept, One of the group of radar contacts flashed over to blue cap, then back to group

*Underwood sent to same contacts drifting south shortly after Fravor landed back at carrier (20 minutes to 45 minutes after Fravor landed)

*Underwood first had radar contacts 30 to 40 miles south of his aircraft.

*Fravor stated the average speed of jets flying around was ~300 knots

 

[Eburacum]

This is the strangest part to me

*During intercept, One of the group of radar contacts flashed over to blue cap, then back to group

*Underwood sent to same contacts drifting south shortly after Fravor landed back at carrier (20 minutes to 45 minutes after Fravor landed)

*Underwood first had radar contacts 30 to 40 miles south of his aircraft.

Underwood was sent to these contacts a fairly short time after the earlier events. When he got to the location there was nothing there, but he then found a radar contact 30 to 40 miles away. A contact which he never saw visually, but which appeared as a small oblong blob in the FLIR.

Why did he think this distant contact had anything to do with the earlier sightings?

 

[JMartJr]

If, as I suspect, some/all of the radar targets are spurious "angels," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

 

[Ann K]

If, as I suspect, some/all of thee radar targets are spurious "angles," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

Angular angels?

 

[JMartJr]

Angular angels?

Thanks, fixed!

 

[FDSaussure]

If, as I suspect, some/all of the radar targets are spurious "angels," I am not sure what can be learned by recreating them on Sitrec or by other means I'm not opposed to the effort being made by any means -- but I'd caution all interested parties that a spurious radar contact at Point A, and another contact at Point B can look like some target object moved between those two points, when in fact no such thing happened.

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"? Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

 

[John J.]

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"? Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

Supposition really, but maybe a software issue with digital filters, or some issue with integration of data across platforms, who knows.
A radar system with a problem might be prone to repeatedly giving dodgy returns because of the same underlying cause.

Radars do sometimes give false or ambiguous returns, and complex systems can sometimes fail or have sub-optimal performance.
Maybe that's why some radar logs were transferred to the mainland.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Angular angels?

FWIW, angels of the angles exist —in the Enochian system of magic:

"Further intricacies emerge within the Elemental Tablets, which are divided into four sub-quadrants or sub-angles. These contain the names of archangels and angels responsible for overseeing specific quarters of the world, effectively populating the universe, both seen and unseen, with intelligent spiritual beings."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enochian_magic

 

[JMartJr]

How do you reconcile the claim that these grouped radar contacts had been observed several days in a row with it being spurious "angels"?

If conditions conducive to creating false targets were in the system or in the atmosphere or both, and were persistent over several days, why would false targets NOT persist over several days?

Has there been research on what spurious radar contacts look like for the systems involved?

Given that they are military systems, I would be surprised if such research was not done, and I'd be VERY surprised if it were released to the public.

 

[Eburacum]

They were also relatively new radar systems (brand new AN/SPY-1B passive radar according to Popular Mechanics), so it is likely that the bugs had not all been ironed out yet. Seeing spurious returns over a series of days on a brand new system is more likely than a recurring flight of UFOs.

Another factor is that the recurring (probably spurious) returns showed apparent objects descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a second or so; this behaviour was not seen by any witness visually or recorded by the FLIR cameras.

 

[JMartJr]

Another factor is that the recurring (probably spurious) returns showed apparent objects descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a second or so; this behaviour was not seen by any witness visually or recorded by the FLIR cameras.

Nor were the fairly noticeable effects this would have on the surrounding atmosphere noticed, apparently.

80,000 feet in 2 seconds would be about 54,500 mph -- for comparison:

The Chelyabinsk meteor ... was a superbolide that entered Earth's atmosphere over the southern Ural region in Russia on 15 February 2013 ... with a speed relative to Earth of about 19.2 km/s (68,980 km/h; 42,860 mph).

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

Here is what THAT did...

