A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle

Summary

A comprehensive forensic report produced by the Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) analyzing the November 14, 2004 ‘Tic-Tac’ UFO/AAV encounter by the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group Eleven (USS Nimitz and USS Princeton). Drawing from eyewitness pilot and radar operator testimonies, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses, and ATFLIR video telemetry, the study models the physical kinematics of the vehicle and demonstrates accelerations ranging from 40 g to over 12,000 g and power requirements in the gigawatts to terawatts range, concluding the object’s performance is beyond any known human technology.

Title Page

A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle

SCU Scientific Coalition for Ufology Scientific Inquiry of UFOs, USOs and UAPs

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND RESULTING CONCLUSIONS BY THE SCIENTIFIC COALITION FOR UFOLOGY

Table of Contents

I. Abstract p.1 II. Introduction p.1 – p.2 III. Data p.2 – p.15 IV. Analysis p.15 – p.17 V. Discussion p.17 – p.18 VI. Conclusion p.19 VII. Acknowledgements p.19 VIII. References p.20 – p.21 VIII. Appendices (A) Glossary p.22 – p.27 (B) FOIA Requests and Replies p.28 – p.93 (C) Documents Referenced p.94 – p.151 (D) Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) p.152 – p.155 (E) Video Provenance p.156 – p.159 (F) Background Information on Carrier Strike Group Eleven p.160 – p.165 (G) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Radar Observations p.166 – p.175 (H) Calculations of Size, Distance, & Angular Size p.176 – p.177 ( I ) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Blind Point Distance p.178 – p.194 (J) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on FLIR Video p.195 – p.225 (K) A Video Analysis p.226 – p.246 (L) Witness and Associated Information p.247 – p.268

Main Text: Abstract & Section 1 Introduction

SCU Manuscript

A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven’s Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle

Robert Powell1,*, Peter Reali1, Tim Thompson1, Morgan Beall1, Doug Kimzey1, Larry Cates1, and Richard Hoffman1

1Scientific Coalition for Ufology, Town Lake Dr., Ste A, #173, Fort Myers, Florida *Corresponding author: Robert Powell, [email protected]

ABSTRACT On November 14th of 2004, the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG 11), including the USS Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and the USS Princeton missile cruiser, were conducting a training exercise off the coast of southern California when the Navy’s radar systems detected as many as 20 anomalous aerial vehicles (AAV). These AAVs were deemed a safety hazard to an upcoming air exercise and the Captain of the USS Princeton ordered an interception with two F/A-18F Navy jets. This paper examines the publicly available subset of these data: Eyewitness information from the pilots and radar operators; Freedom of Information Act releases of four navy documents; and a Defense Intelligence Agency released video taken by an F/A-18F jet using an AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR). Analytical calculations based on radar notes, testimony from the pilots, and the ATFLIR video are used to derive the velocity, acceleration and estimated power demonstrated by the AAV maneuvers. Calculated AAV accelerations ranged from 40 g-forces to hundreds of g-forces and estimated power based on a weight of one ton ranged from one to nine gigawatts. None of the navy witnesses reported having ever previously seen military or civilian vehicles with these maneuvering abilities. Manned aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 are limited to nine g-forces27 and the F-35 has maintained structural integrity up to 13.5 g-forces.28 Our results suggest that given the available information the AAV’s capabilities are beyond any known technology. The public release of all navy records associated with this incident to enable a full, scientific and open investigation is strongly recommended.

1 Introduction Military reports of aerial objects that appear to be intelligently controlled and with aerodynamic capabilities surpassing any known aircraft are littered throughout our military history beginning with the Second World War. Investigations of these incidents have been initiated by the U.S. Air Force several times, with Project Blue Book (1953-1969) being the most well-known. The conclusions drawn by the Air Force have been that these objects pose no threat to our national security and that any continued study by the Air Force would not promote any increase in scientific knowledge.1 Nonetheless, military reports of sightings of these objects continues to this day as does the investigation of such incidences by the military.2

Main Text: Section 1 Introduction (cont.) & Section 2 Supporting Data and Limitations

The event involving CSG 11 is one of several well-documented AAV incidents that include military radar data. One of the earliest well documented incidents involved an Air Force airborne early warning aircraft, an RB-47, in July 1957. The jet was equipped with electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear and manned by six officers. The aircraft was followed for over 700 miles by an intensely luminous light that was seen by the cockpit crew and detected on ECM monitoring gear and by ground-radar.3 Seven years later in November of 1964 a Navy exercise involving the destroyer USS Gyatt off the coast of Puerto Rico detected unknowns on radar for a period of three days. An F-8 jet attempted to intercept the unknown and made both visual and radar contact with a delta shaped craft. The craft accelerated away from the F-8 and was detected by the Gyatt radar at speeds up to 1,500 knots. Photographic copies of the Navy radar screen were captured and provided to the Air Force.4 One of the best documented cases occurred at an ICBM site four years later: Minot AFB, North Dakota, on October 24, 1968. This incident involved 16 Air Force witnesses on the ground and the seven-man crew of a B-52 bomber that witnessed the object from the air. The object was detected on both ground radar and the B-52’s radar. Photographs of the radar screens were kept and an extensive interview of all the Air Force officers in the B-52 and enlisted men on the ground was conducted.4,5 The Air Force Project Blue Book file concluded that perhaps the cause was a combination of the stars Sirius, Vega, and some sort of plasma. Forty years later, on January 8, 2008, the first case with extensive civilian radar coverage from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) occurred. Over 20 witnesses saw unidentified lights over a four hour period that covered two counties in north central Texas. The raw digital data from five different radar sites was obtained from the FAA. The information provided showed that the radar detected F-16s on a training mission that night as well as an object in the same location and time as described by the local constable. The constable described an object to the south of his home that was stationary to slow moving and then suddenly moved to the northeast at a very high rate of speed. The radar showed a slow moving object to the south of the constable’s home that suddenly accelerated to the northeast at over 1,900 mph.6 Five years later, on April 25, 2013, in the same area as the 1964 Gyatt incident, a Homeland Security patrol aircraft took Infrared (IR) video of an unknown object that approached Puerto Rico from the northwest at night. The object was about four to five feet in length and was traveling just above treetop height during the night at around 80 mph. The strangest portion of the video was when the object entered the ocean with little to no impact, no change in speed, traveled underwater for a few seconds, and upon exiting the water it split into two equally sized objects as the original (Powell et al., 2015).7

The event involving Carrier Strike Group Eleven is similar to these other cases because of the existence of electronic data and it involved the military. This case was chosen for analysis because of the quality and number of witnesses involved, the extended period of time the object was sighted over different locations and time periods, the availability of radar data, and the existence of an IR video. This forms the motivation for our report.

2 Supporting Data and Limitations 2.1 Witnesses The strength of this report lies predominantly in the quality and quantity of military witnesses. There are five primary witnesses, four of whom have been interviewed by our team, twenty secondary witnesses that have made public statements in various forums, and four anonymous witnesses whose statements support those of the other witnesses. All of the witnesses are service men and women either in the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Marines. Their ranks vary from Junior Seamen to Commanders and Lieutenant Colonels. Audios of the interviews that were conducted by the authors of this report have been made available on the SCU website at: http://www.explorescu.org/. The recordings have been screened for any personal information. Any information taken from interviews made by news people or others are so noted in this paper. Details on all primary witnesses (defined as direct witnesses to the event that have been willing to be interviewed), secondary witnesses (defined as witnesses who have provided information but have not been willing to be interviewed), and anonymous witnesses (defined as witnesses wishing to protect their identity and whose testimony has been cross referenced for accuracy by the authors of this report) can be found in Appendix L.

The testimonies that have been provided are of an event that occurred 14 years ago. It is expected that memories change over time and that witness testimonies will differ. Furthermore, once testimonies become public then they can contaminate other witness’s memories of an event. The authors of this report have taken this into consideration by examining when statements were made and have sought to determine the facts that lie in congruence across the memories of multiple witnesses.

The authors weighted the testimony based on experience of the witnesses. The Commander of the F/A-18 squadron and his Lieutenant Commander, both graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy, were considered the most reliable witnesses based on their rank, experience, and their matter-of-fact statements during our interviews and in past testimony. The next most valuable witness was the Senior Chief who was responsible for the radar operators aboard the USS Princeton. Appendix L provides the background and qualifications of all the primary witnesses used in this paper.

The authors believe the testimonies and electronic evidence are sufficient to establish that the event occurred and that the object encountered displayed properties unexplainable within our current understanding of physics. It should be noted that although this case has recently been made famous in the public media, much of the research in this paper was conducted prior to the New York Times media release of December 17, 2017.

