Sunday, 6 October 2019

UFO Video Interview:
“Tic Tac Witness Patrick Hughes”


Published: 21 September 2019
(The Nimitz Encounters (YouTube channel))

Video text:
“In Nov 2004, one of the biggest UFO mysteries in history unfolded over the Pacific Ocean west of Baja CA. The Nimitz Strike Group, which consisted of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and numerous other warships was conducting training 100 nm west of San Diego, CA. US Navy vet Patrick Hughes was there on USS Nimitz. In this very unusual UFO case, Patrick has some important insight as a participant from more than 4,000 men and woman from the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group. His E2 Hawkeye from the Wallbangers had landed and soon thereafter US Gov officials, both navy and USAF came to his remote shop to confiscate all recordings from the Tic Tac Flight of his E2 Airplane. This is the full interview from my research and film I wanted to share with you. I only used a small portion in the film, it is an important historical record of this event in the SOCAL OPAREA.”

The YouTube channel is run by U.S. filmmaker David C. Beaty.

The November 2004 USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group 11 UFO incidents occurred about a hundred miles south west of San Diego, California. The main UFO incident occurred on 14 November 2004 (Fravor and Slaight).

To my knowledge, eight U.S. Navy personnel, Sean Cahill, Kevin M. Day, David Fravor, Patrick J. Hughes, Omar Lara, Jim Slaight, Jason Turner and Gary Voorhis, have talked about the UFO incidents on the Internet.

Sean Cahill was the Chief Master-at-Arms aboard the USS Princeton.

Kevin M. Day was a radar operator aboard the USS Princeton.

David Fravor, who chased the UFO (resembled a white Tic Tac), was flying his F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighter.

At the time of the UFO incident, Fravor was the commanding officer of the VFA-41 Black Aces, a U.S. Navy strike fighter squadron.

Patrick J. Hughes was an aviation technician aboard the USS Nimitz.

Omar Lara was a Flight Decker in Air Ops aboard the USS Nimitz.

Lieutenant Commander (later Commander) Jim Slaight was the pilot of the second F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighter.

Jason Turner was a Petty Officer Third Class (in Supply) aboard the USS Princeton.

Gary Voorhis was a Fire Controlman Petty Officer Third Class aboard the USS Princeton.

A large number of UFOs were recorded on radar on and off for several days during the November 2004 U.S. Navy exercise, according to USS Princeton radar operator Kevin M. Day.

Gary Voorhis experienced that the unknown objects “zoomed around at ridiculous speeds and angles and trajectories,” and that “it (the UFOs) was moving faster than our radar could register.”


Related posts:







realtvufos.blogspot.com/search?q=New+2019+U.S.+Navy+UFO+Guidelines















Patrick J. Hughes
(The Nimitz Encounters/youtube.com image)

UFO Video Interview:
“Tic Tac Witness Gary Voorhis”


Published: 20 September 2019
(The Nimitz Encounters (YouTube channel))

Video text:
“In Nov 2004, one of the biggest UFO mysteries in history unfolded over the Pacific Ocean west of Baja CA. The Nimitz Strike Group which consisted of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz as well as a compliment of warships, including the guided missile cruiser USS Princeton. US Navy vet Gary Voorhis was there. In this very unusual UFO case, Gary has some important insight as a participant from more than 4,000 men and woman from the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group. This is the full interview from my research and film I wanted to share with you. I used a small portion, it is an important historical record of this event in the SOCAL OPAREA.”

The YouTube channel is run by U.S. filmmaker David C. Beaty.

The November 2004 USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group 11 UFO incidents occurred about a hundred miles south west of San DiegoCalifornia. The main UFO incident occurred on 14 November 2004 (Fravor and Slaight).

To my knowledge, eight U.S. Navy personnel, Sean Cahill, Kevin M. Day, David Fravor, Patrick J. Hughes, Omar Lara, Jim Slaight, Jason Turner and Gary Voorhis, have talked about the UFO incidents on the Internet.

Sean Cahill was the Chief Master-at-Arms aboard the USS Princeton.

Kevin M. Day was a radar operator aboard the USS Princeton.

David Fravor, who chased the UFO (resembled a white Tic Tac), was flying his F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighter.

At the time of the UFO incident, Fravor was the commanding officer of the VFA-41 Black Aces, a U.S. Navy strike fighter squadron.

