Document ID: I_3_06
Section: I_UAP_Disclosure
Keywords: Nimitz, Tic-Tac, USS Nimitz, USS Princeton, Commander David Fravor, FLIR1, 2004, Carrier Strike Group Eleven, F/A-18, Super Hornet, AAV, anomalous aerial vehicle, San Diego, advanced aerospace threat, AATIP, Pentagon UAP videos, five observables, trans-medium, anti-gravity, no visible propulsion, instantaneous acceleration, radar, SPY-1, AN/APG-73, Alex Dietrich, Chad Underwood, Kevin Day, FLIR pod, infrared
Category Tags: uap, disclosure, uap-phenomena
Cross-References: I_3_01 · I_1_02 · I_5_01 · I_2_02 · I_2_03
Reliability Tier: Tier 1 (officially authenticated US Navy video, multiple military witnesses with named identities and consistent testimony, confirmed radar data from Aegis combat system, Pentagon acknowledgment through AATIP/UAPTF/AARO)
Last Updated: Mar 07, 2026 | Source Count: 20 | Weighted Score: 23 | Source Confidence: [3/5] | Confidence: Very High (for the occurrence of the encounter and the failure of conventional explanations); High (for the observed performance characteristics exceeding known technology)

QUICK SUMMARY

The USS Nimitz "Tic-Tac" encounter of November 14, 2004, is arguably the most evidentiarily robust UAP case in recorded history. During routine carrier strike group exercises approximately 100 miles southwest of San Diego, the Aegis-equipped cruiser USS Princeton detected anomalous radar contacts over a two-week period — objects descending from 80,000+ feet to near sea level in seconds, hovering, and then departing at extraordinary speed. On November 14, Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich, flying F/A-18F Super Hornets from VFA-41 ("Black Aces"), were vectored to intercept one of these contacts. Fravor visually observed a white, featureless, oblong object — later described as resembling a "Tic-Tac" breath mint — approximately 40 feet long, hovering erratically above a disturbance on the ocean surface. When Fravor descended to intercept, the object ascended to meet him, mirrored his maneuvers, and then accelerated away at a speed he described as beyond any known technology, crossing 60 miles to the carrier group's CAP point in under a minute. A subsequent flight captured the object on FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) — producing the famous "FLIR1" video authenticated and released by the US Department of Defense in 2017 and officially in 2020. The case involves multiple sensor systems (radar, infrared, visual), multiple trained military observers, and official government acknowledgment — meeting an evidentiary standard unprecedented in UAP research.

1. VERIFIED CLAIMS (Tier 1 — Peer-Reviewed / Documentary Record)

1.1 The Radar Detections — USS Princeton (SPY-1B)

• USS Princeton (CG-59), a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser equipped with the Aegis Combat System and AN/SPY-1B phased-array radar — the most capable naval air-defense radar system in the world at the time — detected anomalous contacts beginning approximately November 10, 2004, during Carrier Strike Group Eleven pre-deployment exercises off the coast of Southern California.
• Senior Chief Operations Specialist Kevin Day, the Princeton's Combat Information Center (CIC) air-intercept controller, has publicly testified that the radar repeatedly detected groups of 5–10 objects:
• Appearing at altitudes of 80,000+ feet (above the operational ceiling of any known aircraft)
• Descending to near sea level in a matter of seconds (implying descent rates of thousands of feet per second)
• Hovering near the ocean surface
• Departing at speeds exceeding Mach 2 without any transponder, flight plan, or IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) response
• Day reported these contacts to his chain of command over several days. The contacts were initially suspected to be a radar malfunction — but the SPY-1B system was recalibrated and the contacts persisted.
• The objects appeared to be traveling with the carrier strike group, matching its course — an unusual behavior pattern.

1.2 The Visual Encounter — Commander David Fravor

• On November 14, 2004, Commander David Fravor (CO of VFA-41 "Black Aces," F/A-18F pilot with 18+ years of naval aviation experience and 3,500+ flight hours) and his wingman Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich were directed by the Princeton to investigate one of the contacts at a position approximately 60 miles west.
• Fravor's testimony (consistent across multiple interviews from 2017 to present):
• Arriving at the designated coordinates, both aircraft observed a disturbance on the ocean surface — a cross-shaped area of churning whitewater (as if "something large was just below the surface") in otherwise calm seas.
• Hovering above this disturbance was a white, oblong, featureless object approximately 40 feet long — "like a Tic-Tac" or "like a white 747 fuselage with no wings, no windows, no control surfaces, no visible means of propulsion."
• The object moved erratically, "like a ping-pong ball in a glass," above the water disturbance.
• Fravor descended to engage/intercept. As he spiraled down, the object ascended toward him, "mirroring" his descent — the two were spiraling in opposite directions like "two fighters in a merge."
• At approximately the midpoint of their spiral, the object accelerated away to the south and "disappeared in less than two seconds." Fravor estimates the object covered 60+ miles in that time — implying speeds vastly exceeding the capabilities of any known aircraft.
• Within seconds, the Princeton's CIC reported the object had appeared on radar at the CAP point — the carrier group's predetermined combat air patrol rendezvous coordinates — approximately 60 miles away. This was a coordinate known only to the strike group, not publicly broadcast.
• Alex Dietrich (wingman, in a separate aircraft above Fravor during the encounter) has independently corroborated Fravor's account in public interviews (2021), confirming the visual observation and the object's departure speed.