2.2 Freedom of Information Act Requests and Other Documents A total of 26 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and appeals were made to the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, NORAD, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to obtain information on the event that involved Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG 11). Requests were made for radar data, written logs, communication logs, videos, and intelligence reports. The amount of written information received was limited. Not a single government document was received that indicated this event ever occurred although a string of emails was provided that indicated several Marine officers aboard the USS Nimitz were aware of the event and an indication that information on the event should be available in Navy archives. The full documents are in Appendix B. Marine Lieutenant Colonel Robert A. Tomlinson stated in an email released by FOIA and redacted by the Navy on March 7, 2017: “I am definitely aware of the flying tic tac! We were aboard the USS Nimitz attached to CVW-11. The CO of VFA-41, CDR Fravor had the video footage on his ATFLIR and several pilots in VMFA-232 saw the video. I personally did not see the video, but I heard all about it. I believe our CO at the time, Lt Col Kurth (retired) observed the tic tac, and I believe Lt Col [redacted], Lt Col [redacted] (retired), Lt Col [redacted] (retired), and several others also observed the video footage. Another good reference might be current Rear Admiral Dell Bull as he was the VFA-41 Executive Officer at the time.”

A deck log for the USS Nimitz was received that helped corroborate the location of the exercise as stated by the various witnesses. Detailed information on the specific FOIA requests and the replies received are available in Appendix B.

The other documents referenced in this paper are of two types. One type includes compilations of witness testimonies based on interviews made by the authors from January 2018 to April 2018 and compilations of witness testimonies from interviews made by various media sources from February 2018 to June 2018. The second type are documents that have been used to assist with building a timeline of events. These documents have been cross referenced against each other and against witness testimonies for accuracy of information. In Appendix C each document is supplied and is discussed in relation to its origin and accuracy.

2.3 ATFLIR AN/ASQ-228 Thermal Imaging Camera A pod mounted, AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR), camera took a 76-second video of an AAV two hours after an AAV was engaged by a separate F/A-18F piloted by Commander (CDR) Fravor. A copy of this video can be viewed at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/nimitz_strike_group_2004. CDR Fravor and LCDR Slaight, commanders of the two jets involved in the engagement, agreed that the object that was filmed two hours after their engagement was the same type of object they had engaged.8,9 While most technical specifications for the ATFLIR camera are still highly classified, some broad outlines of its capability are available. Publicly available information reveals that the AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) is a multi-sensor, electro-optical targeting pod incorporating an infrared camera, a low-light television camera, a target laser rangefinder/laser designator, and a laser spot tracker developed and manufactured by Raytheon. It is used to provide navigation and targeting for military aircraft in adverse weather conditions using precision-guided munitions such as laser-guided bombs. More detailed information on this system is available in Appendix D as well as help in reading the outputs on the video display.

2.4 Data Limitations The limitations in witness testimony and available documents have been discussed in 2.1 and 2.2. The other limitation to analysis is in the available military data. According to the New York Times this IR video was released to them by the government.2 Most of the witnesses have stated that the video released is of lower quality, shorter duration, and some of the information such as latitude and longitude have been removed.8-12 Detailed information on the provenance of the video is available in Appendix E. Other important data that would have been collected (radar data, electromagnetic (EM) data, and intelligence reports) by the Navy’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) could provide information such as speed, acceleration, maneuvers, and size of the AAV. It is believed this information may exist based on military witnesses who have indicated that representatives of a U.S. government agency took control of the data that was on the USS Princeton. (This is discussed in section 2.5.) FOIA requests to the Navy for this information were met with replies that the information did not exist. Background information on the CSG and its data collection capabilities is detailed in Appendix F.

An exceptional amount of detailed analysis could be done with access to the radar and EM data taken by CSG 11. Unlike conventional radar, the USS Princeton’s SPY-1 radar system does not rotate to send out radar pulses but instead sends out continuous pulses in all directions and pulses as short as 6.5 microseconds. It consists of a large array of small solid state radiating transmitter/receiver elements that can send EMF waves at different phase delays to focus and direct the radar beam without the traditional mechanical rotation of an antenna. The same elements can then be used as receivers of the reflected signals. This is known as a synthetic aperture phased array radar. With the information this system provides, the exact size, speed and acceleration of the object in question could be determined as well as its maneuverability. With multiple radar frequencies used by the various ship and planes, it might also be possible to identify the materials making up the AAV based on their absorption characteristics in the 3-6 GHz range. There may have also been valuable information that was garnered from any EM emissions detected by CSG 11.

One method to help obtain this information is if there is a sufficient groundswell of public opinion to cause Congress to request release of information from the military and intelligence agencies.

Despite the limitations placed on available information, we have been able to develop a strong case that the F/A-18 engagement that occurred on November 14, 2004 was with an aerial device intelligently controlled, either directly or remotely, and performing maneuvers well beyond the capabilities of any technology in the public domain or in the military witness’ experiences.

Main Text: Section 2.5 Chronological Occurance of Events (Nov 10-14, 2004)

2.5 Chronological Occurance of Events We have broken the event into a seven different periods of time and some of those times have multiple witness locations. This section will follow the timeline, with descriptions of the relevant witness(s) and their perspective of the events.

Nov.10-13, 2004: Pre-event Information The incident analyzed in this paper began on November 10, 2004, and involved Carrier Strike Group Eleven led by the USS Nimitz. The strike group was conducting a COMPTUEX (Composite Training Unit Exercise) varying in distance from 50-120 miles south-southwest to southwest of San Diego. The assets in the strike group that were known to be involved in the event were the USS Nimitz, USS Princeton, VMFA-232 (Marine F/A-18C “Hornets”), VFA-41 (Navy F/A-18F “Super Hornets”), and VAW-117 (E-2 Hawkeye early warning aircraft).10,13

The key asset in the group was the USS Princeton whose role was air defense protection for the strike group. It had the best radar and best situational awareness of all aerial objects and it was the unit that would direct aircraft to a target. Its Captain was James L.T. “Red” Smith.10,14

The major event occurred on November 14, but for several days prior to that date AAVs (Anomalous Aerial Vehicles—the Navy’s term for a UFO at the time; these terms are often used interchangeably by Navy personnel) would appear on radar in waves of 8-20 AAVs. There were multiple witnesses to this including the Operations Specialist Senior Chief Kevin Day who was over radar, the Fire Controlman Senior Chief, and the Fire Controlman Petty Officer Gary Voorhis.10,11,15 The AAVs were first noticed over the Catalina Islands and traveled south at 80,000+ feet at about 100 knots.

The Senior Chief as well as the Fire Controlman Petty Officer, Gary Voorhis, responsible for the CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) checked the radar systems for the possibility of false returns. They re-calibrated systems, checked with other vessels and found no indication of errors. The USS Nimitz also detected the unknowns as did a E-2 Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft equipped with the AN/APS-145 radar system.10,13,15,16 The knowledge of these radar detections of AAVs was prevalent among many of the crew of the USS Nimitz and the USS Princeton. Despite this, no actions were initially taken as the AAVs did not appear to be a threat.

November 14, 2004, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. local time: Decision to Intercept The late morning of November 14, 2004 consisted of clear skies, no wind, and very calm water in the area of Carrier Strike Group 11.8,15,18,19 The Nimitz Deck Log indicates the ship was located at 31º12.3’N 117º52.2’W at 1130 hours local time. This matches well with the CVW-11 Event Summary document (see Appendix C) that shows the USS Nimitz located at 31º29.3’N 117º52.8’W at 1410 hours.20 The USS Princeton was nearby while the USS Higgins was docked in San Diego and the USS Chafee was 1/3 of the way back on its journey from Pearl Harbor to the Southern California Operating Area.21,22 The location of the nuclear attack submarine, USS Louisville, is not known for the time period of November 10-14.

Sometime in the late morning Senior Chief Day estimated he saw 14 AAVs show up on Princeton’s SPY-1 radar again. They were the highest track quality rating on the system and were spread out uniformly across about 100 miles.10 The AAVs were also picked up by the Nimitz.10,16 An airborne early warning aircraft from VAW-117 was able to detect the nearest AAV with their radar once they tightened their radar beam on the coordinates provided by the USS Princeton.10,13,15 All of the radar data from these varied sources were combined by the CEC system and integrated into one picture. The varied radar sources from different locations, different angular lines of transmission, and different operating frequencies made it highly unlikely that the targets being tracked by CSG 11 were atmospheric inversions or other false reflections that might fool a single radar system.