Patrick J. Hughes was an aviation technician aboard the USS Nimitz.

Omar Lara was a Flight Decker in Air Ops aboard the USS Nimitz.

Lieutenant Commander (later Commander) Jim Slaight was the pilot of the second F/A-18F Super Hornet jet fighter.

Jason Turner was a Petty Officer Third Class (in Supply) aboard the USS Princeton.

Gary Voorhis was a Fire Controlman Petty Officer Third Class aboard the USS Princeton.

A large number of UFOs were recorded on radar on and off for several days during the November 2004 U.S. Navy exercise, according to USS Princeton radar operator Kevin M. Day.

Gary Voorhis experienced that the unknown objects “zoomed around at ridiculous speeds and angles and trajectories,” and that “it (the UFOs) was moving faster than our radar could register.”


Related posts:







realtvufos.blogspot.com/search?q=New+2019+U.S.+Navy+UFO+Guidelines















(The Nimitz Encounters/youtube.com image)

U.S. Government UFO Document:
“Subj: Interpretation of Movies of
Unidentified Objects; progress report on”


4 May 1953
(U.S. Naval Photographic Interpretation Center,
U.S. Naval Receiving Station, Washington, D.C.)

Source: NICAP.org

The document pertains to the 2 July 1952 Tremonton, Utah,
and 15 August 1950 Great FallsMontana, UFO films (filmed by
Warrant Officer and Chief Photographer Delbert C. Newhouse,
U.S. Navy, and Nicholas Mariana, a civilian, respectively).

Quote from the document (not written in U.S. Department of Defense document format) (Page 15):
    “1. … It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis that these images are light sources. This will explain the non-blinking and variations in luminosity – but not the velocity or acceleration factors. In either case, light source or reflective surface, it appears as if the objects are of a nature which we are not able to identify in terms of natural phenomena or commonly known man-made objects.

     2. There is no indication of what kind of objects could have caused the images except that they must be of a construction, design, and material not commonly known. This is indicated by the computed acceleration rate and elocity [velocity] (answer 5). For the same reasons, birds, aircraft and balloons are ruled out.

     3. An analysis of the charts relative to movement indicate that there were group and individual movement. Within a group it appears as if the individual objects were moving counter-clock-wise along an elliptical or similar track. Thus when two objects crossed the camera line of sight they will appear to fuse into one. As they continued along their paths it will appear as if one object became two. This occurred at regular intervals at approximately every 25th frame as plotted in charts 5a and 5b.

     4. All objects appear to have the same characteristics in regards to shape, color, size and relative motion.

     5. The shape of the objects appears to be oblate or disk shaped, color; blue-white, and maximum and minimum size; 98 and 16 feet. The size is based on the assumption that the objects are five miles from the observer.

     6. Fade in and fade out of the objects were analyzed as in 3 above. In this case the group movement was such that the distance between the objects and camera was increased so that the objects could not be recorded on the film thereby causing the apparent fade-out. Fade-in as attributed to a shortening of the distance from the fade-out area to the camera station.

     7. Plots of the groups indicate that the objects move counter-clock-wise relative to the axis of flight path. However, nothing has been detected which indicates motion of the individual objects about their own axis although this motion appears to be likely.

     8. In determining the velocity of the objects three assumptions were made:

           a. The camera was held steady during Part III of the film.

           b. The objects were moving perpendicular to the optical axis, and

           c. The objects were five miles from the camera.

It is obvious that (b) is a fallacy; however, this assumption will give the minimum velocity and the actual velocity is greater than computed. The assumption that the objects are five miles from the camera is an arbitrary one. However, based on the emulsion speed and focal length, and object 50 feet in diameter and five miles from camera will be recorded on the film with sufficient resolution to identify major details of the object. It is felt that if these objects were closer than five miles at the time of recording, details would appear on the film.

