A former US Air Force Intelligence Specialist Mike Turber, has sparked much controversy over his recent claims that Tic Tac shaped UFOs first witnessed and videotaped by Navy pilots back in 2004, were in fact highly classified USAF spacecraft. Turber asserts that this was first revealed to him back in 2005 by a USAF “Audiovisual Specialist” responsible for preparing PowerPoint slides for a classified briefing involving senior officials from the US Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and a major aerospace contractor at a think tank.
A number of individuals have questioned Turber’s authenticity and the accuracy of his information, but a December 2019 response by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) to a Freedom of Information Act request appears to confirm Turber’s core claim that such a classified briefing took place in 2005, and he was the first to report it.
What was discussed at the meeting and what Turber’s confidential source learned goes a long way in answering questions over the origins of the UFOs witnessed and videotaped by Navy personnel during training exercises held in 2004 (Tic Tac case), and later in 2015 (Go Fast and Gimball cases).
Turber’s information also points to a specific defense contractor, likely either Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman, that built the Tic Tacs for the USAF, which tested them against the Navy’s best surveillance and intercept capabilities in 2004. Turber further adds that the Navy later gained its own Tic Tac craft and tested these in the 2015 sightings cases.
I spoke to Turber on March 12, and asked him a series of questions about the 2005 briefing and what he was told about it by his confidential source. The source was a USAF serviceman whose Air Force Speciality Code (AFSC) at the time Turber first met him was AFSC 23030 (Audiovisual Specialist) whom Turber had befriended during his own prior military service with the USAF (1984-1988).
During Turber’s military service, his own AFSC was “Electronic Intelligence Operations Specialist” (20530-50). Turber’s job summary was described as: “Operates electronic monitoring and related equipment, operates electronic analysis equipment, and analyzes, processes, and produces results of monitored electronic emissions.”
This is a vitally important background fact to keep in mind when considering why Turber was later asked by his A/V specialist source to comment on classified intelligence data acquired during the 2004 Tic Tac incident.
Turber’s information is critical for understanding the true origins of the UFOs the Navy pilots began encountering in 2004 and later in 2015 during major Naval training exercises involving different carrier groups with the most advanced radar and electronic monitoring equipment used at the time.
What follows are extracts from my discussion with Turber and the information he shared, which was recorded and transcribed with his permission.
I began by asking Turber when he first met his confidential source who told him about the 2005 briefing. He replied:
Probably in the mid-80s. We’re doing through the Air Force, and so we kept contact, I’ve kept contact with quite a few people that were, you know … good friends or what have you. And I was utilized a lot, you know, I was kind of like the friend that everybody goes to … ask … what do you think about this or that or whatever … in relationship to all kinds of different subject matter. And then that correlated into the think tank program … where we met again because he was part of one of the think tanks that I was at. And he was actually doing the audiovisual for that location.
By 2005, Turber had been recruited from the Air Force with advanced skills in intelligence analysis of electronic communications, and he began working for different defense contractors and intelligence organizations.
Meanwhile, his source/friend continued to work with the Air Force as an A/V Specialist, and contacted him about “briefing slides” he was working on for an upcoming meeting involving Navy communications data about a UFO, which greatly excited him. Turber explains what happened back in 2005:
What he was doing was setting up the, they call them briefing slides, but it’s actually a power point presentation, but they still use old terminology.… The presentation involved the data that was acquired from the [USS] Nimitz and from [USS] Princeton, and also from the [E-2] Hawkeye and a couple of other sources. I can’t remember all of them.… He gave me a call. We talked for a few minutes … I could tell by his voice he was excited, but concerned at the same time.
He thought he was setting up a presentation about a UFO…. So he wasn’t sure how to approach it. But he went ahead and was obviously doing his job and what have you.
Now for him to contact me was obviously way out of norm because that’s just something that, you know, you wouldn’t do if you’re [in] a compartmentalize[d project], and you’re working inside of a certain area. So that’s understandable. So he’s given me permission to say what happened, but not any … specifics…. But the gist of the matter is … he’s listened to some of the comms going back and forth between the pilots and the [USS] Princeton and pilots, and then Hawkeye, and going back forth. But at the time, he didn’t even know what was actually going on. Because that was the first piece of information that he had.
“So well, without listening to them, I can’t really tell you”… and so when he called me back probably an hour or so later, and he played some of the comms over the phone, and I can hear the pilots talking back and forth and some of the other communications that were going on, and you could tell there was something rather odd.
The pilots were being asked what their loadout was, which obviously is a little bit strange. And then, you know, that’s information [that’s] been released, but the other odd thing that occurred was when the pilots of the second group now there’s three, I call them three groups. There was one pilot that was out first that was doing a maintenance check on his plane, and he was going to be part of a Red Team, Blue Team kind of thing.
And then you had Commander Fravor and his … two F-18s that went out for that intercept. And then of course, you had Chad Underwood’s intercept. So on the second flight, which is Commander Fravor’s flight, they were ordered to come back to the ship after the Tic Tac flew past him and went back to the CAP point. But there was more communication than what we’ve heard so far.