1.3 The FLIR1 Video

• After Fravor's flight landed, a subsequent sortie was launched from VFA-41. Lieutenant Chad Underwood (weapons systems officer) captured the object on his F/A-18F's AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR (Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared) pod — producing the video known as FLIR1.
• FLIR1 video characteristics:
• Shows an oblong heat source (white-hot against cool sky background in IR) moving laterally
• Object exhibits no visible exhaust plume — inconsistent with jet or rocket propulsion
• Object appears to rotate around its longitudinal axis during flight
• The object accelerates to the left and exits the FLIR pod's field of view — the pod loses lock
• The US Department of Defense officially confirmed FLIR1's authenticity in September 2019 (initially released by To The Stars Academy in December 2017). In April 2020, the Pentagon officially released FLIR1 along with two other UAP videos (GIMBAL and GOFAST), stating they were "unclassified" and their release "does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems."
• Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks confirmed the videos' authenticity as part of broader UAP transparency efforts in 2021.

1.4 Multi-Sensor Corroboration

• The Nimitz case is distinguished by multiple independent sensor systems observing the same object:
• AN/SPY-1B radar (USS Princeton) — tracked contacts over two weeks
• AN/APG-73 radar (F/A-18 onboard radar) — Princeton CIC vectored pilots to contact; Fravor has stated his radar also detected the object
• ATFLIR infrared (F/A-18 targeting pod) — FLIR1 video
• Visual observation — Fravor, Dietrich, and their respective WSOs (4 aircrew total in 2 aircraft)
• E-2C Hawkeye — the Carrier Airborne Early Warning aircraft from VAW-117 also had contact information; the E-2C crew has been less publicly vocal but has not contradicted the accounts
• The convergence of radar, infrared, and visual data on the same object eliminates many conventional explanations (hallucination, camera artifact, single-sensor malfunction).

1.5 Official Pentagon Acknowledgment

• The Nimitz encounter was investigated by AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, 2007–2012) under the direction of Luis Elizondo at the Pentagon. The AATIP study concluded the object demonstrated capabilities beyond known human technology.
• In April 2020, the DoD officially released the FLIR1 video (along with GIMBAL and GOFAST) as confirmed UAP incidents.
• In June 2021, the UAPTF (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force) preliminary assessment to Congress listed the Nimitz case as one of 144 incidents that "appear to demonstrate advanced technology" — specifically highlighting objects that "appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion."
• AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, successor to UAPTF) has included the Nimitz case in its ongoing review.

2. CREDIBLE CLAIMS (Tier 2 — Academic / Debated but Supported)

2.1 Performance Characteristics — "Five Observables"

• The Nimitz encounter exhibits several of the "Five Observables" framework developed by AATIP to characterize UAP performance:

1. Anti-gravity lift: The object hovered without wings, rotors, or visible propulsion
2. Sudden and instantaneous acceleration: From hover to hypersonic-equivalent speeds in seconds
3. Hypersonic velocities without signatures: No sonic boom, no heat signature consistent with friction or propulsion exhaust
4. Low observability (selective): The object was visible on some sensors at some times but not always — suggesting either variable observability or sensor limitations
5. Trans-medium travel: The ocean surface disturbance and possible submersion suggested capability in both air and water domains

• These observables, if accurately described, exceed known human aerospace technology by several orders of magnitude. The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) published a detailed technical analysis (2019) calculating the g-forces implied by Fravor's description of the acceleration — reaching hundreds of g, far beyond human or known material tolerances.

2.2 The Ocean Disturbance

• Both Fravor and Dietrich observed a large area of churning water (described as a "cross-shaped" disturbance approximately the size of a 737 aircraft) beneath the hovering object. When the Tic-Tac departed, the ocean disturbance also disappeared.
• Possible explanations: a large submerged object, an underwater disturbance caused by the hovering object's propulsion, or a coincidental oceanic phenomenon (submarine surfacing, whale activity, etc.).
• No submarine was known to be in the area during the exercise. The coincidence of the disturbance directly below the aerial object, and its disappearance upon the object's departure, argues against an unrelated cause.