Senior Chief Day was concerned and the following paraphrasing of his testimony explains why. The AAVs, originally at 80,000+ feet, were observed to descend in as little as 0.78 second to various altitudes from 28,000 feet to as low as just 50 feet or less above the ocean surface.10,11,15 (See Appendix G for estimated speed, acceleration, and g-force calculations.) In only a few hours an air defense exercise was scheduled to commence which would involve the launch of as many as 30 aircraft from the USS Nimitz as well as from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego. The AAVs, at the very least, would be a hazard to air navigation at these lower altitudes. When Captain Smith came down to the Combat Information Center (CIC), Senior Chief Day briefed him on the radar contacts and recommended that the closest target be intercepted. The Captain agreed and authorized the interception.10 The USS Princeton took control of the intercepting aircraft from the E-2 Hawkeye since its CEC system provided the best radar track of the AAVs.10,13,15

Approximately 2 p.m.: Lt Colonel Douglas Kurt First Jet to Investigate The time was now roughly 1400 hrs. (This is supported by the Nimitz Deck Log which showed planes that departed at 1332 hrs, the CVW-11 Event Summary, and CDR Fravor’s own recollection.)17,20,23 Lt. Colonel Douglas Kurth’s F/A-18C “Hornet” had departed the USS Nimitz at about 1110 hrs to complete a post-maintenance check flight.13,17 Although his fuel level was low, he was not far away so his was the first aircraft directed by Operations Specialist Don Oktabinski of the USS Princeton to intercept the AAV. Kurth, who was the Commanding Officer of Marine Hornet squadron VMFA-232, was asked a strange question by the Princeton. He was asked if he had ordinance on board. He replied, “None.” He was the first to reach the target displayed on Princeton’s radar. The exact location of that target is not known for certain but it was within 60 miles of the Nimitz and was southwest of the ship. As the Commander neared the radar-vectored location of the AAV, Princeton advised him to abort his instructions, as “Super Hornets” from VFA-41 were approaching the target. Kurth’s radar picked up the two approaching F/A-18Fs but no other contacts. Before departing Kurth saw a disturbance on the calm and glassy ocean surface. He described it as a circular area that was 50-100 meters in size and had the appearance of “white water” similar to what a sinking ship might create.13,15

2:10 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.: CDR David Fravor and LCDR Jim Slaight Encounter the AAV VFA-41 Squadron Commanding Officer Dave Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Jim Slaight were the “First Cycle” launched at 1332 hours17 for the air defense exercise conducted in an area spread 80-150 miles SSW of San Diego, California. They were flying F/A-18F “Super Hornets” and their call signs were “FastEagle01” and “FastEagle02.” Both planes had a pilot and a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) aboard. LCDR Slaight, call sign “Clean”, was the WSO and his plane was acting as the wingman for CDR Fravor. The wingman was the “mutual support” protector of the lead plane. LCDR Slaight was also one of the department heads within the VFA-41 Squadron at the time of the event. The pilot of Slaight’s plane was a junior officer. Both CDR Fravor and LCDR Slaight have kept confidential the names of the other pilots.8,9,24

CDR Fravor and his wingman were headed to their Hold Point, also known as their Combat Air Patrol (CAP) coordinates where they would conduct training exercises. The CAP coordinates consist of four predetermined latitude, longitude, altitude points where fighter aircraft station themselves to protect an asset, in this case the Carrier Strike Group. The CAP coordinates were only known to the pilots and those on board ship with a need to know. This understanding of CAP coordinates will become important later in the discussion.8,9,15,23

About 30 minutes after takeoff, “FastEagle01” and “FastEagle02” were contacted by the USS Princeton and told they were being redirected to a “real world situation;” a radar target that was not part of the exercise. They were ordered to a heading of 270 degrees (due west) at a range of about 60 miles and were given intercept coordinates at 20,000 feet. They proceeded with their APG-73 radar set to an envelope extending 20 miles in all directions.8 They also received the same question as Commander Kurth. Did they have ordinance on board? They gave a negative response. They only had practice missiles that could not be launched.8,23,24 (It is not known if this incident caused the air defense exercise to be canceled for the day. David Fravor and Kevin Day indicated that it was, while the leaked Navy Event Document tends to indicate that it was only delayed.)

Main Text: Section 2.5 Chronological Occurance of Events (The Encounter & Missing Data)

Approximately 60-80 miles southwest of the Nimitz, the intercept coordinate was achieved and Princeton showed they had merged with the target on radar in what is known as a “merge-plot.” This is the point in space where two targets are so close together at a given range that the radar system cannot distinguish them from each other.8,10,24 When asked the distance between two targets that would result in a “merge-plot” Senior Chief Day, responsible for radar, properly declined to give a detailed answer as that could be considered confidential military information. He indicated that it was some value less than a mile.10 (Based on experience analyzing FAA radar, one of the authors of this report knows that FAA radar cannot distinguish targets at 50-70 miles distance that are separated by less than ½ mile. The SPY-1 radar is far superior to FAA radar. We suspect that the “FastEagles” were within ½ mile of their target when the “merge-plot” occurred on radar.)

Although the Princeton indicated that the “FastEagles” were at the same location as the aerial target, nothing was seen on radar by the “FastEagles” so the pilots began to visually scan the area.8,9 LCDR Slaight indicated that his jet was equipped with APG-73 radar and although he could not detect the target, he stated that he had no indication from his radar that his system was being “electronically jammed.”15,24 The Princeton did not detect any jamming either. Senior Chief Day stated that the ship had an electronic warfare sweep operator and that no jamming or any other electronic signals were coming from the AAV. The Chief stated that if the F/A-18Fs were being jammed then the only way the Princeton would not have detected the jamming would have been if a narrow beam was directed only against the planes.10

Looking down, Fravor and Slaight saw a disturbance in the water. They did not know the cause. Fravor thought possibly a downed aircraft as he estimated that the disturbance might be caused by an object about the size of a 737 (about 120 feet in length) roughly 10-15 feet under the surface of the ocean and causing a disturbance of the calm water above it as the water broke over the object.8,24 LCDR Slaight thought the disturbance in the water with the frothing and bubbling on the surface might be a submarine but this was later dismissed after determining that there were no submarines in their immediate area at that time. This was verified during LCDR Slaight’s debriefing by the ship’s Intelligence Officer following his return to the USS Nimitz.24 Details on the ocean surface would have been apparent to the pilots in the two “FastEagles.” A 120 ft object at 20,000 ft distance would be 0.34 degrees in size or slightly smaller than a full moon. (See Appendix H for calculations related to angular size, distance, and actual size.) Witness testimonies referring to sonar contacts of any underwater objects were negative with one exception. Petty Officer Gary Voorhis in the CEC indicated that an underwater object was tracked at 500 knots. No additional confirmation confirming sonar contacts has been obtained.11

As the “FastEagles” continued to observe the water disturbance from an altitude of 20,000 feet, all four pilots saw an additional anomaly. CDR Fravor described a white “Tic-Tac” shaped object, with perhaps two small appendages hanging below its belly, moving just above the water disturbance. The object had no wings or exhaust and its movement had no observable effect on the calm ocean surface such as that of a rotor wash from a helicopter. CDR Fravor estimated the object to be 50 feet above the water and he described its movement as follows: “It’s almost like a ping pong ball. So when it goes right it can stop instantly, and it goes back left, it goes straight forward, it is randomly moving around, very erratic.” (See Figure 1.) Fravor’s estimate of the object’s distance from the water was based on experience and his estimate of the object’s size. Using Fravor’s estimate of the “Tic-Tac” being the size of his plane, an object 50-60 feet in size at 20,000 ft would take up 0.14 - 0.17 angular degree of sky or about a third the size of the full moon—sufficiently large to visually pick up details. If the object had been much smaller then it would have been difficult for the pilots to have observed much detail at that altitude. (See Appendix H for calculations related to angular size, distance, and actual size.) It did not need to slow down to make a change in direction; its directional change was instantaneous. Furthermore, the object was moving in a random and erratic motion below him in left, right, forward, and backward directions.8,15,23,24

CDR Fravor decided to descend towards the object to investigate and he informed his WSO in his back seat they were headed down. Fravor dropped to about 12,000 to 16,000 feet.8,15 His wingman, which included LCDR Slaight as the WSO, remained at 20,000 feet and were able to observe both Fravor’s aircraft and the “Tic-Tac” during their engagement.8,9,15,16,23

CDR Fravor describes his engagement with the “Tic-Tac” (See Figure 2): “So we passed through about the twelve o’clock position and we’re descending. It [The “Tic-Tac”] kind of recognizes that we’re there and it starts to mirror us. [The same thought went through the wingman pilot’s mind who stated, ‘The UFO turned on them as if it knew or somehow anticipated what they were going to do.”23] So now, think of it at the six o’clock position, we’re at the twelve o’clock position. We’re coming down and it starts coming up. So it’s going towards nine o’clock and we’re going towards three o’clock. And we do this all the way around until I get all the way back towards about the nine o’clock position. So I’m still coming down nice and easy and I’m watching this thing. Because it’s just kind of watching us and following. And I’m like, ‘That’s kind of weird.’ So now there’s probably about, let me think, 2,500, it’s probably about maybe 3,000 feet below us and about a mile across the circle. It’s about the size of an F-18. So you know 47 feet long. But it has no wings. I don’t see any exhaust plume, you know, like an older airplane would have smoke. There’s none of that. So as I come across, I’m a little above him. He’s at the three o’clock position and I go, ‘Well, the only way I might get this is to do an aggressive out-of-play maneuver.” So I dump the nose and I go from the nine o’clock through the vertical down, to go across to the three o’clock. So he’s over here and I go like this [motions cutting across the circle]. So as I get down to about, I’m probably about 60 degrees nose low a little, pulling through the bottom. It starts to accelerate. It has an incredible rate of acceleration. And it takes off and it goes south. And it takes off like nothing I’ve ever seen. It literally is one minute it’s there and the next minute it’s like, poof, and it’s gone.” 19

Fravor, to put it in perspective, described how even a jet at Mach 3 can be seen for at least 10-15 seconds before it fades from sight. In CDR Fravor’s own words, “This thing disappeared in a second; it was just gone.”25 (This sudden acceleration is discussed further in this report and in Appendix I.)

