Chad Underwood
Underwood recorded the FLIR video later associated with the Nimitz case and helped shape how the public understood the encounter.
Who This Witness Was
Chad Underwood was a US Navy aviator aboard USS Nimitz during the November 2004 training exercises. On a sortie after the Fravor-Dietrich visual encounter, his aircraft acquired and recorded the infrared target shown in the video commonly called FLIR1.
Underwood is the primary witness to the acquisition of that recording. He was not present for Fravor's earlier close visual manoeuvring encounter.
What Is Attributable to This Witness
Underwood has said that:
- he was directed to investigate after the earlier aircrew returned;
- his aircraft's targeting system acquired an unidentified target;
- he focused on maintaining sensor track and recording;
- he did not obtain a useful unaided visual view;
- the target was difficult to identify through the sensor;
- the system experienced unusual or difficult tracking behaviour;
- he used or helped popularise the "Tic Tac" label;
- the target eventually left or was lost from track.
He can directly describe cockpit operation, sensor presentation and mission context. He cannot directly corroborate Fravor's earlier close-range visual details.
How the Account Entered the Record
FLIR1 was recorded contemporaneously in November 2004. Copies later circulated outside official channels and were published in connection with the 2017 reporting on military UAP encounters.
The Department of Defense formally released the video in April 2020 and confirmed that it was authentic Navy footage. It stated that the phenomenon remained characterised as unidentified.
Underwood gave a detailed named interview in 2019. This is useful first-person testimony but was recorded fifteen years after the sortie. Technical claims should be compared with the displayed symbology and complete engineering data rather than accepted solely from recollection.
Evidence Analysis
Directness and Access
Underwood directly operated the aircraft and sensor system associated with FLIR1. This gives him high evidential value for:
- acquisition circumstances;
- sensor workload;
- whether track was difficult to maintain;
- what the display looked like to an experienced operator;
- what was discussed during the sortie and debrief.
His directness is lower for:
- target distance;
- physical size;
- true velocity;
- the cause of track loss;
- identity with Fravor's object;
- the earlier radar history.
Those questions require data beyond operator recollection.
No Direct Visual Identification
Underwood has said that he concentrated on the sensor and did not obtain a clear naked-eye view. His observation was therefore instrument-mediated.
This limits claims about physical shape. The white oblong image can represent:
- the target's true thermal outline;
- infrared glare;
- sensor point-spread;
- unresolved structure;
- a combination of target and optical effects.
The label "Tic Tac" is a description of appearance, not a measured geometry.
Sensor Expertise
Underwood's F/A-18 and targeting-pod experience is highly relevant. He would be familiar with normal displays, track modes and common aircraft targets.
Expert interpretation remains constrained when key values are missing. The public clip does not provide a verified target range. Without range, apparent angular motion cannot yield physical speed.
The public video is also a selected excerpt rather than the complete mission package.
Track Difficulty and Claimed Jamming
Underwood has described unusual track behaviour and used language associated with jamming or interference.
A jamming conclusion would require diagnostic evidence distinguishing deliberate electronic countermeasures from:
- weak contrast;
- mode transition;
- background clutter;
- track-gate behaviour;
- target aspect;
- sensor limits;
- atmospheric effects;
- operator manoeuvre.
No public electronic-warfare log or full telemetry demonstrates intentional jamming by the target.
Apparent Departure
The clip ends as the target moves out of or is lost from the field of view. This is often described as extraordinary acceleration.
The image alone does not establish that interpretation. Track loss can result from:
- sensor slew;
- aircraft geometry;
- loss of contrast;
- target movement at ordinary speed;
- a mode or field-of-view change;
- the end of the selected clip.
A measured acceleration requires known range, frame-by-frame line of sight and aircraft motion.
Relationship to the Earlier Visual Encounter
Fravor and Dietrich encountered an object earlier. Underwood's sortie occurred later in the exercise sequence.
The public record does not provide a continuous radar or visual track linking:
- the earlier object;
- the combat-air-patrol-point claim;
- Underwood's target;
- every preceding radar contact.
Operational context makes a relationship plausible. It does not establish identity.
The Value of the Video
FLIR1 is important because it is a contemporaneous military sensor product with visible symbology. It demonstrates that Underwood tracked a target he could not identify.
It does not by itself demonstrate:
- wingless physical structure;
- extraordinary speed;
- instantaneous acceleration;
- transmedium travel;
- advanced propulsion;
- non-human origin.
Alternative Interpretations
Distant conventional aircraft
Strengths
- A distant aircraft can be unresolved in infrared.
- Infrared glare can obscure wings and tail.
- Unknown range permits ordinary speed.
- Track loss can occur through geometry or sensor limits.
Weaknesses
- Underwood did not recognise a conventional aircraft signature.
- The operational context involved earlier unknown contacts.
- No specific aircraft has been matched publicly.
Balloon or non-powered object
Strengths
- Can appear as a simple oblong thermal target.
- Unknown range and aircraft motion can create apparent motion.
- Lack of visible control surfaces is expected.
Weaknesses
- The sensor track and reported behaviour may not fit passive drift.
- No balloon release has been connected to the event.
Sensor artefact or glare around a real source
Strengths
- Explains simple shape.
- Fits instrument-mediated observation without naked-eye confirmation.
- Can alter apparent size and aspect.
Weaknesses
- A real external target still appears to have been tracked.
- Artefact alone may not explain the complete line-of-sight history.
A genuinely unidentified physical object
Strengths
- Recorded by an experienced operational crew.
- The target remained unidentified after debrief.
- The event occurred in a wider sequence of unusual reports.
Weaknesses
- Range and full telemetry are unavailable.
- The clip does not show validated extraordinary kinematics.
- Identity with the earlier object is not established.
What Is Established
- Underwood operated the aircraft and sensor that recorded FLIR1.
- FLIR1 is authentic Navy footage.
- He did not share Fravor's earlier close visual encounter.
- He tracked an unidentified infrared target.
- The public clip lacks enough information for a complete kinematic solution.
What Is Not Established
- A direct naked-eye view by Underwood.
- Physical dimensions or structure.
- Deliberate electronic jamming.
- Extraordinary acceleration.
- Identity with Fravor's object.
- The target's operator, technology or origin.
Overall Assessment
We assess Underwood as the strongest witness to how FLIR1 was acquired. His direct sensor expertise and the contemporaneous video make his account more valuable than a later recollection without instrumentation.
The recording documents an unidentified target. It does not independently verify the earlier close encounter or demonstrate extraordinary acceleration. Technical language from interviews should remain subordinate to complete telemetry, which is not publicly available.
Confidence by Proposition
- HighUnderwood acquired and recorded a real external sensor target.
- HighThe target was unidentified to him during the mission.
- ModerateThe target had an unusual presentation relative to routine aircraft.
- LowIt deliberately jammed the sensor.
- LowIt made an extraordinary high-acceleration departure.
- Very lowFLIR1 establishes non-human technology.
Sources
Official records, contemporary material, institutional archives and other cited research. Inclusion documents the record; it does not mean the publisher endorses every reported interpretation.
Further interviews and media
Specific interviews, recordings and documentary material relevant to this witness or the associated event. These items are context and source material, not independent authentication of every claim made in them.
Associated Case Research
Other witnesses in the record
These links identify people or groups associated with the same case. Their accounts should be assessed independently before being treated as corroboration.