2.3 The Pre-Encounter Radar History (Two Weeks)

• Kevin Day's testimony about radar contacts over the two weeks preceding November 14 suggests the UAP presence was not a single event but an extended period of activity coinciding with the carrier strike group's exercise schedule.
• Day has noted that the objects appeared to be "coming from" the direction of Guadalupe Island (Mexico), descending from extreme altitude. The persistence of the contacts across multiple days and their movement pattern (tracking with the strike group) elevates the case from a single anomalous observation to a sustained engagement.

3. SPECULATIVE CLAIMS (Tier 3 — Possible but Unverified)

3.1 Data Confiscation

• Multiple Nimitz personnel — including Kevin Day and former Princeton crew members — have alleged that within days of the encounter, unidentified individuals (described as arriving by helicopter, not part of the normal chain of command) visited the Princeton and confiscated the ship's radar data tapes (AEGIS CEC recordings) and other recorded evidence.
• Fravor has stated that when he returned from his flight, the data from his aircraft had already been collected. Other pilots have reported that they were told the event "didn't happen."
• These claims, if true, suggest an organized effort to control information about the encounter. However, evidence of such data collection comes exclusively from witness testimony — no documentary proof of data confiscation orders has been produced. Routine data collection after unusual events is also a plausible alternative explanation.

3.2 Connection to Undersea Objects

• The ocean surface disturbance has fueled speculation about a connected underwater object or "USO" (Unidentified Submerged Object). Some analysts have linked this to the broader pattern of trans-medium UAP reports — objects transitioning between air and water without apparent difficulty.
• Sonar data from the USS Princeton or nearby submarines, if it exists, has not been publicly released. Without such data, the underwater component remains speculative.

4. DUBIOUS CLAIMS (Tier 4 — No Credible Source / Contradicted by Evidence)

4.1 "It Was a Balloon or Drone"

• Attempts to identify the Tic-Tac as a weather balloon, surveillance drone, or other conventional object fail to account for the observed performance characteristics: hovering, instantaneous acceleration to hypersonic-equivalent speeds, mirroring of pilot maneuvers, and transit of 60 miles in under a minute. No known drone or balloon in 2004 (or 2026) can replicate these capabilities. [DEBUNKED for conventional explanations]

4.2 "The Pilots Were Confused"

• Claims that Fravor, Dietrich, and other trained naval aviators misidentified a mundane object underestimate the witnesses' qualifications: Fravor had 18 years of flight experience including combat deployments; Dietrich is now an instructor at the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (NAWDC, formerly TOPGUN). These are among the most highly trained observers in the world for identifying aerial objects. Additionally, the radar and FLIR corroboration eliminates pilot misperception as a standalone explanation. DEBUNKED

Counter-Arguments & Criticisms

Mainstream Skeptical Counterpoints

• Mick West (skeptical investigator) has proposed that the FLIR1 video shows a distant aircraft (possibly a commercial jet) and that the apparent rotation and departure are artifacts of the FLIR pod losing lock and the jet's glare pattern. His analysis focuses on the video alone, arguing the IR signature is consistent with jet exhaust viewed from behind.
• Counter-response: West's analysis is limited to the video and does not account for the visual observation by Fravor and Dietrich, the Princeton's radar data, or the two-week pattern of contacts. The video is one piece of evidence in a multi-sensor, multi-witness case.
• Secret US technology: The possibility that the Tic-Tac was a classified US military project (testing against carrier groups to evaluate adversary detection capabilities) has been raised. Fravor has noted that testing secret aircraft against an active carrier group without safety coordination would be recklessly dangerous and potentially criminal under military flight safety regulations.
• Sensor anomalies: Some analysts have suggested the SPY-1B contacts could have been radar artifacts (ducting, anomalous propagation). However, the contacts persisted after system recalibration, appeared on multiple independent sensor systems, and were confirmed visually.

Research Gaps & Open Questions

1. Where are the original Aegis radar recordings from the USS Princeton? Were they truly confiscated, and if so, by whom and under what authority?
2. Were any satellite intelligence assets (NRO, NGIA) tasked to the area during the encounter period?
3. Can the E-2C Hawkeye crew's observations be formally documented and compared with Princeton and F/A-18 observations?
4. What does the complete, unedited FLIR1 video show? (The released version is understood to be a subset of a longer recording.)
5. Were sonar contacts recorded by the USS Princeton or any submarine in the group?

