Der finale Beweis: US Navy bestätigt offiziell die Existenz von UFOs

Cachalot schrieb:Und komm nicht mit „der hat da gearbeitet, der ist vertrauenswürdig“. Sonst muss ich mit Trump gegenhalten.

Der ist fies 😂 Muss ich mir als Totschlagargument zur Abwehr jeglicher Autoritätsargumente definitiv merken 😵🤓

Nashima schrieb:Ich glaube Lunas Videos sind nun alle veröffentlicht und eher enttäuschend was den "exotic factor" betrifft.

Btw: Jemand, der sich immer viel nützliche Arbeit mit diesen Dingen macht, hat eine nützliche Übersicht erstellt:


Beitrag in einem Metabunk-Thread mit Aufstellung der Luna-Liste mit Abgleich AARO und aktuelle Veröffentlichungen der 2. „Krempelkiste“. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/rep-luna-requests-uap-video-with-a-list-of-names.14824/page-7#post-371409

Das ist natürlich nur ein Screenshot. Die Liste ist länger. 🤓 Release 1 sollte dann auch irgendwo sein. Wer so etwas interessant findet, ist auch in der Lage, das zu finden.

Cachalot schrieb:Nö. Es bleibt bei Hörensagen. Grusch erzählt. Wir hören was er sagt. Ob er tatsächlich Bilder und Dokumente gesehen hat die auch nur im entferntesten auf ET hindeuten ist - sein Gerde. Und für uns - Hörensagen. Mehr nicht.

Echt jetzt? Und ich dachte glatt die Konversation drehte sich darum wie Grusch zu seinen Informationen kommt. Da war ich ja völlig auf nem anderen Dampfer.

Cachalot schrieb:Wenn ich dir sage die Ursache wären blaue Einhörner. Ich weiß das, ich hab Bilder und Dokumente dazu gesehen. Würdest du das genauso ernst nehmen?

Klassifizierte oder offizielle Dokumente sind grundsätzlich beweiskräftiger als eine Zeugenaussage. Unabhängig ob es sich um Schneewittchen oder sonstwas handelt. Das würde ich durchaus ernster nehmen. Die Frage ist hier aber sowieso nicht ob ich Ihm glaube, sondern: Wo sind die Dokumente?

Cachalot schrieb:Und komm nicht mit „der hat da gearbeitet, der ist vertrauenswürdig“. Sonst muss ich mit Trump gegenhalten.

Okay, dann lass ich das Agument mal weg, das du gerade selbst erfunden hast. Wäre aber nice wenn du das Framing zukünftig lassen könntest.

@Nemon
Danke für den Link, da hat Mick wiedermal ordentliche Arbeit geleistet.

Nashima schrieb:Echt jetzt? Und ich dachte glatt die Konversation drehte sich darum wie Grusch zu seinen Informationen kommt.

Genau das ist der offene Punkt. Wenn denn geklärt ist ob - nächster Punkt

Nashima schrieb:Klassifizierte oder offizielle Dokumente sind grundsätzlich beweiskräftiger als eine Zeugenaussage.

Es diese Dokumente die da auf ET hinweisen überhaupt gibt. Dazu gibt es nur seine Worte.

Nashima schrieb:Unabhängig ob es sich um Schneewittchen oder sonstwas handelt. Das würde ich durchaus ernster nehmen. Die Frage ist hier aber sowieso nicht ob ich Ihm glaube, sondern: Wo sind die Dokumente?

Doch, du glaubst ihm. Sonst wäre es nicht ein „wo“ die Dokumente sind. Wärst du Ergebnisoffen käme vor dem „wo“ ein „ob“.

Nach wie vor. Wie seit Jahren. Nur Gerede ohne Substanz.

Cachalot schrieb:Es diese Dokumente die da auf ET hinweisen überhaupt gibt. Dazu gibt es nur seine Worte.

No shit, Sherlock.

Cachalot schrieb:Doch, du glaubst ihm. Sonst wäre es nicht ein „wo“ die Dokumente sind. Wärst du Ergebnisoffen käme vor dem „wo“ ein „ob“.

In keinem Wort das ich geschrieben habe ist rasuszulesen ob ich Ihm nun glaube oder nicht, das bist DU der da was reinliest. Es ist sowieso irrelevant. Mein Punkt war lediglich, dass Dokumente und Bilder eine höhere Evidenz aufweisen als eine Zeugenaussage.

Ergebnisoffen ist, wenn man alle Möglichkeiten in Betracht zieht.