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

Here's what it looked like:

(I'd expect a spaceship might not leave the smoke trail, unless it was using some sort of ablative heat shield or something, it would not be shedding material like the meteor did. But the air compressed to plasma, the bright glowing bit, would be there because whatever high tech your UFO has, the air is just good old Air 1.0 and will do what air does when compressed by something moving through it at these speeds...)

Seems like this sort of thing would have made its way into the story...

 

[Harabeck]

Let's not forget that as discussed previously here (and elsewhere), San Clemente has a military facility focused on drone testing. It's not shocking to imagine drone or balloon flights originating from there.

 

[Eburacum]

I have wondered if some of these steeply-inclined spurious radar returns were caused by meteors arriving at the top of the atmosphere. Meteors can be routinely detected by radar, and this method is used by meteor enthusiasts. But very few meteors reach anywhere near sea level.

 

[NorCal Dave]

They were also relatively new radar systems (brand new AN/SPY-1B passive radar according to Popular Mechanics), so it is likely that the bugs had not all been ironed out yet. Seeing spurious returns over a series of days on a brand new system is more likely than a recurring flight of UFOs.

Kirkpatrick has pretty much said they were testing a new system. At a presentation, he talked about how the fusion engine/algorithm works, how it can create false hits and that DARPA was testing new equipment with the Nimitz (my bold):

(53:52)
So, a radar, most of you know how radars work, right? Sends pulse out, gets reflection, pulse comes back, collects it.

But you know today, there's a there's an algorithmic engine behind it. There's a fusion engine. There's AI driven things that that are accelerating how we take that data and turn it into information. What happens when a brand new radar waveform is tested and it goes against an object that's semi-transparent to the radar, maybe I get a missing pulse.

Maybe I get only one out of every five pulses, depending on what it is that it's reflecting off of. And when I see that, if you look at how the fusion engines then interpret that missing information, it tries to extrapolate to the next data point. And when it does that, you get really exciting things like, "Hey, that object accelerated from point-5 mach to two-and-a-half mach in you know, half a second".

But it's not until you pull the raw data out and you look at the the each individual pulse train in that pulse train you understand oh well it missed these datas and now if I go, and I simulate that in the fusion engine, I can recreate that effect. That happened a lot, and it really happens when you're testing new waveforms, like when DARPA tests new waveforms which happened on the Nimitz. It's very exciting

If true, it also helps explain the MiB story about secret people coming aboard and taking away radar recordings. They were testing stuff.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi0H_mkwTW0

 

[JMartJr]

If true, it also helps explain the MiB story about secret people coming aboard and taking away radar recordings. They were testing stuff.

I agree, it all hangs together nicely -- with the proviso that before it is really necessary to explain something, it needs to be established that it happened, which has not yet been established in this case, last I looked.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

I agree, it all hangs together nicely -- with the proviso that before it is really necessary to explain something, it needs to be established that it happened, which has not yet been established in this case, last I looked.

Tim Phillips confirmed that DARPA personal went to the Nimitz to retrieve data :

Source: https://youtu.be/wztninfsqu0?t=1766

We actually talked to this executive from DARPA. That was actually them. That was actually DARPA personnel that actually gone out there and some of them were wearing black jumpsuits and that's what the crew observed according to the testimony that we received.

 

[DaveG]

(I'd expect a spaceship might not leave the smoke trail, unless it was using some sort of ablative heat shield or something, it would not be shedding material like the meteor did. But the air compressed to plasma, the bright glowing bit, would be there because whatever high tech your UFO has, the air is just good old Air 1.0 and will do what air does when compressed by something moving through it at these speeds...)

Seems like this sort of thing would have made its way into the story...

If I may chime in, I'd like to share a sighting I had from 2017. At first, I saw what I assumed was an ordinary meteor descending at a steep angle before disappearing in a fraction of a second. A second or two later, I observed what appeared to be a shiny metallic object on what seemed to be the same trajectory. It looked as though it had transitioned from a steep descent into horizontal flight and was surrounded by what I can only describe as a vapor like envelope.