Since the “Tic-Tac” had now departed, CDR Fravor decided to reverse direction and returned to the object that he had seen under the water. Five minutes had gone by during the engagement and the water disturbance was no longer there.

The jets were on their way back to the Nimitz when CDR Fravor received a call back from the Princeton to tell him that, “You will not believe this but the “Tic-Tac” is back at your CAP.”10,15,16,24 The surprise reaction from the Princeton was because the CAP point was a secret coordinate location that was a precise latitude, longitude, and altitude. The strangeness of this observation was later noted by Senior Chief Day when he stated in his interview: “They [the “Tic-Tac”] shouldn’t have known where it was. And that was the bizzareness of it. How the hell did it know where the CAP station was? I mean it was right on it. Directly on it. Not close by, but on it. On that point in space.”10

The two “FastEagles” returned to the Nimitz. Despite Fravor’s interest in the “Tic-Tac,” he no longer had sufficient fuel to pursue it further.15,23

2:10 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.: LCDR Slaight’s View of CDR Fravor’s Engagement from Above LCDR Jim Slaight described the object that CDR Fravor engaged. He also recounted that the object resembled a giant “Tic-Tac,” 40 to 50 feet long, 10 to 15 feet wide, off-white in color, no audible noise or sound, no markings, fins, vents or exhaust type of ports. Slaight said the object had “defined edges” but along those defined edges there appeared to be a “fuzzy or wavy looking border around the entire surfaces of the object.” Around the surface of the object he said, “it looked like what the heat waves would look like coming off a hot paved road or what the carrier deck looked like if you looked across it when in the Gulf in the Mid-East.” This was noted on the edges of the entire object. None of LCDR Slaight’s jet instrumentation was affected by the encounter.24

As CDR Fravor headed down towards the “Tic-Tac,” LCDR Slaight observed that the object had now started on a direct path towards CDR Fravor’s jet but then changed course and started to circle around the Commander’s plane. Before completely circling CDR Fravor’s plane, the object then stopped and hovered for a second or two and then darted off horizontally at a slight upwardly inclined angle. LCDR Slaight’s description of the object’s ability to suddenly greatly accelerate was similar to CDR Fravor’s. In Slaight’s own words: “It was there….then it rifled off, out of sight in a split second. It was as if the object was shot out of a rifle. There was no gradual acceleration or spooling up period, it just shot out of sight immediately. I have never seen anything like it before or since. No human could have withstood that kind of acceleration.” 24 [See Appendix I for acceleration details.]

LCDR Slaight believes the object was either autonomous in control or was externally controlled. He feels it was under some type of “intelligent control.” He is not aware of any technology that could maneuver or accelerate in the fashion that this object did on November 14, 2004.24

2:10 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.: The Princeton’s View of CDR Fravor’s Engagement In the modern Navy’s Command Information Center the radar information, electronic data, and the voices of the combatants are provided real time over the CIC’s speaker system. (The photograph to the right is the Princeton’s CIC.) While CDR Fravor was engaging the “Tic-Tac,” the event was monitored in the USS Princeton’s CIC as Fravor’s Weapons System Officer was broadcasting the real-time events of the intercept to the ship.10,15 Five radar operators were present on the Princeton as the composite radar imagery from all the fleet’s ships was displayed. The excitement in the CIC was very high and Senior Chief Day remembers it well. At the time of intercept, “Pilots are screaming and everyone on the radio is screaming.” He remembered CDR Fravor’s comment being, “I’m engaged! I’m engaged! Oh, shit!” The Senior Chief goes on to indicate that at the time of the interception the other 14 radar targets on the Princeton’s radar screen began to drop from altitude towards the ocean. This activity caused a lot of consternation in the CIC.

Another witness in the CIC was Petty Officer Voorhis. He stated: “At a certain point there ended up being multiple objects that we were tracking. That was towards the end of the encounter and they all generally zoomed around at ridiculous speeds, and angles, and trajectories and then eventually they all bugged out faster than our radars. We were getting what we call ‘spot radar sightings’ where it would just catch a glimpse of it as it was moving so it was moving faster than our radar could register. And then they were gone.” 11

The engagement ended as abruptly as it began. The time elapsed was 5-7 minutes from the beginning of the “FastEagle” engagement based on the time of “merge-plot,” when the plane and the AAV appeared as one target on radar. Once the engagement ended the two aircraft returned to the Nimitz and the radar targets that were near the ocean surface ascended and returned to their original altitudes of 80,000+ feet in less than a second and began to track together to the south at 100 knots.10

In addition to the witnesses in the CIC, the authors have identified 18 of the crew that saw the IR video that was widely circulated via email on the ship during the next 24 hours using the SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network), which provides controlled and classified access to internet communications between ships and aircraft. Four of those crew members have been identified and they have indicated they have seen the IR video. All four crew members have been verified as servicemen aboard the USS Princeton. One crew member, Jason Turner, has been interviewed. The other three crew members who watched the video were Joe Wolschon, Chris Guilford, and Karson Kammerzell. Copies of their comments are available in Appendix L.

2:50 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.: Return to the USS Nimitz CDR Fravor’s and LCDR Slaight’s planes returned to the USS Nimitz. The Nimitz log showed a landing/departure cycle at 1504 hours that would have included the two FastEagles based on the timeline constructed from testimonies.15,17 A second pair of aircraft also departed at that time. Neither the identity of the second pair of departing pilots or their mission is known. A third pair of aircraft and their crew were on deck when CDR Fravor landed. 24 The Commander requested that the crew of the third cycle try and take a video of the object using their ATFLIR.8 This is the pair of aircraft that took the IR video, which is discussed later in this report. The identity of the pilot and the WSO that took the video are known by SCU, but their privacy will be honored and their names not published.

CDR Fravor indicated that once he returned to the Nimitz there was a lot of playful “UFO” banter from his colleagues that was done in jest. Fravor took most of this in stride except for a joke played by an intelligence officer who told them that there was going to be a big investigation of the incident. CDR Fravor stated, “When I determined that was not true, we had a little talk.” Fravor’s interviews give the impression that he believed the incident had not been taken seriously and that it was not properly investigated. He stated that to his knowledge no official investigation of the incident occurred. He clarified this by pointing out that since he was a commanding officer and among the 20 highest placed individuals of the 5,500 crew members on the Nimitz that had there been an investigation then he would have known about it.8,25

LCDR Slaight, second in command to Fravor of the entire squadron, stated that he was debriefed within an hour of landing as is standard protocol for a returning mission. He was debriefed in the normal manner by a junior intelligence officer. Slaight asked the intelligence officer whether there was a submarine in the area where there appeared to be a submersed object. The intelligence officer said that he would check and did so immediately after the debriefing. He told LCDR Slaight that there was no submarine in the area where the water disturbance was observed.24

Additional information from onboard the USS Nimitz comes from Marine officers mentioned in FOIA documents and one radar operator who wishes to remain anonymous. The authors of this report have determined the identity of the radar operator, his rank on the Nimitz in 2003, and that he was part of the Combat Detection Center on the Nimitz. The importance of the Nimitz radar operator is that he confirmed that he also detected the unknowns on the Nimitz radar system.

Other individuals who may have seen the ATFLIR video while onboard the USS Nimitz were identified through FOIAs dated August 13, 2017 and October 10, 2017. These included Lt. Col. Doug Kurth (retired 2006), Lt. Col. Ryan McCaskill (serving with US Northern Command), Lt. Col. Justin Knox (retired 2016), Lt. Col. John Schares (retired 2013), VFA-41 XO Dell Bull (currently Rear Admiral), and Major Richard Behrmann (current XO of VMA-232). These are available in Appendix B.