Nashima schrieb:Es ist sowieso irrelevant. Mein Punkt war lediglich, dass Dokumente und Bilder eine höhere Evidenz aufweisen als eine Zeugenaussage

Und mein Punkt war

So es diese Dokumente gibt.
Bisher ist davon nüt zu sehen. Der Aufweis wurde nicht erbracht. Bisher - nur Gerede darüber.

Nemon schrieb am 14.06.2026:

Weserdampfer schrieb am 13.06.2026:

Nemon schrieb am 07.06.2026:Wie oft habe ich nach Beispielen für Flugmanöver gefragt, die nur mit Aliens oder vergleichbaren Konzepten erklärbar wären. Nichts kam. Niemand ist bereit, einen solchen Fall zur Diskussion zu stellen.

Ich habe neulich in einem anderen Thread an das Italien-Ufo von 2003 erinnert: Exosoziologische Debatte: Das Flugverhalten und seine Absicht (Beitrag von Weserdampfer) Es gibt bislang keinen unzweifelhaften Beweis dafür, dass es sich bei dieser Aufnahme um eine Fälschung handelt.

Okay, Wortklauberei nächste Runde also.

Nein, ich betreibe keine Wortklauberei, ich bemühe mich darum, mich präzise auszudrücken. Es lässt sich nämlich ganz objektiv bestimmen, wann ein unzweifelhafter Beweis für eine Fälschung dieses Videos vorläge. Ein unzweifelhafter Beweis für eine Fälschung wäre eine Analyse des Filmmaterials, die hinsichtlich ihrer Methodik nachweislich fehlerfrei ist und welche einen Beweis dafür erbringt, dass das Video eine manipulierte Filmaufnahme ist.
Eine solche Analyse bzw. ein solches Debunking gibt es für dieses Video bislang nicht. Mit dem Satz

Weserdampfer schrieb am 13.06.2026:Es gibt bislang keinen unzweifelhaften Beweis dafür, dass es sich bei dieser Aufnahme um eine Fälschung handelt.

beziehe ich mich auf den Umstand, dass es ein solches Debunking für dieses Video bislang nicht gibt.

Nemon schrieb am 14.06.2026:Dein Argument ist nicht valide. Und ist auch keine Antwort auf meine Fragestellung: Gibt es ein hinreichend dokumentiertes Objekt, das so unerklärliche Eigenschaften zeigt, dass sich entgegen aller "Unwahrscheinlichkeit" und Plausibilität eine Exo-/Alien-Erklärung ins Spiel bringt oder aufdrängt?

Bei dem Ufo, auf das ich verwiesen habe, handelt es sich um ein metallisch glänzendes Objekt mit dem Aussehen eines technologischen Konstrukts. Als das Ufo das erste Mal zu beschleunigen beginnt, fliegt es in sehr geringer Höhe über dem Flussbett. Rund sechs Sekunden nach dem Beginn des erstmaligen Beschleunigens verschwindet es dem Eindruck nach in der Ferne in den Wolken. Es gibt kein bekanntes menschengemachtes Flugobjekt, das in der Erdatmosphäre derart schnell fliegen kann. Wenn man versucht, die Durchschnittsgeschwindigkeit für die Strecke zu berechnen, die das Ufo vom Zeitpunkt des erstmaligen Beschleunigens bis zum angenommenen Verschwinden in den Wolken zurücklegt, dann muss das Ergebnis dieser Berechnung logischerweise bestätigen, dass das Ufo diese Strecke mit einer unerklärlich hohen Geschwindigkeit zurücklegt, insofern es sich bei ihm um ein reales Flugobjekt handelt.

Kurz gesagt: Es ist offen ersichtlich, dass dieses Flugobjekt ein unerklärliches Flugmanöver vollführt, insofern es sich bei ihm um ein reales Flugobjekt handelt.

Dementsprechend war mein Verweis darauf, dass ich dieses Ufo neulich in einem anderen Thread angesprochen habe, ein berechtigter Einwand gegen deine Behauptung, niemand sei bereit, ein Ufo-Video zur Diskussion zu stellen, in dem ein Flugmanöver zu sehen ist, das sich

Nemon schrieb am 07.06.2026:nur mit Aliens oder vergleichbaren Konzepten

erklären lasse. Die weitere Diskussion über dieses Ufo wäre hier im Thread offtopic. Ich verlagere die weitere Diskussion über dieses Ufo daher in den Ufo-Sammelthread, in dem dieses Ufo thematisiert worden ist: Ufo-Sammelthread (Seite 25) (Beitrag von Weserdampfer)

@Weserdampfer
Aus meiner Sicht ist immer noch der "TikTak" Vorfall (Nimitz) derjenige, welchen man am wenigsten mit Occams Razor wegwischen kann. Wir haben hier Radar + Visuelle Sichtung + Video.