The portion of the observation described above lasted only about four or five seconds, and there was no sound. Whether the apparent envelope was caused by condensation, ionization, an optical effect, or something else, I have no way of knowing. it was simply part of what I observed. I thought it would be worth adding.

 

[kotare]

on Avi Loeb's medium page his latest entry posits that navy shenanigans may have been responsible, to quote Avi Loeb:

"Incidentally, not far from where the Nimitz encounter occurred, the Navy has developed and tested Laser-Induced Plasma Filaments that can be projected from an aircraft to draw a decoy shape in midair using steering mirrors, forming an aerial countermeasure meant to draw a heat-seeking missile away from the actual aircraft. This is an actual patented "System and method for laser-induced plasma for infrared homing missile countermeasure," posted here. This human-made technology existed in some form around the same era, is capable of forming a visible, three-dimensional-appearing glowing shape, and produces heat signatures. On its face, this is exactly the kind of capability that would be classified, tested near naval assets, and could plausibly get misidentified as UAP."


Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/were-the-nimitz-tic-tac-objects-megafilaments-of-laser-produced-plasmas-770d1b340fab


he goes into some very plausible looking math, that honestly went over my head, but on math at least i'm ready to take his word for it,
if you follow the link I recommend reading the comments, his flock were not impressed

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

If conditions conducive to creating false targets were in the system or in the atmosphere or both, and were persistent over several days, why would false targets NOT persist over several days?


Given that they are military systems, I would be surprised if such research was not done, and I'd be VERY surprised if it were released to the public.

I'd like to add that not only the data on this incident was not released to the public, it actually was removed or displaced even when AARO tried to look.
If they were testing stuff, that's maybe under a certain level of secrecy, I wouldn't be surprised if some "men in khaki" (that's what Vorhees mentioned to me on Twitter years ago) took some data off the ship. No aliens needed for sure.
If the data was only about radar glitches, wouldn't it be weird that they didn't keep a track in the archives?
It's pretty odd that the radar spurious signals were also coupled with eye sightings of "stuff", not impossible given the probable panic of the moment, but still. Hard to think exactly what the pilots saw and if it was connected to those signals at all.
But we know they had a signal, sent Fravor and Dietrich to look for the target and they got a visual contact with a "thing".
How do balloons usually show up on radar? If they were weather or classified loitering balloons equipped with radar reflectors, could they trick the Aegis system into tracking them as solid, anomalous targets before the pilots went for visual confirmation?

 

[John J.]

on Avi Loeb's medium page his latest entry posits that navy shenanigans may have been responsible

I would be cautious of Loeb's claim.

[Quoting Loeb] "Incidentally, not far from where the Nimitz encounter occurred, the Navy has developed and tested Laser-Induced Plasma Filaments that can be projected from an aircraft to draw a decoy shape in midair using steering mirrors..."

How would Loeb know this?
Loeb has made other claims, more closely associated with his professional field, that are unlikely to be correct.

[Quoting Loeb} "This is an actual patented "System and method for laser-induced plasma for infrared homing missile countermeasure," posted here."

As we've seen elsewhere, patents have been granted for things that are extremely unlikely to work. The US Navy has supported patent applications of this type, thread US Navy "UFO" patent by Salvatore Cezar Pais.

The "System and Method for Laser-Induced Plasma for Infrared Homing Missile Countermeasure" patent application was filed 06 June 2018,
this is within the timeframe of Salvatore Pais' bizarre USN-sponsored patent applications (August 2015 - August 2019), though the inventors are listed as Alexandru Hening, Ryan P. Lu and Ayax D. Ramirez
("System and Method for Laser-Induced Plasma for Infrared Homing Missile Countermeasure", patent US20200041236A1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200041236A1/).