4:20 p.m.: Launch of a Pair of Jets with an ATFLIR Pod The information on this third pair of jets comes primarily from the March 14, 2015 FighterSweep article,15 the May 18, 2018 document titled the Executive Summary,13 two media interviews made by CDR Fravor in June of 2018,8,25 and the authors’ interview of LCDR Slaight on February 22, 2018.9 The Nimitz log indicates a landing/departure cycle at 1620 hours. CDR Fravor had requested that the crew with the ATFLIR pod obtain a video of the object should they encounter it.17

The two F/A-18Fs launched under the control of the E-2 Hawkeye airborne radar plane, which would be responsible for radar monitoring and communications with the F/A-18Fs. The planes separated after their initial rendezvous, with one heading to the southern CAP point where the “Tic-Tac” was last seen.13,15

The plane that headed south picked up a radar contact in the RWS (Range While Search) scan mode at about 33 miles to its south. The WSO attempted several STT (Single Target Track) locks on the target without success.13,15 CDR Fravor stated that, after watching the video many times, jamming was the cause of the failure of the radar to obtain a range reading on the object.8 The FighterSweep article also indicates that jamming occurred.15 However, the Executive Summary (a document released in 2018 and available in Appendix C) indicates that there were no jamming cues.13

November 14 to November 15, 2004: Missing Data As previously noted, much of the witness testimony for the next 24 hours after the event involved crew members aboard the Princeton and Nimitz that looked at the IR video through the SIPRNet. During this time, as reported by three witnesses interviewed by our team, the communication logs, the radar data, and other associated electronic information was removed from the USS Princeton and a copy of the video from the USS Nimitz. There are three incidents reported by three different witnesses which when taken together support a contention that there was a government agency that collected and removed the available data and information regarding the AAVs.

The first incident of missing data that we will mention is considered to be the most minor of the three and occurred aboard the USS Nimitz. After viewing the IR video CDR Fravor obtained two new Hi8 tapes (an 8mm magnetic video recording medium used during the turn of the 21st century), made a copy of it, wrapped it up, and put it in a shared safe with a note on them. He returned to his locker at some later time and found that the tapes were gone. Fravor thought that perhaps someone needed a tape since they were in limited supply on the ship.8 If this had been the only incident then the accidental reuse of a tape that had been put in a shared safe is a reasonable hypothesis.

The second incident occurred aboard the USS Princeton. The morning after the event, Senior Chief Kevin Day went to get a copy of the communication logs so that he could do an After Action report on the events of Nov 14, 2004. He found that all the communications data had been erased; only the date and time stamps remained. This was highly unusual and the Senior Chief had thought this could not be done and he explained why this was not an equipment malfunction. All of the communications between the Princeton and other ships and aircraft were copied onto multiple optical disks to ensure that the communication logs are not lost. This was performed automatically by computer, which placed a date and time stamp by every communication. The reason for this duplication was in case an event occurred, such as a ship collision, man overboard, lost aircraft, etc., an investigation could be conducted to determine what happened.10 Senior Chief Day’s statement of the disappearance of the communication logs for November 14 is also supported by then Cryptologic Technician Petty Officer Third Class Karson Kammerzell of the USS Princeton who sarcastically stated that the “watch logs rewrote themselves like the event never happened”.26

The third event also occurred aboard the USS Princeton. Petty Officer Voorhis was in charge of the Aegis computer suite’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system. He recalls that within twelve hours of the AAV event a helicopter landed on board. He was approached by non-uniformed personnel who asked him to relinquish all of the CEC information including radar data, electronics information, data recordings, communications—everything that was not required for the ship’s operation and navigation. He requested their ID but this was refused. He told the men that the Captain’s permission would be required and subsequently the Petty Officer received orders from the Captain to relinquish the information to the gentlemen and he did so. He turned over all the information which was stored on magnetic tapes. He also erased all other magnetic tapes that were backups. Petty Officer Voorhis stated, “As far as my Captain was concerned, you do everything they say period; or you go to jail.” Two days later the ship arrived at Puerto Vallarta. Again, non-uniformed individuals came on board the Princeton and all the non-critical information in their drives was also deleted.11 This is also supported by Petty Officer Jason Turner who was in Supply and had a security clearance. He recalls that as soon as the ship docked in Puerto Vallarta individuals came on board because he had watch duty the following day and he looked at the logbook. He does not recall if there was a name of the government agency with which they were associated. When asked if it was NORAD, he replied “No.”12 The evidential value of the information retrieved from the Princeton was made clear by Petty Officer Voorhis who stated: “…you could literally plot the entire course of the object, 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.”

Witnesses indicate that a U.S. government authority has acquired the information. Access to the large and diverse amount of data that went missing shortly after these AAV encounters would enhance our team’s ability to further examine and characterize this incident and report on it in the public domain.

Main Text: Section 3 Analysis & Section 4 Discussion

3 Analysis 3.1 Performance Characteristics Based on Statements from Radar Witnesses Speed, acceleration, and power characteristics can be calculated based on statements from two navy personnel who observed the radar tracks of the “Tic-Tacs” in real time. The Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes while observing the radar in the CIC area, and noted that his equipment indicated that the object moved from 80,000+ feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78 second. A second man, the Petty Officer stationed in the same room at the same time as the Senior Chief, characterized the erratic movements of the objects from stationary at 80,000 feet to stationary at 20,000 feet on radar as “as fast as a thought.” Calculations based on these observations, 60,000 vertical feet in 0.78 second and an initial and final velocity of zero, and assuming a constant acceleration (linear velocity) changing to a deceleration midway, yield a maximum velocity of 104,895 mph at the midway point, and an acceleration of 12,250 g-forces (see Appendix G). If one of the navy’s jets of a similar size (F/A-18F at 18 tons) accelerated at this rate, it would need 90 gigawatts of power.

These numbers are nonsensical to any known aircraft; one would expect to see a fireball due to air friction at those speeds and one would not anticipate any known aircraft to remain structurally intact with such large g-forces. We examine these characteristics from a second and third set of data to compare with the above results. This is done in Sections 3.2 and 3.3

3.2 Performance Characteristics Based on Statements from Pilots Two experienced Navy pilots in separate jets were vectored by the USS Princeton to the location of one of the objects mentioned in the previous paragraph. Upon arriving at the coordinates provided by the Princeton they simultaneously viewed the object from separate altitudes and angles. During the engagement with the “Tic-Tac,” it accelerated from stationary to “out of sight” within one second according to one pilot, and “like a bullet shot from a rifle” according to the other pilot. Both pilots estimated the length of the “Tic-Tac” to be 40-60 feet along its major axis, and about 15 feet along its minor axis. The limit of a human’s visual acuity is one arc minute, and can be used to calculate a distance at which an object is no longer resolvable. In a transparent medium, a 60 foot diameter object will reach the limit of human perception at 39.1 miles. Using a time to disappearance of one second results in a peak velocity of 281,520 mph and a maximum constant acceleration equivalent to 12,823 g-forces. Taking the lower bounds by using a 15 foot diameter object, the limit of human perception is 9.8 miles. Using a longer time to disappearance of two seconds results in a peak velocity of 35,280 mph and a minimum constant acceleration equivalent to 803 g-forces. Appendix I contains tables that show the calculated g-force based on various sizes of the object, time frames, and levels of visual acuity.

The resulting speed and acceleration derived from the pilots’ testimony is consistent with that derived from the ship-board radar operators’ reports.

3.3 Performance Characteristics Based on an IR Video A third method to measure the performance characteristics of the “Tic-Tac” is to use information in the IR video itself. There is sufficient information to determine the g-forces generated depending on the size and distance of the object. The specific portion of the video analyzed is when the object appears to move rapidly to the left at the end of the video. Once the F/A-18’s video system has locked onto a target, that target normally remains in the center of the video frame.29 A Canadian Air Force serviceman, with thousands of hours using the ASQ-228, stated to one of the authors of this report that only once did he experience the system losing lock and that was when they had the system in a vehicle and hit a jarring bump in the road. He stated that the breaking of the servo lock on an object in the video is most unusual. He further indicated that he used the ASQ-228 to video missile launches and never once did it lose lock during the high acceleration of a missile launch.

The only other aircraft in the area of operation were other F/A-18s and an E2 Hawkeye early warning radar aircraft. This is based on statements from the pilots who indicated that a Carrier Strike Group exercise has complete control of its airspace and no other aircraft are allowed into the area. It is very unlikely that the object in the video is an aircraft from outside CSG 11 for this reason; however, there is always the possibility that the plane taking the video took a video of another F/A-18 and this possibility is examined in detail in Appendix J. That appendix also shows calculations that determine the distance that an F/A-18 would be from the camera in order to create an image of the same size as seen in the video. The distance calculated is 17 to 22 miles away. Based on statements from CDR Fravor and a Canadian Air Force user, both with extensive use of the ASQ-228, the wings and outline of an F/A-18 should have been visible on a clear day at that distance. Furthermore, the resulting g-forces calculated are 40 times earth’s gravity which is well beyond the capability of an F/A-18 or the ability of a pilot to survive such an acceleration.

The work done in Appendix J shows that the identity of the “Tic-Tac” based on its size, estimated distance and lack of aerodynamic details in the ATFLIR image, and by calculating its average velocity and acceleration, along with the power requirements to perform these maneuvers—it is well beyond the capabilities of any technology in the public domain.

Additional work from another author-analyst is shown in Appendix K. The acceleration values are calculated by a different method than in Appendix J but the results are similar. Appendix K also looks at the acceleration rates of an earlier portion of the video that shows movement across only three video frames.

