Field Report Archive

Evidence Locker

5 inspectable evidence items. Claims and source findings are kept separate.

Documented Timeline

• 2004-11-10: USS Princeton SPY-1B radar operators begin detecting multiple anomalous aerial contacts descending rapidly from above 80,000 feet to hover at approximately 20,000 feet off the coast of Southern California.
• 2004-11-14: During a training flight, USS Princeton detects a target in close proximity and vectors F/A-18F Super Hornets from VFA-41 (USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group) to investigate.
• 2004-11-14: VFA-41 pilots Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich visually observe an oval, solid white object shaped like a large breath mint hovering near a surface disturbance in the ocean before it rapidly ascends and departs.
• 2004-11-14: Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood, flying a second VFA-41 flight, successfully tracks the target using an Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared pod, recording the declassified video referred to as FLIR1.
• 2007-02: The FLIR1 video is leaked to the internet via the Vision Unlimited film website.
• 2017-12: The New York Times publishes an article on the incident and releases the FLIR1 video publicly.
• 2020-04-27: The Department of Defense officially declassifies and authorizes the public release of the FLIR1 video.

Named Participants and Roles

• Commander David Fravor (F/A-18F pilot who visually observed the object at close range)
• Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich (F/A-18F pilot who visually observed the object at close range)
• Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood (F/A-18F weapon systems officer who captured the FLIR1 targeting pod video)
• Senior Chief Kevin Day (USS Princeton radar operator who tracked the anomalous contacts on SPY-1B radar)
• Gary Voorhis (USS Princeton technician who observed the targets through the ship's optical systems)

Contradictions and Record Conflicts

• Initial Navy statements downplayed the incident, whereas radar operators and pilots reported extensive, systematic encounters over multiple days.
• Reports differ regarding whether physical data logs were confiscated by unnamed personnel shortly after the incident.
• The object was described by pilots as having no visible control surfaces or exhaust, yet it executed flight maneuvers that appeared to mimic the jet's movements.

Conventional Explanations

• Atmospheric radar ducting or calibration errors explaining the initial SPY-1B radar targets.
• Unmanned aerial vehicles or secret domestic military technology being tested in the Navy range area.
• Visual misidentification of conventional aircraft or weather events by the pilots under specific illumination conditions.
• Sensor artifacts or tracking glitches in the targeting pod accounting for the rapid acceleration seen in the FLIR1 video.

Missing Evidence

• The original high-resolution radar logs and raw digital telemetry files from the USS Princeton and E-2C Hawkeye are unavailable.
• The deck logs and communication records from the USS Nimitz and USS Princeton during the period of the incident are incomplete or redacted.
• Complete, unredacted versions of the intelligence briefing slides and analysis reports remain classified.

What Remains Unresolved

• The physical nature and propulsion mechanism of the object observed by the pilots and recorded by the FLIR system remain unidentified.
• The origin and operator of the craft are unknown, with no evidence connecting it to any domestic or foreign military project.
• The discrepancy between the object's extreme speed on radar and its lack of sonic booms or thermal signatures remains unexplained.

Investigative Hypotheses

Open Questions

Archival Landing Pages and Evidence Corpus

Media Context