The inventors have all submitted other interesting patents, as can be found from clicking on their names in the online US20200041236A1 document.
Hening has several related to laser-induced plasma filaments, Ramirez has a USN-supported patent "Systems and Methods for Navigation Using PULSARs" (19 December 2018, patent US20200200538A1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200200538A1.
This is basically a variant on stellar navigation. The position of the solar system is indicated on the Pioneer 10 and 11 plaques by symbols showing the "burst" frequencies of various pulsars and their directions relative to the sun.
Interestingly, although Ramirez knows "pulsar" is a portmanteau word (albeit giving a questionable etymology) he capitalises the word as "PULSAR" throughout, as if it's an acronym. Maybe he hasn't read much about pulsars.
Using pulsars as a practical means of terrestrial navigation seems very unlikely, though that is beyond the scope of this post.

The laser-induced plasma patent mentioned by Loeb includes statements like

With laser-induced plasma (LIP), it is possible to generate multiple wavelengths just by "tuning" the laser parameters. This method allows for an ultra-fast response time. Due to the fact that the effect is generated by the laser beam interaction with air, the time required to produce the flares is less than a millionth of a second.

(1) This confuses effect with cause;
(2) How the laser is tuned to generate multiple wavelengths isn't specified; nor is it explained why this is specific to "LIP".
(3) Why whatever method is used to alter the laser's wavelength allows for "an ultra-fast response time" isn't specified,
(4) There's no experimental or theoretical evidence given (as far as I can see) that demonstrates that an area of air can be made to fluoresce in "less than a millionth of a second", using the proposed means, to the extent that it would be visible from tens/ hundreds of metres.

The inventors rely on the Kerr effect to make air at a very specific distance from the laser become plasma and fluoresce; this would cause heating and density changes in the affected (and surrounding) air and the effect would presumably be transient; nevertheless the inventors believe this could be used to "draw" a three-dimensional image.
The inventors seem unaware of other possible applications of the ability to project holographic images in the air, over substantial distances, at a moment's notice. If they demonstrated that this patent worked, they could be very wealthy men.

Incidentally, technology to project large-ish holographic images in unprepared exterior settings doesn't exist yet..
(see "Holographic Displays 2026: Brutal Truth About Progress & Limits", techgenyz website, Sahil Rumba 12 January 2026 https://techgenyz.com/holographic-displays-progress-roadblocks/).

[Quoting Loeb] This human-made technology existed in some form around the same era, is capable of forming a visible, three-dimensional-appearing glowing shape, and produces heat signatures.

Avi Loeb is free to supply testable evidence -preferably footage- of any technology, anywhere in the world, that creates "three-dimensional-appearing" images of substantial size (e.g. metres/ yards in extent), some distance (at least tens of metres) from the source, in an unprepared exterior setting. In mid-air. I predict he will not do so.

It might be interesting that we have found more USN-sponsored patents for inventions that might not perform "as advertised", as per the Pais patents.

 

[kotare]

I would be cautious of Loeb's claim.

oh yes, entirely agree, apologies if i was unclear,
if i was forced at gunpoint to bet on it, my money would be on the new radar doing weird stuff theory

 

[illiniflyer]

Another factor is that the recurring (probably spurious) returns showed apparent objects descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a second or so; this behaviour was not seen by any witness visually or recorded by the FLIR cameras.

I have two questions... The first is the narrative that the SPY-1 picked up objects at 80,000' and that these objects went to the surface. Is it mere coincidence that W-291 (the warning area where this occurred) goes from the surface to 80,000? It just seems strange to me that a radar set up for this phase of training just happens to have returns that exactly align with the operating area where the training occurs.

Kirkpatrick has pretty much said they were testing a new system. At a presentation, he talked about how the fusion engine/algorithm works, how it can create false hits and that DARPA was testing new equipment with the Nimitz…

If true, it also helps explain the MiB story about secret people coming aboard and taking away radar recordings. They were testing stuff.