4 Discussion Three independent sets of information were used to evaluate the object’s speed and acceleration. In all three instances the acceleration values calculated were a minimum of 40 g-forces. First was the observed radar data movements of the objects provided by two highly trained first hand witnesses who were primarily responsible for the evaluation of the radar data aboard the USS Princeton and the rest of CSG-11. Second was a time estimate of the object’s ability to accelerate and disappear from sight based on the testimony of two senior Navy pilots, each with thousands of hours of flight experience. Third was a calculation of an object’s movement displayed on an ATFLIR video and the resulting acceleration necessary to accomplish this. All three methods resulted in acceleration values that are not survivable by a pilot or any known structured aircraft. Had there only been one piece of information indicating high acceleration rates then perhaps it could be overlooked as some unknown anomaly in the radar data affecting multiple systems, unusual movements for the ATFLIR pod, or errant memories with two very experienced pilots. But this is not the case as three independent pieces of information indicate an object traveled at unheard of accelerations for an aircraft. We have no reasonable explanation for the accelerations demonstrated by the object.

It is worth discussing that if the object(s) had been traveling at the speeds calculated then there should have been other characteristics observed that were not reported. There was never an indication of noise from the sound barrier being broken. Even more unusual is that the resulting friction from the speeds obtained in the atmosphere should have created an intense fireball and destructive shock-wave as the object moved through the sky. None of the four pilots that witnessed the object’s sudden acceleration reported any heating that would be expected at the speeds noted in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this paper. The only comment associated with heat came from one of the pilots who stated that the air around the object had a wavy appearance similar to what is seen on a road during a hot summer day.

These unusual characteristics bring into question whether the object seen existed as a physical mass. Arguments that the object possessed mass include: (1) The “Tic-Tac” or AAV was opaque, had clearly defined edges and appeared to the pilots as a physical object. (2) CDR Fravor engaged with the visual object and it reacted with complex maneuvers that included moving upwards towards his jet, responding to his jet’s movements, and finally accelerating away from the encounter when CDR Fravor attempted to intercept the object. (3) The object was detected on at least three radar units on different Navy assets operating at different radar frequencies. It was seen in the visible spectrum as well as the 3-5 micron range of the ATFLIR camera.

Arguments that the object lacked mass include: (1) The extreme accelerations that were exhibited. (2) The instantaneous directional changes seen by CDR Fravor when first encountering the object. (3) The lack of any obvious interaction with the atmosphere during movement.

The radar information that was acquired by the USS Princeton, the USS Nimitz, and the E-2 Hawkeye early warning aircraft could shed a lot of light on this incident. The radar data would provide exact time and distance measurements so that precise speeds and accelerations could be determined. The actual size of the object might be available in the radar data. The sudden movement of all the AAVs—was it synchronous? How did the other AAVs on radar react when the F/A-18s intercepted the one AAV? Did all the AAVs seen on radar travel at the same speed and altitude? Did the time required for the AAVs to travel different distances change as would be expected? And data from three different systems operating at three different frequencies would also provide information on the AAV’s surface absorption and reflection characteristics.

The complete and original ATFLIR video could also provide valuable information. A better image of the object might be able to be ascertained with higher quality video information in both the visible and IR spectra. Information on the details of the ASQ-228’s operation could allow for a more detailed determination of the AAV’s acceleration on the video as well as whether there may have been any EM interference detected in the video.

There might also be information in the communication logs that provides useful information. Even the radio transmissions and other EM signals monitored by equipment on the Princeton might be use in helping to resolve exactly what happened that day.

Main Text: Section 5 Conclusions & Acknowledgments & References

5 Conclusions In three separate instances we have calculated acceleration rates based on testimonies of military witnesses with years of experience and knowledge related to military aircraft characteristics and capabilities. These witnesses include two United States Naval Academy graduates, one with the rank of commander and the other a lieutenant commander. The accelerations demonstrated by the AAVs are beyond the capabilities of any known aircraft in the public domain. We do not know the origin of the AAVs nor do we have any information on their means of propulsion. We do believe that sufficient information has been provided in this paper to justify the release of all information related to this incident so that a complete scientific investigation can be conducted.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank S.A. Little, PhD, Dr. Brandon Reddell, Dr. Erol Faruk, Charles Lamoureux, Brad Sparks, and one anonymous individual for their assistance in review of this report. Due to the extensive nature of this report, no individual was able to review all aspects of the report. Any errors in the report are solely the responsibility of the authors. We also thank the Navy servicemen who were willing to trust us with their stories and provide the needed information that initiated this investigation. So a special thanks goes out to veterans Kevin Day, James Slaight, Gary Voorhis, and Jason Turner. We thank Dr. Hal Puthoff, Robert B. Klinn, Giuliano Marinkovic, and Christophe Spitzer Isbert who each provided various information that was helpful in the development of this report.

REFERENCE END NOTES:

1. Swords, Michael, et al, UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry. Anomalist Books: San Antonio, TX. 2012, page 336 (Bolender memo).
2. Cooper, Blumenthal, Keane, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” New York Times, December 16, 2017, front page.
3. McDonald, James E., “Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations,” American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, General Symposium, the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, December 27, 1969.
4. United States Air Force, Project Blue Book and Project SIGN, National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives Microfilm Reading Room, Washington, D.C.
5. Tulien, Thomas. “A Narrative of UFO Events at Minot Air Force Base”, http://www.minotb52ufo.com Accessed on August 21, 2018.
6. Powell, Robert, and Glen Schulze, “Stephenville Lights: A Comprehensive Radar and Witness Report Study,” July 2008. Copy available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/stephenville-lights-a-comprehensive-radar-and-witness-report-study
7. Scientific Coalition for Ufology, “2013 Aguadilla Puerto Rico: The Detailed Analysis of an Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon,” August 2015. Copy available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/2013_aguadilla_puerto_rico
8. David Fravor, interview by Linda Moulton Howe. KGRA radio, June 28, 2018.
9. Jim Slaight, interview by Robert Powell, telephone interview, February 22, 2018. Interview available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/nimitz_strike_group_2004
10. Kevin Day, interview by Robert Powell, telephone interview, January 15, 2018 by Robert Powell. Interview available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/nimitz_strike_group_2004
11. Gary Voorhis, interview by Robert Powell, telephone interview, April 6, 2018. Interview available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/nimitz_strike_group_2004
12. Jason Turner, interview by Robert Powell, telephone interview, January 11, 2018. Interview available at https://www.explorescu.org/papers/nimitz_strike_group_2004
13. Author Unknown, “Executive Summary.” Released by George Knapp, LasVegasNow, May 18, 2018. Origination date of article estimated as 2008 or 2009.
14. U.S. Navy Cruise Book, “USS Princeton (CG 59), Honor and Glory, Operation Iraqi Freedom”, 2003 Westpac Deployment.
15. Paco Chierici, Fighter Sweep, “There I Was: The X-Files Edition” https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/. March 14, 2015. Accessed 08/08/2018.
16. Terry V., interview by Jeremy Corbell, Jeremy Corbell Radio Show, internet radio, June 13, 2018.
17. “Deck Logs of the USS Nimitz,” November 9-17, 2004. Obtained from the U.S. Navy through a Freedom of Information Act request, filed July 4, 2017, assigned identification as DON-NAVY-2017-008134.
18. Weather Underground, Ensenada Mexico, General Abelardo Rodriguez Intl Airport, November 14, 2004. https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/MMTJ/date/2004-11-14?req_city=Ensenada&req_statename=Mexico Accessed August 09, 2018.
19. David Fravor, “CDR Strike Fighter Squadron 41 Interview,” from “To The Stars Academy”. https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-uss-nimitz-pilot-interview. Accessed July 05, 2018.
20. ATS: Above Top Secret, “Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal,” http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg9. Accessed August 05, 2018.
21. “Deck Logs of the USS Chafee,” November 10-17, 2004. Obtained from the U.S. Navy through a Freedom of Information Act request, filed June 11, 2018, assigned identification as DON-NAVY-2018-008449.
22. “Deck Logs of the USS Higgins,” November 10-17, 2004. Obtained from the U.S. Navy through a Freedom of Information Act request, filed June 11, 2018, assigned identification as DON-NAVY-2018-008450.
23. “2004 USS Nimitz Pilot Report” from “To The Stars Academy”. https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report Accessed July 05, 2018.
24. Jim Slaight, interview by retired Navy Captain Tim Thompson, telephone interview, February 19, 2018. (Some information unavailable on the recording due to a technical problem in the first 10 minutes of the interview.) Interview available at www.explorescu.org.
25. David Fravor, interview by Jeremy Corbell, Jeremy Corbell Radio Show, internet radio, June 23, 2018.
26. Karson Kammerzell, “Anyone remember the UFO’s during com2ex before the 05 deployment?”, Facebook, Public Group, USS PRINCETON (CG 59), July 9, 2012. Accessed July 18, 2018.
27. Global Security 300 N. Washington St., Alexandria, Virginia. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Lightning II. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
28. “F-35 Lightning II News”, June 9, 2010. www.f-16.net/f-35-news-article4113.html Accessed September 28, 2018.
29. Uyeno, Gerald, “Raytheon Advanced Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod”, 2006, page 3. DoD Directive 5230.24—Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 265SPR-024.06

Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY/ACRONYMS

AEGIS Combat System (ACS) – (also referred to as AEGIS Weapons System (AWS)) this is an integrated United States (US) Navy phased radar-based combat system produced by Lockheed Martin. It uses a powerful computer and radar technology to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets. The AN/SPY 1 Radar, MK 99 Fire Control System, Weapons Control System (WCS), the Command Decision Suite, and the SM-2 Standard Missile family of weapons are all part of the AEGIS Combat System.

