A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Elevens Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND RESULTING CONCLUSIONS BY THE SCIENTIFIC COALITION FOR UFOLOGY March 2019 I. Abstractp.1 II. Introductionp.1 p.2 III. Datap.2 p.15 IV. Analysisp.15 p.17 V. Discussionp.17 p.18 VI. Conclusionp.19 VII. Acknowledgementsp.19 VIII. Referencesp.20 p.21 VIII. Appendices (A) Glossaryp.22 p.27 (B) FOIA Requests and Repliesp.28 p.93 (C) Documents Referencedp.94 p.151 (D) Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR)p.152 p.155 (E) Video Provenancep.156 p.159 (F) Background Information on Carrier Strike Group Elevenp.160 p.165 (G) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Radar Observationsp.166 p.175 (H) Calculations of Size, Distance, & Angular Size p.176 p.177 ( I ) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on Blind Point Distancep.178 p.194 (J) Acceleration, Speed, and Power Calculations Based on FLIR Videop.195 p.225 (K) A Video Analysisp.226 p.246 (L) Witness and Associated Informationp.247 p.268 SCU Manuscript A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Elevens Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle Robert Powell , Peter Reali , Tim Thompson , Morgan Beall , Doug Kimzey , and Richard Hoffman Scientific Coalition for Ufology, Town Lake Dr., Ste A, #173, Fort Myers, Florida *Corresponding author: Robert Powell,
[email protected] On November 14 of 2004, the U.S. Navys 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 Navys 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 and the F-35 has maintained structural integrity up to 13.5 g-forces. Our results suggest that given the available information the AAVs 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. Nonetheless, military reports of sightings of these objects continues to this day as does the investigation of such incidences by the military. SCU Manuscript The event involving CS G 11 is one of several well-documented AA V 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. 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. 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-52s 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. 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 constables home that suddenly accelerated to the northeast at over 1,900 mph. 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). 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 quantit y 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 SCU Manuscript 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 witnesss 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 SCU Manuscript (retired) observed the tic tac, and I believe Lt Col . (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. 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. 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. 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 Navys Carrier Strike Group (CSG) could provide information such as speed, acceleration, manuevers, 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 SCU Manuscript 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 Princetons 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. 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 training exercises prior to deployment to the Middle East. The exercises varied 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). 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. The major event occurred on November 14, but for several days prior to that date AAVs (Anomalous Aerial Vehiclesthe Navys term for a UFO at the time; these terms are often used interchangeably by Navy Senior Chief Kevin Day, USS Princeton Cruise Book, 2003 SCU Manuscript 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. 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. 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. The Nimitz Deck Log indicates the ship was located at 3112.3N 117