Velocity is computed to be 3780 mph for a shift of 1 mm per frame if the object is five miles from the observer. From 55 measurements taken from Part III of the Utah film, the maximum and minimum velocities were 2457 and 378 mph respectively. These figures differ from those given in reference (c) and were computed from measurements obtained under more controlled conditions. Acceleration was determined from the formula: 

Since ‘g’ is equal to 32.17 ft/sec2 it was computed that:

Maximum acceleration = 21,168 mph/sec = 965 g
Minimum acceleration = 1,104 mph/sec = 50 g
Maximum deceleration = 32,448 mph/sec = 1479 g
Minimum deceleration = 272 mph/sec = 12 g

Velocity and acceleration determinations were also made from the Montana film. In this case, terrestrial objects appeared in the film and were held to as control. Subsequently, the velocity and acceleration determinations are considered to be more reliable. On the assumption of (b) and (c) above the maximum and minimum velocities of the left object are 1374 and 361 mph respectfully. For the right object they are 1117 and 189 mph. Accelerations were computed as:
                                                                      Left Object             Right Object
Maximum acceleration mph/sec   14,016 = 639 g     12640 = 576g
Minimum acceleration mph/sec                0 =     0 g                0 =      0g
Maximum deceleration mph/sec   13,184 = 601 g      14288 = 651g
Minimum deceleration mph/sec               0 =      0 g                0 =      0g

The above determinations were made from a total of 322 measurements. It was noted that the acceleration and determinations were in multiples of 12.5 approximately. This may be of significance although no study has been conducted to determine this.

     9. Velocity and acceleration were treated in sub-paragraph 8 above. Paragraph 2a indicates the controls used during this investigation.

     10. a. There is no recurring pattern in the relative position of the objects in formation. It appears however, as if the shift in relative positions were regular and that the original formation would be recovered if the continuing action has been recorded.

          b. No. However, the same formation is maintained with objects changing positions.

          c. No detection of relative positions being maintained coincidental with movement about their axis.

          d. No detection of undulating motion of objects in phase either in formation or tumbling motion.

          e. There is evidence of abrupt changes in direction of flight path through fairly large angles.

          f. Certain objects do appear to remain motionless while other move about.

          g. Certain objects disappear while still well within the field of view. This is discussed in sub-paragraph 6 above.

4. Discussion.

During the study and investigation of the unidentified objects, the preliminary data uncovered were revealed to experts (with proper security clearance) in the fields of astronomy and physics. Although they presented certain natural phenomena theories to explain the cause of the objects under certain conditions they were not able to do so under the conditions during which the photography was taken, nor were they able to recognize these objects as man-made.

As to the results of the investigations being reported, no attempt was made to corroborate the opinions presented. Because of the lack of proper equipment, money and personnel, the investigation was limited. There are obvious tests which can be conducted to prove or disprove some of the findings presented. It is suggested that these be undertaken.

5. Reference (d) requests spectrophotometric analysis of the Utah film be made. Preliminary plan of test id underway.

L. W. KEITH [Officer in Charge]”

The document was sent to Director of Naval Intelligence.

NOTE: The document starts on Page 12. Numbers 1 to 10 in 
this text are sub-paragraphs. Numbers 4 (Discussion.) and 
5 (Reference …) are paragraphs.


Wikipedia article: “Office of Naval Intelligence”:


Quote from the Wikipedia article:
“The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) is the military intelligence agency of the United States Navy. Established in 1882 primarily to advance the Navy’s modernization efforts,[4][5] ONI is the oldest member of the United States Intelligence Community and serves as the nation’s premier source of maritime intelligence. Since the First World War, its mission has broadened to include real-time reporting on the developments and activities of foreign navies; protecting maritime resources and interests; monitoring and countering transnational maritime threats; providing technical, operational, and tactical support to the U.S. Navy and its partners; and surveying the global maritime environment. ONI employs over 3,000 military and civilian personnel worldwide and is headquartered at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Maryland.”












(wikimedia.org image)












Freeze-frame of the 2 July 1952 Tremonton, Utah, UFOs
(filmed by Delbert C. Newhouse, Warrant Officer and
Chief Photographer, U.S. Navy) (gststic.com image)














Satellite photo of Tremonton, Utah (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)







Film freeze-frame of the 15 August 1950 Great FallsMontana, UFOs (filmed by Nicholas Mariana) (ufocasebook.com image)












Satellite photo of Great Falls, Montana (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

Wednesday, 2 October 2019

UFO Case Directory (IMCAT):
“The Tremonton, Utah / Newhouse Color Film
July 2, 1952
Tremonton, Utah”


(NICAP.org)