Anomalous Aerial Vehicle (AAV) – a term used for an aerial phenomena for which there is no conventional or prosaic explanation for it. (See UFO)

Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar (ATFLIR) – a military grade thermal imaging camera that is mounted to the wing or fuselage to aircraft. Besides capturing thermal imagery, it can readily identify, lock on and direct missiles towards an intended target.

AN/SPY 1 – Military Designation (S=Ship, P=Portable Radar, Y=Targeting, Fire Control) for a 3D radar which is part of the Aegis Combat System. Each ship in the Carrier Group has a version of this radar which is interconnected to provide a 360 degree picture of any and all objects at a classified distance. It is part of the AEGIS Combat System. (See AEGIS Combat System).

AN/APS-145 – a radar used aboard an E-2 Hawkeye airborne Early Warning System aircraft. It is capable of tracking more than two thousand targets at the same time and controlling forty hostile targets. It has a range of greater than three hundred and forty miles.

AN/ASQ-228 – Military Designation for the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Radar (ATFLIR) – See definition above.

Carrier Strike Group (CSG) – a naval group of ships led by an aircraft carrier that are sent to various parts of the world for defense purposes. These ships and a submarines are fully equipped with all weapons systems necessary to protect and defend US interests.

Combat Air Patrol Point (CAP Point) – the classified location where fighters will fly a tactical pattern around or screening a defended target while looking for incoming attackers. Flights may include and designate a specified altitude (low or high) to shorten the response times.

Commander (CDR) – the highest ranking officer in military command, organization, or military group. In the US Navy it is the rank between Lieutenant Commander and Captain, but it can also be a “positional rank” such as in “Commander, Carrier Strike Group Eleven”. You will often see them referred to as the “CO” or Commanding Officer.

Command Information Center (CIC) – a designated area on a navy ship considered to be the hub for all decisions by Commanders and are the central location for all of the data and information from all information and communications systems.

Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) – a naval combat exercise in which either new ships or crew have the opportunity to conduct military missions to aid in learning.

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) – a sensor/radar network that is integrated with fire control. It combines data from various sensors and radar systems located on aircraft and ships, into a single, real-time composite picture for military decision making. It works in conjunction with the AEGIS radars of guided missile cruisers and destroyers. Because multiple ships and aircraft are all integrated, the CEC helps to eliminate false targets and helps to improve accuracy of a target or multiple targets which the enemy is using.

Carrier Air Wing (CVW) – a US Navy aircraft carrier air wing based a Naval Air Station Lemoore, California and attached to the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier. (e.g., CVW – 11).

E-2 Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning System (EWS) – a specialized aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman that is equipped with advanced radar systems and other gear that is data linked to the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) and part of the overall AEGIS system (see AEGIS and CEC definitions). They play a critical role in surveillance missions.

Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) – the use of electronic means to thwart or counter an enemies use of electronics to attack you (e.g., use of a jamming system which in essence blocks a signal from use.)

Executive Officer (XO) – is the “Second in Command”, under the Captain. Executive Officers may hold various officer ranks from Ensign all the way up to Captain in the navy. Much of the operational aspects of a squadron or unit usually falls under their responsibilities and they do assist in supporting the Commanding Officer of that particular unit or squadron.

Fast Eagle (1&2 Blue) – Code Designations for each of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in use on the USS Nimitz in the First Cycle of the military exercise on the day of the report incident.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – a federal organization which is responsible for regulating solely commercial airspace within the US. It has no responsibilities for military aircraft. Besides regulations, it provides training, pilot certifications and now has responsibilities extended to drones.

First Cycle – In a military exercise such as that of this report, there are repeatable sets of two Fighters being sent from the USS Nimitz, each of these sets of two aircraft with one being referred to as a Wingman which lags behind the lead Fighter is considered a cycle. The successive sets are referred to as the Second Cycle and Third Cycle and so on.

Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) – this is a term for a company which has products and services that it develops using the infrared part of the spectrum. The products are cameras that can discriminate the heat signatures of objects and have both government and commercial uses.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – this is a federal law that seeks to provide public access to documents, records and other media in use by the US Government. Through specified procedures, anyone can make a written request for these documents. The government can deny this request based upon exemptions that have been specified in the Act.

Hornet – a McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine, supersonic, all-weather, carrier-capable, multi-role combat jet, designed as both a fighter and an attack aircraft (hence the F/A designation).

Infrared (IR) – a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths beyond the visible range of humans and less than microwaves. The wavelength ranges from 700 nanometers to 1 millimeter.

Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) – a guided ballistic missile with a minimum range of five thousand five hundred kilometers or three thousand four hundred miles. It is designed for nuclear weapons delivery.

Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) – the second highest ranking officer in the US Navy and can also be referenced as a “Commander”. (See Commander above)

Merge-Plot (MP) – this is the point at which an object and an aircraft cannot be discriminated any longer as two separate objects.

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) – a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning for North America.

Operations Specialist (OS) – is a US Navy and US Coast Guard occupational rating. These individuals work in the combat information center (CIC) tactical nerve center of the ship. They are responsible for the collection, processing display and competent evaluation and dissemination of pertinent tactical information to command and control stations, for which crucial decisions are made.

Petty Officer (PO) – is a non-commissioned naval officer equivalent to a corporal or a sergeant in comparison to other branches of service.

Range While Search (RWS) – a radar scans for targets and gives you the range to them.

Senior Chief Petty Officer – (see Petty Officer above) – a naval officer. There are three senior grades (chief petty officer, senior chief petty officer and master chief petty officer).

Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU) – a coalition or group of cooperative people who seek to apply scientific principles and methods to the use of studying the anomalous phenomena being reported around our world referred to as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), Unidentified Submerged Objects (USOs), Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and Unidentified Anomalous Vehicles (UAVs).

Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) – a secret classified network that is used solely in the US military to share data and information that is of national security interests and is restricted to those with clearances at that classification level or higher.

Single Target Track (STT) – also referred to as a “lock”. The radar locks onto a single target and all other targets disappear from the radar scope.

Super Hornet - a McDonnell Douglas F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a twin-engine, supersonic, all-weather, carrier-capable, multi-role combat jet, designed as both a fighter and an attack aircraft (hence the F/A designation). The distinction between a Hornet and a Super Hornet is the more advancements made with performance and overall equipment and designs. The maneuverability with these designs were improved.

Tic-Tac – there is no technical reference for this term. It was coined by a pilot who stated that the shape of the unknown object being seen looked like a piece of candy which is available in stores and is called a “Tic-Tac.”

Track While Scan (TWS) – the radar can capture multiple targets and track them all simultaneously. This setting on radar also displays altitude as well as direction of the target.

Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) – an unidentified aerial object that is observed by a witness(s), reported and after an investigation is completed and still remains unknown or unexplained is the accepted definition of a UFO. Most witnesses who merely cannot identify the object consider it a UFO, but these could be identifiable objects like birds, aircraft, and astronomical phenomena. It requires an investigation to rule these out and only after all natural or conventional hypotheses are eliminated, the UFO or “Unknown” is classified as such.

Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) – on military aircraft with two persons aboard, one person, usually seated behind the pilot is responsible for the radar, any infrared thermal imaging cameras, and the targeting and delivery of any bombs, missiles and other weapons onboard allowing the pilot to strictly navigate the aircraft as needed.

VAW - Marine Fighter Squadron (Designation, not an acronym) – refers to Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadrons (e.g., VAW-117 also called the “Wallbangers” which is an E-2 Hawkeye Early Warning Aircraft).

VFA - US Navy Fighter Squadron (Designation, not an acronym) - refers to Strike Fighter Squadrons (e.g. VFA-41 also known as the Black Aces, a group of F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft).

