The “Tic Tac” UAP, first described during the 2004 Nimitz incident, refers to a smooth, white, wingless object tracked by Navy pilots and captured on ATFLIR by WSO Chad Underwood, who coined the term. This article explores how the Tic Tac became the template for oblong UAP reports and examines the available public evidence, including DoD-confirmed video, consistent eyewitness testimony, and reported, but unreleased, radar and sensor data. Central to the analysis is the challenge of interpretation without absolute range data: ATFLIR’s limitations prevent definitive speed, size, or acceleration calculations. Independent studies proposing extreme g-forces rely on unverifiable assumptions. Meanwhile, AARO’s investigations into other Navy UAP videos illustrate how sensor artifacts can create illusions of anomalous motion. The article delineates confirmed elements from unresolved claims, such as sudden positional jumps and non-aerodynamic behavior. It concludes with data collection recommendations for future incidents and a claims taxonomy categorizing verified facts, probable interpretations, and disputed assertions. In the absence of comprehensive, multi-sensor, range-aware datasets, the Tic Tac remains a high-profile but inconclusive case, an icon of the UAP enigma rather than a solved mystery.
While “Tic Tac” has become a shape shorthand across many reports, the best-documented exemplar remains the 2004 USS Nimitz/USS Princeton event off Southern California, which combined eyewitness accounts (Cmdr. David Fravor, Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich), shipborne radar reports (CG-59 Princeton, AN/SPY-1B), an E-2C Hawkeye airborne early-warning platform, and the ATFLIR video. (Congress.gov, CBS News) This article takes a data-first pass at what the Tic Tac appears to be (shape), what it is claimed to do (performance), what the sensors can and cannot tell us, and the constraints imposed by physics and instrumentation.
Core Datasets and What They Contain
A. Officially released government material
- FLIR1 (2004 Nimitz video): DoD release notice stating the videos are authentic Navy recordings of unidentified objects; no performance conclusions are offered. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- ODNI UAP assessments (2021–2023): Preliminary and annual reports emphasizing limited/high-quality data is rare, multi-sensor corroboration exists in a subset of cases, and sensor errors & misperception can explain others. They do not resolve the Nimitz case but provide context for uncertainty. (Director of National Intelligence)
- AARO (DoD) public materials:
- AARO Historical Record Report (Vol. 1, 2024): Broad historical review; no evidence found of extraterrestrial technology in government possession; stresses that most cases with sufficient data resolve to ordinary explanations. It does not adjudicate Nimitz specifically. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- AARO “Official UAP Imagery” case resolutions (e.g., “GoFast,” “Western U.S. Objects”): show how long-range aircraft and sensor artifacts can mimic extraordinary motion in IR footage, useful analogues for understanding what the ATFLIR can and cannot prove. (AARO)
B. Witness testimony & journalism
- Cmdr. Fravor & Lt. Cmdr. Dietrich (multiple interviews; sworn testimony July 26, 2023): describe a smooth, white, wingless object maneuvering in ways they considered beyond known aircraft; Dietrich notes the sighting was “unsettling.” (Congress.gov, CBS News)
- Lt. Cmdr. (then Lt.) Chad Underwood: first public interview Dec. 2019; confirms he coined “Tic Tac,” describes tracking behavior on ATFLIR; emphasizes anomalies in apparent motion. (New York Magazine)
C. Technical context
- Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR: 3rd-generation MWIR/EO targeting pod; very long slant-range detection; multiple FOVs; passive tracking; critical detail, ATFLIR video alone typically lacks absolute range to the target without laser ranging or other cueing. (Scribd, militaryperiscope.com)
- AN/SPY-1 (Aegis) on USS Princeton: high-power S-band phased-array radar with simultaneous search/track; improved SPY-1B first went to sea on Princeton. Knowledgeable about capabilities, but no official raw track files from Nov 2004 have been publicly released. (U.S. Navy)
- E-2C Hawkeye (AN/APS-145): airborne early-warning platform fusing sensors & links to build a coherent picture; again, no raw 2004 track files are public. (jhuapl.edu, man.fas.org)
D. Third-party technical analyses (non-government)
- SCU (Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies) Nimitz analysis: infers very high accelerations (tens to hundreds of g) from ATFLIR video + testimonial radar/visual inputs; treats object as anomalous relative to known aircraft limits. (Independent; not a U.S. government conclusion.) (The SCU, info-quest.org)