Why would any of this exist on Nimitz though? The radar in question was on USS Princeton, a Tico class cruiser. If they wanted to get the radar data, they would just need to fly out to Princeton and never even go to Nimitz.

On one version of the story I've seen on the internet, a DARPA helicopter flew out to Nimitz. I laugh at that because real life doesn't happen that way. There are not specialized DARPA flight crews staying current for shipboard operations just in case they need to quickly fly out to the boat. If there were DARPA scientists flying out there, then they would be on the passenger manifest of the COD or VOD bringing them aboard ship.

 

[flarkey]

.
Why would any of this exist on Nimitz though? The radar in questions was on USS Princeton, a Tico class cruiser. If they wanted to get the radar data, they would just need to fly out to Princeton and never even go to Nimitz.

On one version of the story I've seen on the internet, a DARPA helicopter flew out to Nimitz. I laugh at that because real life doesn't happen that way. There are not specialized DARPA flight crews staying current for shipboard operations just in case they need to quickly fly out to the boat. If there were DARPA scientists flying out there, then they would be on the passenger manifest of the COD or VOD bringing them aboard ship.

They went to the Nimitz to get the radar recordings from the E-2 Hawkeye AWACS planes - check out some of the podcasts or videos with PJ Hughes for more details.


Source: https://youtu.be/s4-D_v6sWWo?is=7-4ycXr57XxH4DIM


I think Jason Turner was the crewman who saw the 'people' come aboard on the Helicopter (Blackhawks or Seahawk from my memory).

Source: https://youtu.be/PnvA5WZ1QV4?is=8MmMDezYYKRw9AYC

 

[NorCal Dave]

Why would any of this exist on Nimitz though? The radar in question was on USS Princeton, a Tico class cruiser. If they wanted to get the radar data, they would just need to fly out to Princeton and never even go to Nimitz.

In addition to what @flarkey posted above, it may be that sometimes "Nimitz" gets used as a catchall for the whole event. It's often collectively known as the Nimitz case or sometimes the "TicTac" case, so it's possible that IF Kirkpatrick was referring to DARPA people retrieving logs or records, it may include the Princeton and he's just referring to the whole thing collectively.

 

[Eburacum]

Using pulsars as a practical means of terrestrial navigation seems very unlikely, though that is beyond the scope of this post.

It is real technology, although I don't think anyone is using it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar-based_navigation

The advantage of pulsar navigation would be more available signals than from satnav constellations, being unjammable, with the broad range of frequencies available, and security of signal sources from destruction by anti-satellite weapons.[13] ​

Pulsar navigation might be a vital technology when and if we ever start exploring the galaxy; but it seems like overkill on Earth, unless every other system is broken or being jammed.

 

[John J.]

It is real technology, although I don't think anyone is using it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar-based_navigation

Using pulsars as a practical means of terrestrial navigation seems very unlikely

(My bold), you're right, I should probably have qualified this with "...in the near future".

X-ray pulsar-based navigation and timing (XNAV) or simply pulsar navigation is a navigation technique whereby the periodic X-ray signals emitted from pulsars are used to determine the location of a vehicle, such as a spacecraft in deep space.
... ...
In principle, pulsars are brighter in radio band, and have better-measured pulse profiles in radio, enabling up to meter-scale precision in navigation. However this would require radio antennas on the order of 10x-100x larger/heavier than used on spacecraft of the early 21st century. In contrast, X-ray receivers are much smaller (as their wavelength is shorter) and better suited for spacecraft.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar-based_navigation. The Wikipedia article mainly discusses X-ray based pulsar navigation in the context of spacecraft navigation.

This is because X-rays from space can't be consistently detected at the Earth's surface (if at all), or even at the altitudes most jets fly at.