Eine einzelne mundane, plausible Erklärungen wie bei anderen Fällen reicht da nicht. Auf der anderen Seite fehlen lückenlose Rohdaten. Im Vergleich zu den restlichen UAP Veröffentlichungen mMn aber immer noch das ungewöhnlichste, wenn man so will.

Ich habe das Italienvideo vor Jahren mal gesehen und es gleich als CGI bzw. Fälschung abgetan. Interessant aber, dass es einen Zeugen gibt, das wusste ich noch nicht. Jedoch wurde das Video anonym veröffentlicht und der "Zeuge" könnte auch der Ersteller gewesen sein. Am Ende wurde es nicht definitiv debunked, gibt aber einige "red flags".

Nashima schrieb:Aus meiner Sicht ist immer noch der "TikTak" Vorfall (Nimitz) derjenige, welchen man am wenigsten mit Occams Razor wegwischen kann. Wir haben hier Radar + Visuelle Sichtung + Video.

Dieser Fall ist auch sehr komplex, wenn man alles einbezieht. Einzelne Stücke daraus sind schon nicht mehr so frappierend - das wird es erst, wenn man es zu dem Narrativ zusammensetzt, das als Gesamtbild erzählt wird.

Nashima schrieb:Aus meiner Sicht ist immer noch der "TikTak" Vorfall (Nimitz) derjenige, welchen man am wenigsten mit Occams Razor wegwischen kann. Wir haben hier Radar + Visuelle Sichtung + Video.

Eine einzelne mundane, plausible Erklärungen wie bei anderen Fällen reicht da nicht. Auf der anderen Seite fehlen lückenlose Rohdaten. Im Vergleich zu den restlichen UAP Veröffentlichungen mMn aber immer noch das ungewöhnlichste, wenn man so will.

Ich habe das Italienvideo vor Jahren mal gesehen und es gleich als CGI bzw. Fälschung abgetan.

Das Tic-Tac-Ufo soll sich auch unerklärlich schnell fortbewegt haben. Wenn die Schätzungen hinsichtlich der jeweiligen Geschwindigkeit stimmen, dann ist das Tic-Tac-Ufo phasenweise mehr als dreimal so schnell geflogen wie das Italien-Ufo:

However, physicist Kevin Knuth, along with Robert M. Powell and Peter A. Reali, analyzed the Tic Tac data and wrote a paper titled Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles. The paper makes it very clear that the data did not give credence to prosaic explanations such as advanced military technology or atmospheric glitches. Instead, the data revealed shocking and unexplainable physics were at play.

Professor Knuth recently went on the All Things Unexplained podcast to discuss these findings. He revealed the following jaw-dropping physics of the USS Nimitiz' Tic Tacs:

• Upper speed: 45,000 mph.
• Size of an F18.
• Observed on radar for approximately 2 weeks.
• Appeared at 80,000 feet and dropped to 28,000 feet.
• Dropped from 28,000 feet to sea level (approximately 5 miles) in 0.78 seconds.
• No fireballs.
• No sonic booms.
• 13,000 gigawatts of power would have been required to make its maneuvers, more than the nuclear output of the United States.
• The movements of a Tic Tac UFO should have released the energy equivalent of 250 Tomahawk cruise missiles going off at once.

https://www.meer.com/en/79187-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-unveiling-inexplicable-physics

@Weserdampfer
Anknüpfemd an den anderen Thread: Da hatte ich nicht rechtzeitig kapiert, dass du hier einen konkreten Ansatz angeboten hast. Ich hoffe, dass ich mir morgen etwas Zeit dafür nehmen kann.

Bis dahin gebe ich schon mal zu bedenken, dass mehrere Aussagen hierzu stark widersprüchlich sind. Genau diesen Punkt habe ich mal ausgearbeitet. Es gibt, wenn ich mich richtig erinner, dazu keine belastbaren Daten, sondern lediglich die widersprüchlichen und unklaren Aussagen und Hörensagens.

Appeared at 80,000 feet and dropped to 28,000 feet.
• Dropped from 28,000 feet to sea level (approximately 5 miles) in 0.78 seconds.

Nemon schrieb:Bis dahin gebe ich schon mal zu bedenken, dass mehrere Aussagen hierzu stark widersprüchlich sind.