The whole UFO case report:
Fran Ridge:
July 2, 1952; Tremonton, Utah (BBU)
11:10 a.m. Navy photographer Delbert C. Newhouse and his wife, while driving across the state, saw a group of 12-14 shiny silver objects milling around in the sky. Newhouse stopped and retrieved his 16 mm camera and filmed extensive footage of the objects. He and his wife both reported seeing some of the objects relatively close-up and they were shaped like one plate inverted atop another. When the film was returned to Newhouse following Navy and Air Force analysis, the frames showing the discs close-up had been deleted. What Newhouse and his wife saw BEFORE he was able to get the camera out and running, reportedly, were structured objects, described as ‘gunmetal-colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other.’ (*) The Air Force and the Navy, considering Newhouse’s credibility, spent considerable time and money on the analyses and to classify the Utah Film as ‘Secret’.  Also noted by the analysts was the absence of any evidence to indicate birds such as fluttering. Air Force & Navy analysis: ‘Birds and balloons immediately eliminated, within a five mile radius, aircraft could have easily been determined. In excess of five miles the objects were moving faster than aircraft could achieve, except in straightline speed runs.’ And, surprisingly, an FBI letter documents the importance placed on this incident. **

Update 17 Nov. 2013
Fran Ridge:
Several years ago I had a taped telephone interview with Newhouse and he stuck to his story throughout. At the very least this was a good daylight sighting with two witnesses (one very reputable) and good motion picture footage that neither the Air Force, nor the Navy, nor others could logically explain. The tape was lost went my basement flooded. My last contact with him was a letter dated May 29, 2005. *** Newhouse passed away August 11, 2006 in Portland, Oregon.”












Freeze-frame of the 2 July 1952 Tremonton, Utah, UFOs
(filmed by Delbert C. Newhouse, Warrant Officer and
Chief Photographer, U.S. Navy) (gststic.com image)


















Satellite photo of Tremonton, Utah (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

UFO Case Report:
“UFO NEAR CHEROKEE NUCLEAR STATION
Gaffney, SC
October 13, 1983”


By Francis L. Ridge
(NICAP.org)

The whole UFO case report:
“At 12:30 a.m. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Ruppe of Gaffney, South Carolina were disturbed from their sleep by a siren-like sound (like something taking off). They looked out of their house windows in time to see a glowing oval-shaped UFO about 20 feet above their neighbor’s home.

The neighborhood dogs were barking in a frenzy. The UFO, described  as ‘about the size of a Winnebago travel-trailer’ had two ‘beams of lights’ on the bottom of the object.

It was orange-yellow in color and made a high-pitched sound as it crossed the power lines and moved east in direction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station. The UFO was seen for approximately five minutes and was estimated to be about 20 feet long and 8 to 10 feet in height.”


Wikipedia article: “Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant”:


Quote from the Wikipedia article:
“The Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant is an uncompleted energy project 10 miles (16 km) outside Gaffney, South Carolina, United States. In the early 1970s, Duke Power started construction on a three-reactor nuclear power plant at the site. However, the project stalled due to economic problems by the early 1980s, leading to the project’s eventual abandonment.”

Related posts:


realtvufos.blogspot.com/search?q=1983







Abandoned unit 1 reactor building (text by Wikipedia) 
(Dave Scaglione Photography/wikimedia.org photo)


















Satellite photo of Gaffney, South Carolina (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

UFO Report:
“The 1983 UFO Chronology”


Created: 15 February 2008
Updated: 29 May 2018
(NICAP.org)

Quote from the UFO report:
“This is currently a 5-page chronology of UFO incidents and events for 1983. Our thanks for these chronologies must go to Richard Hall (the original 1983 chronology from UFOE II), Dan Wilson (archive researcher), and Jean Waskiewicz (online NICAP DBase [NSID]. You will note the many foreign reports that we are now being able to access. Our special thanks to Dan Wilson for getting those to us. As more come in, this page will be updated. Previous chronologies (1947 to 1969) involved the expertise of two other team members: William Wise (Project Blue Book Archive) and Brad Sparks (Comprehensive Catalog of Project Blue Book Unknowns).