- Knuth et al., 2019 (peer-review venue): estimates 75g to >5000g lower-bound accelerations under certain assumptions combining radar/witness/video; acknowledges challenges in assigning uncertainties. (Independent; controversial.) (PMC)
- Instrument-artifact critiques: show how parallax, sensor zoom changes, glare, compression, and line-of-sight geometry can inflate perceived motion or shape in ATFLIR clips when range & geometry are unknown. (Independent; also not a U.S. government conclusion.) (Metabunk)
Definition: What “Tic Tac” Describes (Shape-First)
- Morphology: oblong/cylindrical, smooth, white in daylight eyewitness accounts; no visible control surfaces (wings, tail, intakes, exhaust plumes). The descriptor is visual-linguistic, coined by the ATFLIR recording WSO (Underwood), later echoed by pilots Fravor and Dietrich. (New York Magazine, CBS News)
- Size (as reported): Fravor and Dietrich have described an object roughly fighter-jet-scale (~40 ft), though absolute size depends on range, which is unknown in the ATFLIR video alone. (The Washington Post)
- Surface/Features: No markings, wings, stubby protrusions, or exhaust plume were reported by the visual witnesses. ATFLIR imagery shows a small, high-contrast IR/TV target whose true geometry is unresolved at that range and resolution. (CBS News, Scribd)
Reported Performance Claims vs. Sensor & Physics Constraints
Below: reported features (eye/radar/pod) vs. what the available data supports and the constraints that matter. Active data links are annotated.
| REPORTED FEATURE (SOURCE) | WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY SHOWS | KEY SENSOR / PHYSICS CONSTRAINTS |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid maneuvering; apparent “instant” displacement (pilots, CIC accounts) (Congress.gov) | FLIR1 shows a target with apparent lateral motion across the field of view and a lock transition; however, no absolute range or 3-D kinematics can be derived from the clip alone. (U.S. Department of Defense) | Without range, speed and acceleration are unconstrained. Parallax and gimbal/zoom changes can produce large apparent accelerations in 2-D footage. AARO case studies (other videos) demonstrate this hazard. (AARO, Metabunk) |
| No wings/exhaust/sonic boom (visual) (CBS News) | Witnesses did not report such features. The ATFLIR clip does not resolve small control surfaces or exhaust at long range; lack of visible exhaust does not prove lack of propulsion. | MWIR and TV modes at long slant range cannot definitively rule out small control surfaces or weak plumes; boom absence in anecdote isn’t dispositive without verified Mach & range. (Scribd) |
| Multi-sensor tracking (SPY-1B, E-2C) (CIC/witness accounts) | The strike group’s sensors reportedly cued intercepts; no raw radar tracks have been released. | SPY-1B can track many targets simultaneously, but public adjudication is impossible without released track files (SNR, track quality, filters, ECM/clutter context). (U.S. Navy) |
| Jump to CAP point within seconds (CIC/pilot accounts) | A frequent testimonial motif; no public sensor data time-stamped across platforms confirms the exact timing. | Extraordinary timing requires synchronized radar, comms, and avionics logs, not public. Absent data, this remains unresolved. (Contrast with AARO’s resolved videos showing long-range aircraft.) (AARO) |
| Extreme g-loads (tens–thousands of g) (SCU, Knuth) (The SCU, PMC) | These are derived estimates requiring assumptions about range & geometry from non-released radar/eye data + the video. Not government-validated. | If accurate, such g’s exceed human tolerance and airframe limits by orders of magnitude. But the inputs are contested; without hard range/time, the inference is fragile. (NASA Technical Reports Server) |
| “Rotation”/shape cues in IR (general ATFLIR discourse) | In other Navy videos (e.g., GIMBAL), rotation is now widely argued to be gimbal-glare behavior; FLIR1 (Nimitz) shows translation, not the dramatic rotation seen in GIMBAL. | ATFLIR optics & processing can rotate glare and alter shapes under certain modes. Analysts warn against inferring craft orientation from sensor artifacts. (Metabunk) |
Bottom line: Lack of range is the single biggest limiter on performance quantification from FLIR1 alone. Any extraordinary acceleration figure necessarily leans on non-public sensor data or assumptive geometry; this is where the debate lives. Nobody contests the pilots’ testimonies, but without this evidentiary data it is hard to prove the anomalies.