Ich sehe keine fundamentalen Widersprüche welche die Kernereignisse unglaubwürdig machen, auch wenn es unterschiede in Perspektiven und Detailtiefe gibt, was bei komplexen militärischen Ereignissen nicht ungewöhnlich sein muss.

@Nashima
Leider bin ich nicht dazu gekommen. Konnte jetzt nur eine kurze Suche in eigener Sache starten und habe u. a. das hier zu dem von mir angesprochenen Sachverhalt gefunden. Es war dann wohl bei Metabunk, wo ich das Thema genauer untersucht habe. ich erinnere mich z. B. an das Transkript des Interviews West — Day.

Nemon schrieb am 14.11.2022:Es gibt in diesem Themenkomplex "Nimitz" bzw. "Pentagon-Videos" viele Aussagen und Widersprüche. Und einige vermeintliche fixe Punkte in der Story halten keiner Überprüfung stand. Ein Beispiel, mit dem ich mich gerade an anderer Stelle beschäftige und nicht hier: Die angeblichen 80.000 Fuß, aus der das TicTac herabgeschossen sein soll, gehen auf falsch verstandene und kolportierte Aussagen von Kevin Day zurück. Diese Höhe markierte seinerzeit lediglich die "Decke" ("ceiling") des Raumes, den das Radar erfasste. Was er selbst auf dem Radar gesehen hat, geschah "nur" ab 28.000 Fuß. Es gibt allein zu diesem Punkt völlig widersprüchliche Versionen. Im Zentrum weiterer Widersprüche steht bekanntlich Fravor.

Nemon schrieb am 27.02.2023:Leider habe ich in keinem Beitrag alles zu den verschiedenen Höhen zusammengefasst.

Ich würde aber meinen, dieser Artikel arbeitet es gut auf:
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/the-nimitz-tic-tac-encounter-the-ultimate-guide-and-analysis/#the-radar-operators

@Nemon
Sorry, aber da sind keine "stark widersprüchliche Aussagen" zu lesen. Die 80.000 Fuss "ceiling" Aussage (von Kevin Day selbst) ist auch kein Widerspruch. Es gibt andere Interviews in welcher Kevin Day von "ersten Tracks" um die 60k-80k fuss spricht (04:30). Dann sagt er noch aus, dass Objekte im "Low Orbit" durch das BMD (Balistic Missile Defence radar system) getrackt wurden (01:17 / 10:45). Das geht weit höher als das spy 1 Radar der Princeton.

Neben Kevin Day gibt es noch weitere Zeugen die von Tracks in hoher höhe sprechen. Das widerspricht nicht, im Gegenteil.

Quelle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSL_Huhi3o

@Cpt_Void
Ohne jetzt weiter in die Details gehen zu können, ich kann mir auch das video erst mal nicht ansehen:
An welcher Stelle willst du diesen Pudding denn festnageln ;)

Vor allem für die angenommenen Irrsinns-Geschwindigkeiten ist es sehr relevant, wer genau wo genau welche strecken in welcher zeit und auf welcher flugbahn zurückgelegt hat. Der Beitrag, auf den wir uns hier jetzt in der Neuauflage dieses Diskussionspunktes befinden, blendet all diese Wenns und Abers nun mal aus und kolportiert ein beliebiges Hörensagen.

@Nemon
Wir müssen das nicht nochmal komplett neu Aufrollen. Ich sage nur, dass die von dir behauptete "starke Widersprüchlichkeit" in deinem bisherigen Eiertanz ;) mit nichten belegt wurde. Was nicht bedeutet das hier mundane Erklärungen wegfallen.

Transcript Kevyn Day Interview: Spoiler

**UAP Navy Encounters | Kevin Day**

(00:01) I'm Tim Ventura and we're joined today by Kevin Day, a retired United States Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer. Kevin is a former Operations Specialist and Top Gun air intercept controller with more than 20 years experience in strike group air defense, including wartime operations. He's an expert operator of the highly advanced SPY-1 radar system with years of service on board Aegis-equipped ships, including the Vincennes, Chosen, and the Princeton. He's logged hundreds of air-to-air intercepts of suspect aircraft in both training and wartime operations.

(00:37) And he joins us today to discuss the Nimitz Carrier Group UAP encounters back in 2004. So Kevin, welcome sir. Can you tell me a little bit about your role at the time?