...the inability of x-rays to travel long distances through Earth's atmosphere is startling. In fact, x-rays travel through the atmosphere over relatively short distances, less than ten kilometers, with the lower-energy x-rays being absorbed by air before the higher-energy x-rays. The atmosphere absorbs the x-rays of out space before they can reach any point on Earth's surface; in fact, short of going to space, the only craft that can reach an altitude high enough to observe cosmic x-rays is the high-altitude balloon. ... Today balloons are primarily used to test new x-ray detector designs. Almost all x-ray telescopes are now mounted on satellites.

Detecting X-rays, The Astrophysics Spectator 2.22 https://astrophysicsspectator.org/topics/observation/DetectingXRays.html

An X-ray telescope (XRT) is a telescope that is designed to observe remote objects in the X-ray spectrum. X-rays are absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, so instruments to detect X-rays must be taken to high altitude by balloons, sounding rockets, and satellites.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_telescope

The Wikipedia article "Pulsar-based navigation" mentions one study investigating the use of pulsars for aircraft navigation,

In 2014, a feasibility study was carried out by the National Aerospace Laboratory of Amsterdam, for use of pulsars in place of GPS in navigation.

The reference/ link Wikipedia gives for this is is "Pulsar navigation: piloting aircraft with the aid of the stars", Extreme Tech website, 08 June 2015, Bauke Stelma. That article links to the actual study,
"PulsarPlane: a feasibility study for millisecond radio pulsar navigation", 2014, Buist, Hesselink, Gibbs et al., Proceedings of the 65th International Astronautical Congress (IAC2014) https://research.utwente.nl/en/publ...lity-study-for-millisecond-radio-pulsar-navi/

The proposal uses pulsar radio signals, not X-rays, so it could theoretically work for terrestrial navigation. But then the known current problems with pulsar radio detection come into play: Antenna size and detection/ signal integration time (often hours with smaller antennae).
The PulsarPlane authors have undertaken a theoretical study anticipating technologies that do not exist yet (but might do in the future),
from the paper,

Radio pulsar navigation - utilizing signals which could be detected on Earth - has not received much attention, since the signal strength of radio pulsars was deemed too weak to be useful. Advances in signal processing, analog/RF circuit design as well as antenna design, however, could enable faster and more accurate detection of pulsar signals, using a smaller antenna size. ...The study is part of the research project PulsarPlane under the European 7th Framework Programme as a pioneering idea, i.e. technologies and concepts that have the potential to bring step changes in the second half of this century and beyond.

(my emphasis).

A less optimistic European Space Agency study (albeit from 2004, processing times will have improved massively*) was based on existing technology (this was for spacecraft, not aircraft/ terrestrial use), summarised in
"Pulsar Navigation: a novel concept of spacecraft navigation?" European Space Agency Advanced Concepts Team https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/pulsar-navigation/:

The study treated convincingly the characterization of suitable astrophysical sources and derived from this the minimal hardware requirements for a positioning system. This was done for both, radio and x-ray signals. The results are however not clear cut: a positioning accuracy of 1,000 km is attainable with a moderate antenna size (10 m2​) and a signal integration time of the order of an hour. However simultaneous observation of several pulsars with separate antennas seems desirable for a reduced integration time or an enhanced accuracy. This seems to require prohibitively heavy hardware.

Our technology is much improved from 2004, but the modelling then indicated that a platform with a 10 m2 ​antenna, in space (where pulsars are much easier to detect) could establish its position to within 1,000 km after an hour of signal integration.
This wouldn't be practical for terrestrial navigation, even if we allowed terrestrial antennae to be as efficient at detecting pulsars as spaceborne antennae.

The actual study is "Feasibility Study for a Spacecraft Navigation System relying on Pulsar Timing Information, Final Report", Sala, Urruela et al., 2004, ARIADNA Study 03/4202 https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/ARI/ARI Study Report/ACT-RPT-MAD-ARI-03-4202-Pulsar Navigation-UPC.pdf


*I'm not sure if this has a proportionate effect on reducing integration times- the time needed to differentiate the weak pulsar signal from noise- which appear to be in part dependent on antenna size.