Sensor Deep-Dive: What Each Platform Can (and Can’t) Tell Us
ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) on F/A-18E/F
- What it is: A mid-wave infrared/EO targeting system with very long slant range detection, multiple zoom levels, and passive (angles-only) track. (Scribd, militaryperiscope.com)
- What it gives you in FLIR1: Azimuth/elevation to target, apparent angular rate as the LOS slews, pod mode & zoom symbology, aircraft attitude cues.
- What it does NOT give you by itself: Absolute range, true 3-D velocity, true size, mass, propulsion type, g-loads. Any of those require ranging (laser, radar) or correlation with other sensors and telemetry. (Scribd)
- Artifact risk: Gimbal/optical rotation, glare, compression, zoom cuts, and parallax can create false impressions of speed/shape/rotatio, documented in other Navy clips resolved by AARO as distant aircraft. (AARO)
AN/SPY-1B (Aegis) on USS Princeton
- What it is: The cruiser’s S-band phased-array radar, simultaneous search/track/missile guidance; Princeton was the first cruiser to field the improved SPY-1B. (U.S. Navy)
- Potential value: If raw track history were available (SNRs, track quality, altitude/velocity history, doppler), independent 3-D kinematics could be established.
- Public status: No official track files from Nov 2004 have been released. Thus, SPY-1B’s decisive adjudication potential remains unrealized in the public record. (U.S. Navy)
E-2C Hawkeye (AN/APS-145)
- What it is: A flying fusion node correlating multiple sensors and tactical data links (Link-16, etc.) to maintain a coherent air picture. (jhuapl.edu)
- Public status: As with Aegis, no raw product from the E-2C’s 2004 mission set has been released; we can’t reconstruct precise correlation chains from open sources. (man.fas.org)
Physics Context: How Extraordinary Are the Extraordinary Claims?
- Human/airframe g-limits: Modern fighters are typically +9g limited; human tolerance to rapid accelerations is finite and posture-dependent; sustained high-g without protective measures is dangerous. (NASA Technical Reports Server)
- Sonic boom/thermal issues: At transonic/supersonic speeds near sea level, booms and heating are expected. Eyewitnesses did not report a boom, but without verified speeds from sensors the diagnostic value is limited. (Again: no range → no true speed.)
- Implication: If hundreds–thousands of g were truly demonstrated, that implies non-human-rated vehicles or radically different propulsion/field physics. However, those g-loads are inferred from assumptions about geometry and timing that are not independently verifiable in public data. (PMC)
Data-First Synthesis: What’s Strong vs. What’s Not (Yet)
Stronger (public) points:
- Authenticity: FLIR1 is officially released DoD footage of an unidentified object recorded by a Navy ATFLIR in Nov 2004. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- Shape descriptor provenance: “Tic Tac” label was coined by the recording WSO (Underwood); it has since become a category descriptor for similar reports. (New York Magazine)
- Multiple modalities were involved, visuals by two F/A-18F crews, ship radar, and ATFLIR video, though the raw radar/fusion data haven’t been released for independent verification. (Congress.gov)
Weaker (public) points:
- Quantified acceleration & velocity: Not derivable from the public FLIR1 clip alone; range/geometry unknown. Third-party estimates rely on non-public or testimonial inputs. (The SCU, PMC)
- “Jump to CAP point” in seconds: Frequently reported in testimony, but still unverified with synchronized multi-sensor records accessible to researchers. (Congress.gov)
- Exotic interpretations: AARO’s 2024 historical review finds no evidence the U.S. has recovered non-human craft or tech; many cases resolve with better data. Nimitz isn’t resolved by AARO, but the burden of proof remains unmet in public. (U.S. Department of Defense)
Reported Features vs. Sensor/Physics Constraints
- Oblong, white, featureless body; ~40 ft; no wings/tail
- Reported by: Fravor, Dietrich (visual); Underwood’s coinage. (CBS News, The Washington Post, New York Magazine)
- Constraints: ATFLIR resolution and long slant range can mask small features; size depends on range (unknown). (Scribd)
- Exceptional acceleration / “impossible” maneuvering
- Reported by: Fravor testimony; SCU and Knuth derivations. (Congress.gov, The SCU, PMC)
- Constraints: Requires time-synchronized, calibrated, multi-sensor range data. ATFLIR alone is angles-only. Analytic pitfalls (parallax, zoom). (AARO, Metabunk)
- Multi-sensor detection (Aegis/E-2C/F-18)
- Reported by: shipboard and aircrew accounts; media interviews. (Congress.gov)
- Constraints: Without released track files, public cannot validate kinematics or filter out false tracks/clutter/ECM. Capabilities of SPY-1B & APS-145 are known; event data are not. (U.S. Navy, jhuapl.edu)
- No audible sonic boom / no visible plume
- “Jump to CAP” (rapid relocation)
- Reported by: CIC/pilot accounts. (Congress.gov)
- Constraints: Needs precise timing & geolocation across platforms. Not yet in public data releases; currently untestable publicly.