(01:17) Absolutely Tim. I was a very senior trainer at the time, and it just so happens this was my very last underway in uniform. I was gonna get ready to transfer to the admiral. And to provide a little context here so it makes more sense: I was up on watch, any other watch I had stood thousands, and I noticed these odd tracks off the coast of Catalina Island. And I say odd because I didn't, I wasn't fully aware of it at the time, but apparently they were coming from low Earth orbit because our ballistic missile defense watch centers were watching that piece of sky. I really wasn't, but they when they got down to 28,000 feet and just started tracking slowly south right through our airspace, I was like "what in the hell are these?" Nothing that high flies that slow, it's gonna fall out of the sky. Wasn't worried about them, thought it was civilian related. We were tracking them on our data links, reporting it back to the beach.

(01:48) Until our wing got on board the Nimitz. We're gonna do an air defense exercise right in that same piece of airspace, and that's when I became concerned from a safety of flight perspective, which to this day remains my primary concern.

(02:22) Yeah well if it's okay let me back up just a sec. And again what I'm going to try and do is walk you through the timeline, and actually that's just as much for me as for anybody else, that way I don't get completely lost. But so at the time there was former Petty Officer Third Class Gary Voorhis. He told Popular Mechanics that the carrier group is going to be deploying in a few months and there were a bunch of new systems like the SPY-1 Bravo radar. So is it accurate to say that the Princeton was carrying a lot of new and enhanced sensor capabilities at the time?

(02:55) That's accurate, shape being correct. Okay, one of our roles out there in addition to training, we were checking out new equipment, you bet. And the reason I asked that is various people have said, you know, maybe these UAPs have been around a lot, maybe we just didn't see them before, maybe it was the enhanced equipment that made them visible. And that's true in the civilian world too. Think of all the new technology out there now, cell phones everywhere. People are just, they have the ability to record it now or before, no.

(03:25) Yeah so this initial incident in November, this started with radar techs. And I understand this happened a week before Commander Fravor's encounter, and I'll come back to that in a bit. But it started with radar techs getting ghost tracks and clutter on the radars, and initially they didn't understand what they were seeing, right?

(03:57) Well that was one of, that was because we were testing out the new SPY system. It's one of the things that we had to check out. So we brought everything down, brought everything up, and it turns out the contacts were actually solid contacts, the highest radar quality you could get. And that was confirmed of course when Commander Fravor on Fast Eagle flight did the VID on it, the visual identification on it. It was a solid object.

(04:30) Yeah yeah. Well and that was in my notes as well. So you know these ghost tracks, they led to concerns that the CEC and the Aegis combat system or the SPY-1 radar system might have been malfunctioning. So they actually took down the air control systems, recalibrated, tried to clear out what was thought to be false returns. And if I understand correctly, once the recalibration was complete, the tracks were actually sharper and clearer than before.

(05:07) That's correct, that's Gary Voorhis' testimony, that's correct. And that was my observations as well. Yeah so initially, and again I hope I'm not too pinpoint on this, I'm just trying to go through data points. These initial tracks began at an altitude of 60 to 80,000 feet, and then other times they were as low as 30,000 feet, only traveling around 100 knots. Right right yeah. And so they didn't match any known aircraft, they didn't have any IFF or transponder or anything along those lines.

(05:44) They did not, nope. Yeah now so no electronic emissions of any kind either, nothing detected on our EW, electronic warfare gear. Oh okay. And so your job, I mean you were the man here, your job was to man the radars and ID everything that flew in the skies, right? And again as you mentioned this is a safety issue. So yep, that was my concern, remains so today.

(06:24) Yeah well so on November 10th, and the dates are a little fuzzy and that makes sense, but you guys were about a hundred miles off the coast of San Diego. You started noticing strange radar tracks yourself near San Clemente Island, in groups of five to ten at a time, at around 28,000 feet, traveling around 100 knots south. Catalina Island. Catalina Island, okay yeah. Which is interesting, I've heard a lot of people mention Catalina Island as well, they're confused commonly.

(06:53) Yeah now had you at this time, because I as I understand things the radar techs have been seeing these for a few days off and on before this, right? Had you heard any of the reports from any of the other folks about these strange tracks? We were all tracking them on the ships and we weren't concerned about them, because we have a thing in the Navy, in all the services, called the Notice to Air Mariners. In other words, if there's a published document that tells everything that's going to fly, that helps us out when we're close to some friendly territories of course, we can help identify stuff.

(07:23) Well these objects, whatever they were, weren't listed in the NOTAMs. However we didn't have an aircraft on board. They as far as we knew, they didn't even know we were down there. And they were just doing their thing, going slowly down the coast. We're reporting them on their data links, doing our job, putting them to the beach and making everyone that cared and was fully aware that they were there.