Francis Ridge
NICAP Site Coordinator

Feb. 19, 1983; Swansea, Glamorgan, South Wales
Daytime. Up to 200 people observed a huge triangular shaped UFO pass overhead in various places along the South Wales coast. They included a class of schoolchildren and a football team. In Swansea two detectives, DS Mike Troake and DC Gethen Humphreys saw the object glide overhead in total silence. DS Troake said, ‘I’m used to seeing aircraft in the sky but this was massive-much bigger than a plane. There was a large main cluster of lights at the front shaped a bit like a Zeppelin followed by a triangular group of lights. They moved gracefully across the sky about 1000 feet up.’ Fearful of ridicule neither officer reported the incident to their colleagues. UFO CLASSIFICATION ­ NL (NOCTURNAL LIGHT) On Duty sighting. 2 Officers. Source: Sunday Mirror 20/02/83 (Source: THE 5TH ANNUAL PRUFOS POLICE REPORT 2006 by Detective Constable 1877 Heseltine British Transport Police.

March 10, 1983; Ventilla, Bolivia
A diesel train of 14 cars was stalled by a huge UFO. First seen as an enormous, blinding cloud of light over the city, it then flew toward the train changing color from bright white to glowing orange. Seventy passengers on board were awakened and screamed in terror. A yellow ray of light struck the locomotive and stalled the engine. Engineer Sixto Churaz said that ‘I tried to start up the engine, but it was dead. Fifteen minutes later the engine suddenly came to life again as the object began to move away from the-train.’ The locomotive had just been through an overhaul and was found to be in perfect condition. Experts from the University of Qruro, railroad officials, and local police confirmed that a UFO had paralyzed the train and that it was not a mechanical breakdown. On three previous nights, nearby villagers being harassed by UFOs tried to frighten them off with gunfire. This episode introduces the extreme challenging element of the engine starting by itself as the UFO departed, a circumstance that has been reported on 27 other occasions for spark-ignited engines. (McCampbell).

March 24, 1983; Happy Camp, CA
4:45 PM. California Highway Patrol officer Harold R. Chandler was on routine patrol near the Northern California border with Oregon when he spotted a dark, circular object, flat with no protuberances, flying overhead across his path. ‘I was looking up at the bottom of the object, It was about 800+ feet above me. [Its] speed was slow, maybe 80-100 m.p.h. ....The craft stood out clearly against the sky and appeared dark gray.’ (Investigation by Paul Cerny; MUFON report form.)

March 27, 1983; 50 nautical miles north of Gorky, Russia
Evening. Russian Air Traffic Controllers had radar-visual reports of a steel-gray colored UFO, the shape of a cigar and the size of an airliner, in view and on their screens for 40 minutes. It was first picked up 50 nautical miles north of Gorky, Russia and vanished about 25 nautical miles from the city. (Source: International UFO Reporter, September-October 1984, p. 13, citing Popovich).

June 21, 1983; Dubno, Ukraine
A wingless cigar-shaped object circled a strategic nuclear facility at Dubno, Ukraine for 18 minutes. (Source: Larry Hatch, U computer database, case # 13365, citing FSR, volume 37, no. 4).

June 23, 1983; North Sea of Japan
12:10 p.m. They (the Navy ship) were travelling in formation with the aircraft carrier USS Midway and its battle group which consisted with approximately 30 ships. At this point in time the USS Midway radioed them and other ships in the battle group that they were tracking 5 unknown objects moving in a V formation from the coast of Russia and the USS Midway just picked them up on their air search radar. (See details below)

July 6, 1983; Above the Polish coast
Daytime. Sighting of a Polish Air Force pilot and co-pilot of a near collision with 2 cylindrical objects that were 6 meters long and a diameter of 2 meters. (Reference: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Eighty Years Of Pilot Sightings, Catalog of Military, Airliner, Private Pilots sightings from 1916 to 2000 February 2001 edition 1300+ cases Dominique F. Weinstein)

Oct. 31, 1983; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
5:10 PM. An F-5E interceptor was scrambled by the Brazilian Air Force as many witnesses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil reported a silvery spot maneuvering over city. The official explanation was balloon, but UFO researchers in Brazil don’t accept it as plausible. (Source: Irene Granchi, APRO Bulletin, July 1984, p. 1).

Dec. 12, 1983; Byron, IL
A triangular flying object was sighted by three men. It moved erratically and made no sound. It had blinking red and white lights. Its erratic path was detected on FAA radar at the Greater Rockford, Illinois airport. (Source: APRO Bulletin, September 1984, p. 8).”


Related posts:

realtvufos.blogspot.com/search?q=1983

















Satellite photo of Byron, Illinois (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

















Satellite photo of Ventilla, Bolivia (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)