Implications
For defense & safety:
- Data retention & release: Without synchronized raw data (radar track histories, ATFLIR engineering frames, pilot tapes, Link-16 logs), public adjudication of such cases is impossible. AARO’s successful resolutions elsewhere depended on combining video with external flight data, a model for future releases. (AARO)
- Sensor fusion transparency: Even redacted track-quality metrics and timing breadcrumbs could allow independent re-construction of kinematics without revealing tactics or sensitive parameters.
- Training & doctrine: Pilots should be trained not only to capture anomalous events but to bookmark them with time/position marks to ease later fusion.
For science & engineering:
- If future Tic Tac-type events are captured with known range, the community can test whether non-Newtonian or non-aerodynamic behavior is present. Without range, phenomenology is consistent with a wide span, from distant conventional aircraft (AARO’s verdict in other clips) to unknowns.
For public discourse:
- The gap between compelling testimonies and open, multi-sensor datasets fuels enduring controversy. AARO’s 2024 report underscores that better data tends to yield prosaic solutions, but also that some cases remain unresolved given today’s public evidence. (U.S. Department of Defense)
Practical Guidance for Researchers
To turn the Tic Tac from an icon into a test case with adjudicable physics:
- Synchronize time across radar (SPY-1/E-2), ATFLIR, and aircraft INS/GPS; export track files with metadata (SNR, track quality).
- Capture range: laser if safe, radar STT if appropriate, or triangulate with multi-platform EO/IR.
- Preserve engineering-grade video (pre-compression, all frames), zoom events, and gimbal state logs.
- Document environment: atmosphere, sea state (helpful for “disturbed water” claims), background traffic (Mode-S/ADS-B or military de-conflicted traffic), and EMCON/ECM context.
- Release redacted time-position series allowing independent kinematics reconstruction (even if imagery is withheld).
Conclusion
“Tic Tac” is, first and foremost, a shape descriptor anchored by authentic Navy imagery and credible pilots’ testimonies from November 2004. The shape claims (smooth, oblong, no wings) are consistent across witnesses; the performance claims (instantaneous acceleration, “jump to CAP,” extreme g’s) remain unresolved in the public record because the decisive data, range, synchronized multi-sensor tracks, and engineering-grade video metadata, have not been released.