(08:02) Yeah so it sounds like other ships too, right? Because this is a carrier group, strike group, the whole strike group. Yeah the whole strike group. Oh okay, so potentially not just Nimitz but there were other ships with us. Yes. And so lots of ships were seeing these on their radars.

(08:33) Next question please. Oh okay yeah what do you want me to say? Yeah I mean yeah. Oh yeah no, I should apologize. So one of the things that was really interesting to me was when I was reading through this. So Gary Voorhis said that he used heavily magnified binoculars to spot these objects visually from the bridge. Now he said they were visible moving erratically during the day and they gave off a phosphorous glow as they hovered and darted about at night. Can you tell me anything about these visual sightings? Can you tell me a little bit about what he's told you about them?

(09:09) Well absolutely. There's nets on the ship to help us communicate, of course we're in headset sets just like you're wearing now, and everything we're doing in CIC can be listened to on the bridge of course. So every time we would pick one of these things up on radar, the bridge watchstanders would find it through the binoculars, handheld, and the ship's big eye system on the bridge wings. You've got these magnifying glasses to go outside and look. You can see stuff magnified, and that's what Gary was talking about. And I myself went up a couple times just to check them out, but unfortunately for me I didn't see them do anything odd. They were just a boring white light tracking south when I saw them. But apparently other people on the bridge saw maneuvers in unnatural ways, put it that way.

(09:39) Yeah well no, what's interesting to me about that is you had visual sightings before Commander Fravor's, right? Oh yeah yeah, several days. Yeah we were tracking these objects for several days before the air wing was even on board the Nimitz.

(10:12) Yeah and I understand later on, and this would have been I think the 2019 incident, there was one that was again near Catalina Island. In this later incident it was the same thing, they were tracking them visually during the day, and then I believe Voorhis had said that they were kind of a phosphorous glow at night. So these things were at night as well? Yeah you could see them at night, they were glowing a bit yeah, according to the bridge watchstanders. Now I finally saw them in the daytime myself, kind of correlated them towards twilight maybe it was, but according to the other testimony they were glowing at night.

(10:45) Yes. Did you see, just out of curiosity, did you see anything interesting? I mean it sounds like you couldn't make out any details, you just saw kind of a glowing white light, correct? Yeah okay. And they were just kind of hovering. According to Commander Fravor's testimony about 47 feet long, and I was observing them at the time probably 40 miles away from the ship, so you know just a speck in the sky. I couldn't make any detail, can't even make out the shape at that range other than his profile of course.

(11:19) Yeah no I definitely understand what you're saying. Well you know one of the other things that I had read and I thought this was really interesting, I think the media got this but they didn't give it enough attention, was: As I understand things, at least the ballistic missile defense radar systems detected these in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet. So this was on November 10th. So basically you got a warning that said these things were in space and they dropped down to about 80,000 feet from there?

(11:48) Yeah and I have to cut in right here. At the time this was all happening, that was not my situational awareness. I didn't know about that at the time. I found out later. Just so you know, it was not my area of concern. I'm not an air defense guy, and threat aircraft don't fly that high. I mean it could change in the future, but at the time, no.

(12:20) Okay I see what you mean. Yeah so you just weren't aware of that at the time then? Yeah I just, I thought that was, that wasn't, no because I wasn't paying attention to it. Yeah yeah. What was in my area of focus at the moment, just like sonar controllers, because you're gonna ask me probably about objects in the water I would have to imagine, and we'll get to that if you're gonna ask it, but it's the same situation. I wasn't aware of any of that.

(12:46) Well sure, no I'd love to ask about sonar. I wasn't aware of that. Did you guys have contacts there? It was not, I didn't find out there was anything going in the water or anything until days later. It was at the time not my situational awareness. It was outside from after Commander Fravor's intercept, and that's when it dropped from where they were, 28,000 feet straight down to the surface of the water. He followed it down and it went and disappeared right in front of him.

(13:21) Yeah yeah and that was a few days later, that was on the 14th. So but you know what interested me was these things had been around, they had been noticed. I mean it makes sense that these weren't the focus right, because you guys are trying to run a carrier group, you're busy, you've got a lot of stuff going on. But it was interesting that we were watching them. Yeah we were watching it, definitely paying attention to them, wondering what the hell they were. Yeah reporting them back to the admiral on the beach, you know, just in case they wanted this data. There it is. You guys might know this, I mean we're reporting it, so what else could we do? We're not going to shoot them down at the time. So what were we supposed to do?