IMAGES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. US Department of Defense (corp.) | 2020 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Official release of FLIR1 (Nimitz), GIMBAL, and GOFAST UAP videos, April 27, 2020. [Primary source] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
2. UAPTF (corp.) | 2021 | ∅ | Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena | ∅ | ∅ | Office of the Director of National Intelligence, June 25, 2021. [Official government UAP assessment] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
3. Kean, L. . | 2010 | ∅ | UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record | ∅ | ∅ | Harmony Books | ∅ | doi:10.5860/choice.48-3252, isbn:9781441776198 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
4. Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) | 2019 | ∅ | A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle | ∅ | ∅ | SCU Technical Report | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
5. Fravor, D. | 2017 | ∅ | Fighter Pilot Podcast | ∅ | ∅ | Interview with , hosted by Jell-O and Mover, episode 32. [First-person detailed account] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
6. Fravor, D. | 2019 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Testimony to Joe Rogan Experience, episode #1361. [Extended interview with detailed technical description] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
7. Dietrich, A. | 2021 | ∅ | 60 Minutes | ∅ | ∅ | Interview with , CBS News, May 16, 2021. [Corroborating wingman testimony] | ∅ | doi:10.3886/icpsr33964.v1, isbn:078797353X | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
8. Kean, L.; Blumenthal, R. . , December 16, 2017 | 2017 | "Glowing Auras and 'Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program" | New York Times | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | isbn:0060107901 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
9. Elizondo, L. ( present) | 2017 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Multiple interviews regarding AATIP findings and the Nimitz case | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
10. Day, K. | 2019 | ∅ | The Nimitz Encounters | ∅ | ∅ | Interview with documentary . [Primary witness Princeton CIC] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
11. Underwood, C. | 2019 | ∅ | The Nimitz Encounters | ∅ | ∅ | Interview with documentary . [FLIR1 camera operator] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
12. Hicks, K. | 2021 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum establishing AOIMSG, November 23, 2021 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
13. West, M. | 2018 | "Analysis of the 'Tic Tac' FLIR1 Video" | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Metabunk.org. [Skeptical analysis] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
14. Knuth, K.H. . , 21(10), 939. [Peer-reviewed physics analysis of UAP kinematics] | 2019 | "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles" | Entropy | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | doi:10.3390/e21100939 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
15. Lacatski, J., Kelleher, C.A.; Knapp, G. . | 2021 | ∅ | Skinwalkers at the Pentagon: An Insiders' Account of the Secret Government UFO Program | ∅ | ∅ | RTMA, LLC | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
16. Dolan, R.M. | 2020 | "The Nimitz Encounter: Anatomy of the Most Important UFO Case in History" | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Article and lecture series | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
17. Powell, R., Reali, P. et al | 2019 | "The Nimitz Carrier Group Radar-Visual-FLIR-Encounter of November 2004" | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | SCU Extended Analysis | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
18. US Navy | 2019 | "unidentified aerial phenomena" | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Formal statement confirming FLIR1, GIMBAL, and GOFAST as September 2019 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
19. House Select Committee on Intelligence | 2022 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Public hearing on UAP, May 17, 2022. [Congressional testimony referencing Nimitz case] | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
20. Mellon, C. . , March 9, 2018 | 2018 | "The Military Keeps Encountering UFOs. Why Doesn't the Pentagon Care?" | The Washington Post | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅

CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX

Consolidated from 20 scholarly sources. Last Updated: Mar 07, 2026

<table border="1" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 2px solid #888; margin-top: 2em; background: #fafafa;">

<tr><td>

⚠️ AI-Assisted Research Disclaimer

This document was generated and structured with the assistance of AI tools.

While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, AI-assisted content may

contain errors, misattributions, or unintended inaccuracies. **Always

verify claims, dates, and sources independently** before citing or relying

on any information presented here.

• Sources may contain errors. Bibliography entries and cross-references

are checked by automated systems, but mistakes can occur. If something

looks wrong, it may be.

• Speculative and unverified claims are clearly labeled. This project

uses a four-tier evidence system:

• Tier 1 — Verified: Peer-reviewed, established scientific consensus.
• Tier 2 — Credible: Academically supported, debated but grounded.
• Tier 3 — Speculative: Plausible but unverified by mainstream science.
• Tier 4 — Dubious: No credible support or contradicted by evidence.
• This project maps multiple perspectives — not a single truth. Mainstream,

alternative, and skeptical viewpoints are presented side by side for

critical comparison, not endorsement. Inclusion does not imply agreement.

• We are actively improving. Source verification, factuality scoring,

and bibliography enrichment are ongoing. Each revision adds stronger

citations, corrects identified errors, and expands coverage.

📖 For full details on our verification methodology, scoring systems, and

quality metrics, see: Fact-Checking & Verification Systems

Think Openly. Check the sources. Draw your own conclusions.

</td></tr>

</table>