In parallel, the U.S. government’s own UAP assessments in recent years emphasize that better data often resolves “extraordinary” videos into ordinary phenomena, and that most well-characterized cases do not require non-human technology. That doesn’t dispose of Nimitz/Tic Tac, but it does set the standard: if the Tic Tac’s claimed performance is real, it should withstand independent, range-aware reconstruction. Until then, the Tic Tac remains a high-profile unknown distinguished more by the gaps in public data than by what the available evidence can rigorously prove. (U.S. Department of Defense, AARO)
References
- DoD official release of Navy UAP videos (includes FLIR1) U.S. Department of Defense news release, April 27, 2020. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- ODNI Preliminary Assessment on UAP (June 25, 2021) outlines data limitations and multi-sensor issues. (Director of National Intelligence)
- ODNI 2022 & 2023 UAP Reports (unclassified) continued emphasis on better data and unresolved cases. (Director of National Intelligence)
- AARO Historical Record Report, Vol. 1 (Mar 8, 2024) no evidence of recovered non-human tech; most cases resolve with sufficient data. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- AARO Official UAP Imagery – case resolutions demonstrating long-range aircraft and sensor artifacts in other Navy clips. (AARO)
- Underwood interview (Intelligencer, 2019) origin of “Tic Tac” label; first-person account of ATFLIR capture. (New York Magazine)
- Fravor/Dietrich interviews & testimony – CBS 60 Minutes feature (May 16, 2021) and House Oversight hearing transcript (July 26, 2023). (CBS News, Congress.gov)
- ATFLIR technical descriptions – Raytheon/industry overviews of capabilities and limitations. (Scribd, militaryperiscope.com)
- Aegis/AN-SPY-1 background – Navy fact files and historical notes (SPY-1B first to sea on Princeton). (U.S. Navy)
- E-2C/AN-APS-145 fusion role – technical descriptions of multi-source correlation. (jhuapl.edu)
- SCU Nimitz report – independent forensic analysis claiming very high accelerations; not government-endorsed. (The SCU)
- Knuth et al. (2019) – peer-review venue article estimating 75–5000g lower-bounds under assumptions. (PMC)
- Instrument-artifact critiques – Metabunk technical threads on ATFLIR geometry, parallax, glare. (Metabunk)
- Human g-tolerance (NASA literature) classic survey of rapidly applied accelerations. (NASA Technical Reports Server)
- Leaked summaries caveat – AARO’s finding that some “official-looking” docs investigated were inauthentic; handle leaks with caution. (U.S. Department of Defense)
Claims Taxonomy
- DoD provenance of FLIR1 (2004) and its “unidentified” status. (U.S. Department of Defense)
- Underwood’s authorship of the “Tic Tac” label and role as the ATFLIR recorder. (New York Magazine)
- General shape description (oblong, white, wingless) from visual witnesses; consistent with the descriptor that spread to media and reports. (CBS News)
- Multi-sensor involvement (Aegis/E-2C/F-18) per contemporaneous participants; unquantified publicly but plausible given strike-group operations. (Congress.gov)
- Extreme accelerations (≥ tens–thousands of g) inferred by third-party analyses, strongly contested because range/time inputs are assumed rather than published from raw data. (The SCU, PMC, Metabunk)
- “Jump to CAP” in seconds, widely narrated but not corroborated with released synchronized tracks. (Congress.gov)
- Leaked “executive summaries” and dossiers of unclear provenance are often cited online; at least some high-profile “official-looking” documents investigated by AARO in other contexts were deemed inauthentic. Treat leaks about Nimitz carefully until authenticated. (U.S. Department of Defense, handprint.com)
- Not assigned specifically to Nimitz/Tic Tac on the basis of current public evidence. (AARO)
Speculation Labels
Hypothesis: If future Tic Tac–class events are recorded with independent range (e.g., co-mounted laser rangefinding, cooperative radar STT, or triangulated EO), and still show non-ballistic, high-g translation without aerodynamic signatures (shock, plume, thermal), then a non-conventional propulsion regime is implicated.
Witness Interpretation: Fravor/Dietrich describe a real, structured craft performing beyond known flight envelopes. Their interpretation is informed by elite flight experience but remains range-free and thus kinematically ambiguous in the public record. (CBS News)
Researcher Opinion: SCU/Knuth analyses argue that even conservative assumptions imply extraordinary accelerations; critics counter that assumptions dominate the result. Both sides agree that released, synchronized, multi-sensor data would settle the matter. (The SCU, PMC, Metabunk)
SEO Keywords
Tic Tac UAP, Nimitz encounter 2004, FLIR1 video, AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, AN/SPY-1B Aegis radar, E-2C Hawkeye APS-145, UAP performance claims, UAP acceleration estimates, UAP sensor artifacts, AARO UAP report, ODNI UAP assessment, multi-sensor UAP data, Tic Tac shape definition, UAP physics constraints, USS Princeton CG-59 radar, David Fravor testimony, Alex Dietrich interview, Chad Underwood Tic Tac
Origin and Ingestion Date