(13:55) Did they seem to have an interest in the ships at all, or were they just in the area? Nope, zero interest in the ships. Yeah. I'm just gonna ask, did they display any interest in this whatsoever? Did they, they wanted to avoid us. Oh okay. So they didn't get near the ships at all? No they remained at altitude and kept going south. And if I counted up the course of time we were tracking, they appeared in groups of five to ten each. You count them all, about 100 tracks over the course of many days. And the curious thing about it, of course the carrier strike group is moving all over the ocean, right? And so is our radar envelope of course, it goes with the ship. Well those contacts, every one of them disappeared over Guadalupe Island in the same point in the sky.

(14:32) Oh okay. So that's because I think it was, and that it happened in November right, and I'm thinking of my, because I'm an avid whale watcher and I used to do it, I used to enjoy the heck out of going out and watching them you know when I was off the coast. And they would go from Catalina area down to Guadalupe Island in November. And that's when I couldn't shake the feeling there was some connection to that somehow at the time. And I didn't voice it to anyone, I wasn't even really brave enough to think it out loud if you will, because it sounded crazy at the time. But the more I thought about it later, the more it makes sense to me, almost like there was some connection with the whales.

(15:07) Yeah no that's interesting. So they disappeared over Guadalupe Island. Well also when these things, and again this was kind of out of your situational awareness, these dropped down to 80,000 feet, they set off the ballistic missile defense thing in groups of 10 to 20 and then they went down to around 28,000 feet after that. And I think you mentioned this during the conference, so they started out high and then they went down to about 28,000 feet, they're only going about 100 knots, right right. Okay yeah I was just curious. Um the reason I mentioned that is Kevin Knuth, Robert Powell and Peter Reali from the SCU, they did an analysis on this and they estimated g-forces that could have been measuring in the thousands of g's. And that's once they were intercepted. Okay before we started messing with them quote unquote, they were simply tracking 28,000 feet going 100 knots until we decided to intercept them and then all hell broke loose and they started doing their erratic stuff.

(15:42) Oh interesting. Okay up until that point no, it was boring, just boring tracks were important on the data links. So they were really straightforward, they'd just be moving south at 100 knots, and then once you did the intercept they started moving very erratically, correct? But from that point, once they it seemed to me once they knew that we were aware of them, then they were not. I don't, you tell me. Yeah yeah I guess it was, yours I don't know.

(16:13) No you know what, I'm just excited to be able to interview you Kevin, that's the big thing for me. Yeah I'm really excited to be able to have you. Thank you doc, the pleasure to do this with you is really good for me. It feels good to talk about it and I think people need to hear this because there's something to this man.

(16:49) Well you know the thing that interests me about this, the thing that really excites me about stories like this, you're there, you've got a lot of stuff going on right, like as you mentioned, you're trying to pay attention to a bunch of different things and you catch details in your mind that you may not know that you caught. And so I think being able to tell the story multiple times and tell it from different approaches I guess helps sometimes things pop into memory you know. And then one of the challenges, and this would happen to anyone, but this happened back in 2004 right, so this was 18 years ago at this point. Memories like that, it's difficult over time to go back and remember and remember accurately everything. So it, you know I appreciate you sharing this story with me.

(17:23) You're welcome. Yeah well so with Commander Fravor, he attempted to intercept these, this is on November 14th right, and this is the story that made the headlines. He was in an F-18 Super Hornet, call sign Fast Eagle One, and then Lieutenant Commander Jim Slaight was flying another Super Hornet with callsign Fast Eagle Two. So they were, when these UAPs appeared they were the Fast Eagle One and Two, were initially headed to a combat air patrol point to do exercises, they were already airborne right? Right yeah. And so they've been in the air for about half an hour. You guys saw the launch, they were at the time we took control they were the closest to the objectives so we just took control of it, it made the most sense at the time to use them. Yeah so it's just basically they were the closest to it, you were able to redirect them.

(17:58) Yeah so if I understand correctly when they did the intercept, and again this is publicly reported, they noticed a disturbed patch of water and he described it, I think Fravor described it as it appeared as if there was a large object maybe a downed aircraft about 10 to 15 feet below the surface, and then they also spotted a white UAP above that that looked like a large cylindrical butane tank or Tic Tac, about 50 feet in length, 10 to 15 feet wide. That's his testimony. Interesting, unless it was, I mean maybe it was a whale you know, maybe that would fit with the whale theory.

(18:36) Was that something else that the media didn't give a lot of attention to? I thought this was interesting, was so the disturbance in the water was again this was probably about the estimated 10 to 15 feet below the surface, but the UAP was moving around near the ocean surface and its movement didn't have any apparent effect on the surface, right? Like so they didn't have rotor wash or down pressure like you'd have with a low-flying aircraft. That's Commander Fravor's testimony. I have no, yeah yeah you were on the ship with that, you were on the ship that makes sense.