VMFA - Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (Designation, not an acronym) – the Marine Corps refers to their Fighter Attack aircraft squadrons with the designation shown along with a number (e.g., VMFA – 232 is composed of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft)

Appendix B: Freedom of Information Act Requests and Replies

APPENDIX B FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS AND REPLIES by Robert Powell

The first FOIA requests were made on December 30, 2016 based on an article on FighterSweep by Paco Chierici. Over 26 FOIA requests and appeals were submitted to Navy, Marines, NORAD, and DIA. Initial responses largely claimed ‘no records exist’. Upon appeal to Navy JAG, internal Marine emails were disclosed confirming that pilots and commanders on USS Nimitz and VMFA-232 were well aware of the ‘flying tic tac’ video recorded on CDR Fravor’s ATFLIR. Deck logs for USS Nimitz, USS Chafee, and USS Higgins were eventually retrieved, while USS Princeton logs were claimed missing and USS Louisville logs classified. Appeals referencing the December 2017 New York Times release were referred to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Appendix C: Documents Referenced

APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS REFERENCED by Robert Powell

Includes historical and official documentation:

1. 2007 February 13, CVW-11 Event Summary (describing Event 3 Fast Eagle 110/100 vectoring to intercept unidentified contact at 160@40NM, sighting of 25-30ft capsule/pill shaped craft mirroring turns at 600-700 kts and ascending without radar lock).
2. 2015 March 14, FighterSweep Article: ‘There I Was: The X-Files Edition’ by Paco Chierici.
3. 2017 September 7, ‘2004 USS Nimitz Pilot Report’ from To The Stars Academy.
4. 2018 May 18, ‘Executive Summary’ (AATIP assessment of the Nimitz CSG-11 encounter).
5. November 14, 2004 Deck Logs of USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Chafee (DDG 90), and USS Higgins (DDG 76).

Appendix D: Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar (ATFLIR) AN/ASQ-228

APPENDIX D Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar (ATFLIR) AN/ASQ-228 by Peter Reali

Details technical specifications of the Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod:

• Operates in mid-wave infrared (3.7 - 5.0 µm) and low-light EO television.
• Switchable fields of view: Wide (WFOV = 6.0°), Medium (MFOV = 2.8°), and Narrow (NFOV/NAR = 0.7°), with digital zoom options (1X, 2X = 0.35°).
• Detailed HUD symbology breakdown: airspeed (knots/Mach), camera elevation angle, roll/pitch horizon bar, gimbal azimuth offset, target tracking modes (boresight, rate track, centroid/area track), and altitude display.

Appendix E: Video Provenance

APPENDIX E VIDEO PROVENANCE by Robert Powell

Traces the provenance of the 76-second video footage (‘FLIR1.mp4’ / ‘F4.mpg’). First posted online in 2007 on the German site Vision Unlimited and discussed on AboveTopSecret. Later officially released/confirmed by the DoD and published by the New York Times and TTSA in December 2017. Multiple primary witnesses (Kevin Day, Gary Voorhis, Jason Turner, Jim Slaight) confirm that this video matches the footage distributed aboard the USS Princeton and USS Nimitz on SIPRNet in November 2004, though the original unedited shipboard video was higher resolution and longer in duration.

Appendix F: Background Information on Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG 11)

APPENDIX F BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON CARRIER STRIKE GROUP ELEVEN (CSG 11) by Robert Powell

Details the assets and sensor capabilities of CSG 11 during the November 2004 COMPTUEX:

• USS Nimitz (CVN 68) supercarrier.
• USS Princeton (CG 59) Ticonderoga-class cruiser equipped with the AN/SPY-1B phased-array 3D radar system and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC).
• Carrier Air Wing 11 (CVW-11), including VFA-41 ‘Black Aces’ (F/A-18F Super Hornets with APG-73 radars), VMFA-232 ‘Red Devils’ (F/A-18C Hornets), and VAW-117 ‘Wallbangers’ (E-2C Hawkeyes with AN/APS-145 radars).
• Guided missile destroyers USS Chafee (DDG 90) and USS Higgins (DDG 76), and Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Louisville (SSN 724).

Appendix G: Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Radar Observations

APPENDIX G ACCELERATION, SPEED, AND POWER CALCULATIONS BASED ON RADAR OBSERVATIONS Author: Peter Reali

Kinematic modeling of radar-tracked drops from 80,000 ft to 20,000 ft (60,000 ft vertical drop) in tm = 0.78 seconds (and comparison baseline tm = 6.0 seconds), assuming a 2,000 lb object:

1. Linear Velocity Model (Constant Acceleration/Deceleration):
   • tm = 0.78 s: Vmax = 104,895 mph (153,846 ft/s); Acceleration = 12,250 g (394,477 ft/s²); Pmax = 5,126.5 Gigawatts.
   • tm = 6.0 s: Vmax = 13,636 mph (20,000 ft/s); Acceleration = 207.04 g; Pmax = 11.3 Gigawatts.
2. Parabolic Velocity Model (Linear Decreasing Acceleration):
   • tm = 0.78 s: Vmax = 78,409 mph (115,000 ft/s); Acceleration = 18,385 g (592,000 ft/s²); Pmax = 4,440 Gigawatts (equivalent energy release rate of tactical nuclear weapons / kilotons of TNT/sec).
   • tm = 6.0 s: Vmax = 10,227 mph (15,000 ft/s); Acceleration = 310.56 g; Pmax = 9.75 Gigawatts.

Appendix H: Calculations of Size, Distance, and Angular Size

APPENDIX H CALCULATIONS OF SIZE, DISTANCE, AND ANGULAR SIZE by Robert Powell

Trigonometric derivation relating apparent angular size (α), actual size (s), and slant range distance (d): Formula: s = 2d * tan(α/2); α = 2 * arctan(s / (2d))

• For the ocean disturbance (~120 ft, 737-sized) viewed from 20,000 ft altitude: α = 0.344° (approx. 2/3 the apparent size of the full moon).
• For the ‘Tic-Tac’ object (50 to 60 ft) viewed from 20,000 ft altitude: α = 0.143° to 0.172° (approx. 1/3 the full moon diameter), demonstrating it was clearly resolvable to human vision.

Appendix I: Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Blind Point Distance (BPD)

APPENDIX I ACCELERATION, SPEED, AND POWER CALCULATIONS BASED ON BLIND POINT DISTANCE (BPD) Author: Peter Reali

Analyzes the rapid disappearance (‘rifle shot acceleration’) of the Tic-Tac from the pilots’ visual field to the Blind Point Distance (BPD = 39.1 miles for a 60 ft object at 1 arc-minute resolution):

• Measured disappearance times between 0.2 s and 5.0 s.
• Disappearance within 1 second yields peak velocities up to 281,520 mph and constant accelerations up to 12,823 g.
• Complete piecewise trajectory analysis for rapid transit to the CAP station (40-60 NM away) within seconds indicates accelerations from several hundred to over 500,000 g and power dissipation equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT per second.

Appendix J: Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on an ATFLIR Video

APPENDIX J ACCELERATION, SPEED, AND POWER CALCULATIONS BASED ON AN ATFLIR VIDEO Author: Peter Reali

Frame-by-frame analysis of the F4.mpg / FLIR1 video (frames 2221–2252) as the object accelerates out of the ATFLIR field of view to the left:

• Resolves the object’s angular width and screen displacement across 1X (0.7° FOV) and 2X (0.35° FOV) zoom modes.
• Estimates target distance between 17 and 33 miles if sized similarly to an F/A-18 (47-60 ft).
• Lateral acceleration required to exit the display frame in ~0.4 to 0.6 seconds is calculated at 40 g to 150+ g.
• Shows that an F/A-18’s twin F414-GE-400 engines (44,000 lbs total thrust) provide less than 18% of the power required to perform such a maneuver.

Appendix K: A Video Analysis

APPENDIX K A VIDEO ANALYSIS Author: Larry Cates

Automated Python-based computer vision analysis of all 2,288 frames of F4.mpg:

• Tracks target centroid coordinates, 9-pixel maximum average intensity, and locking bracket distance across zoom transitions.
• Evaluates the rapid leftward jump at frames 2155–2157 (‘Rifle Shot Acceleration’) traversing ~91.55 pixels in 66.7 ms.
• Derives Equation 5.8: A = [2 * S * tan((Pd * ϵ)/2)] / [t² * tan((Sp * ϵ)/2)]
• Calculates intrinsic target accelerations between 2,270 g and 4,540 g for an object size of 30 to 60 ft.

Appendix L: Witnesses and Associated Information

APPENDIX L WITNESSES AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATION by Robert Powell

Comprehensive dossiers and background profiles of key military personnel:

• Primary Witnesses: CDR David Fravor (CO VFA-41), LCDR Jim Slaight (WSO / Dept Head VFA-41), Senior Chief Kevin Day (Air Intercept Controller / OSCS on USS Princeton), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis (CEC Tech on USS Princeton), and Petty Officer Jason Turner (Supply / Princeton).
• Secondary & Supporting Witnesses: Lt. Col. Douglas Kurth (CO VMFA-232), Fravor’s wingman pilot and WSO, the ATFLIR recording aircrew, Don Oktabinski (‘Poison’), RADM Dell Bull, Karson Kammerzell, Joseph Wolschon, Chris Guilford, Ryan Gowin, and other USS Princeton/Nimitz crew members.
• Includes reproductions of official fitness reports (E7-O6 FITREP confirming Kevin Day’s Top Gun credentials and #1 rating), DD-214 records, online discussion archives, and email correspondences.