(19:15) Yeah well you know what's interesting, and you'd mentioned earlier that when he maneuvered closer to get a look at the UAP, you know it shot across his nose heading south, was gone within a second. Commander Slaight described the acceleration as if it was shooting out of a rifle, and then the disturbance in the water disappeared at the same time. So that would be, but after the UAP accelerated away at high speed, and I guess you probably would have seen this, you spotted it on radar waiting at the combat assembly point which was predetermined in secret. So when they got to their combat assembly point this thing was already there waiting for them, is that accurate?

(19:49) Yeah somehow this object, whatever it was, disappeared right from him and reappeared at his assigned combat air patrol station. Okay interesting. At his assignment, I mean we have several right but this was Fast Eagle's assigned and other ones were assigned to other reflectors of course, and so it went to his specifically in the direction of the threat, yeah to protect us. And how did that happen? I don't know to this day, that's a big mystery.

(20:23) Yeah so that, I'm sorry that that's essentially the timeline that I had but you know I'm happy to kind of go over things more with you. Yeah so yeah I mean it's pretty remarkable. Again in 2019, I forgot the name of the ship, 2019 2020 there was one that was again off Catalina Island remember right, they were doing a patrol and they saw groups of these UAPs in a very similar manner to what you guys described. So it seems like the same series of events but like you know 17, 16 years later something like that. I'm glad it's finally being taken seriously you know, I'm glad it's okay to talk about now.

(20:59) Um it cost me a second career because no one would listen to me. I got laughed out of meetings, I'd raise my hand and say "hey guys we got a safety issue off the coast and off San Diego" and they're like "what do you mean Kevin?" I would try to describe what happened and I got laughed at man, I can't even describe how much that hurt. At one point even my boss asked me "Kevin what have you been smoking?" You know what I ended up quitting my job, I couldn't take it. And because of that Tim what I did is I was going to go to school and I did, I got my master's degree, go do something else which I am, but I ended up back in Phoenix and I said "y'all know what I'll do, I'll fictionalize this whole darn story and I'll write some other short stories I'd like to write and I'll publish the whole thing in the Library of Congress just in case the story ever becomes public." That my book that I published in early 2009 becomes direct evidence that this thing really happened, because in my short story I asked to use the word Tic Tac, actually use the word Nimitz and Princeton, if there's no mistaking that I wrote about the same thing.

(21:39) Yeah yeah and that that is one of the reasons why the government came out and had to admit it, because there was evidence that they couldn't, I mean how do you, I don't have a time machine and that's what happened. Yeah no it makes sense and I think it's intensely interesting right. I mean you guys had, I mean Fravor had if I remember right they had FLIR video of it right, and so you know they've got the video, you have visual sightings, you have I mean I'm not sure how many systems that showed up and showed up on the SPY-1 radar right, apparently it showed up on the ballistic missile defense radar system and that's probably satellite based, so visual you know through big eyes and visual through the cockpit of the Super Hornet. Yeah yeah I mean they were real.

(22:14) Do you think there's any way these were man-made objects? Um if I had to assign a probability to it I would say four percent that it's us. I think the odds are, and the reason, the main reason why I say that, and you brought this up earlier, one of the reasons why there is more and more UAP reports now because there's technology out there, people are able to record stuff that we've been seeing for a long long long time. Um so that technology would have had to have been here for a long long long time right, which doesn't make sense to me. I mean if this technology existed in 1902 um we would know about it by now, come on you know what I mean. So well no I don't think it's, I think it's very improbable that it's mankind.

(22:46) It you know and having done a little bit of research on this, one of the things I found was there were reports off Catalina Island from Boy Scouts in 2011 I think of seeing very much the same thing. These were scouts who were on the island, I think if I remember right there was an entire troop and they reported seeing something very similar you know, and then reports in 2019 of something that's almost the same. So what whatever this is, I mean you mentioned Guadalupe Island is kind of a destination point but it seems like for some reason Catalina Island seems to be a hot spot for these. Yeah you know and something else that I've read was um sat in that water maybe it could be, could be or um you know maybe they were, I don't know who knows, again I'm thinking Star Trek IV maybe they were studying the whales or something along those lines you know.

(23:20) Looks like I got someone in down the driveway. Oh okay well Kevin sir let me thank you so much for your time today. I cannot thank you enough. Hey let's let some time go by and then we'll regroup and do this again at some point in the future, not too long from now. Thank you again sir. I'm out.