The communication that I recall was their request to go after the object and to continue the pursuit and the request to have someone else possibly come up and help them with the loadout problem. So that information has not been revealed. But they were denied that.
Turber went on to describe what happened a few days after he first listened to the radio communications between the different Navy planes and ships discussing the Tic Tac sightings:
About three or four days go by, and he calls back. And at that time, he had gathered a lot more information to say about this stuff we talked about the other day. “I [the AV source] figured it out. This is just Air Force, testing some new technology, blah, blah, blah. And it wasn’t what we thought it was.” Because on our first conversation, he was, we’re both thinking UFO, extraterrestrial origin or whatever. But during the second call, either “A” he was told to clean up the first call if someone knew about it, or “B”, he was actually just telling me what he really found out, which I believe … to be the case…. The information that he gathered in the interim, and with the number of people that were coming to the location for the briefing, he determined that it was US in origin.
Critically, this is where the initial excitement that Turber’s source felt about the UFO sighting, quickly waned since he had learned that it was US built, and not extraterrestrial as he and Turber had first speculated.
Turber went on to describe how the manufacturer of the Tic Tac’s was interested in how the Navy and foreign nations responded to the secret Air Force craft maneuvers:
The name of the manufacturer of the object and the intelligence briefing, and by the people that were coming in, it was quite clear that they were just going over what would be considered existing technology at that time in seeing the response of the Navy, how they would respond to it as it would correlate to how the Russians or how the Chinese would respond to it. Mind that timeframe 2005. The Russians and the Chinese were both of primary concern. Now the Chinese seem to be more of a concern than Russia at the moment.
The critical thing to emphasize here is that Turber is telling us that he first heard in 2005, the data communications recorded on the USS Princeton, on the E-2 Hawkeye and on the USS Nimitz that had been confiscated a year earlier according to several Navy witnesses.
Patrick [PJ] Hughes, a Petty Officer on the USS Nimitz, says that two Air Force personnel confiscated the “data bricks” comprising all the electronic data recorded of the Tic Tacs. Meanwhile, on the USS Princeton, Gary Voorhis said that two unidentified civilians confiscated all the data.
If Turber is accurate in claiming that he listened to radio communications data that had been confiscated a year earlier from two Navy ships, but was now being analyzed for an upcoming briefing by his A/V specialist source, this directly supports the idea that the Tic Tac incidents were part of an Air Force covert operation.
Turber offered the following insight, which strengthens the case that the Tic Tac craft were part of a USAF covert operation.
Now, that, to me, is a very pivotal point in that if you have an object that’s inside military airspace or creating an issue for a training zone, which is where I guess it was whiskey one or whatever they named it, you wouldn’t allow these aircraft to go after an object such as this without some form of ordinance or what have you. But at the time, the question is, why wouldn’t you task someone from Coronado, or from Miramar or from any of these other … locations to go out to this area, which is obviously within minutes of flight time to aid in this in the search, especially if these objects were there for several days.
That’s always been a question of mine and that in some form that leaves proof that this is obviously an Air Force operation. And that the normal military response, if an object is infiltrating our airspace, is obviously send up more assets and to actually continue the pursuit until you figure out what this thing is where it came from, or even if necessary, shoot it down. But it was out in essentially international waters, but it was inside of a military training space.
Turber went on to respond to questions about the 2005 briefing and the defense contractor responsible for building the Tic Tacs that attended, and the role of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in helping develop the technologies. Significantly, Turber makes a connection to recent patents granted to the inventor Salvatore Pais on behalf of the US Navy, which had also attended the 2005 briefing.
The briefing, the way the slides were set up, was obviously as an introduction to the technology that was going to be utilized. The contractor was there … that actually developed the technology that created [the] Tic Tac.… DARPA was there as well. … DARPA’s own presentation, which is basically the history of how that technology was developed…. And that’s where apparently all the patents that come out from [Salvatore Pais] are now gaining some, some traction in the end. As far as the timing and everything, the timing is obviously ultra critical for what the Navy’s doing right now.
I asked Turber whether Lockheed Martin’s Skunkworks was the defense contractor that built the Tic Tac shaped craft, his response pointed out that the Navy was also working closely with the contractor that had originally built the Tic Tacs for the USAF:
I would neither confirm nor deny, okay. I will say that, obviously, there’s very few contractors that work. I’ve already revealed that the objects are built in Plant 42. And there’s very few contractors that are there, but there’s several adjacent contractors that would come in that would work with them, because some of the technology that was developed.
The antigravity technology that the Navy actually paid for, more recently, I guess, was from a company called EMC2. And then they shut off the funding to that organization, and then they ramped up the funding to one of the organizations at Plant 42. So apparently some transfer of information and technology was made and, and they want to keep it all under wraps at Plant 42 …
What supports Turber’s testimony here is that a 2016 article in Geekwire confirms that the Navy gave EMC2 a total of $12 million to study the feasibility of a nuclear fusion reactor using electromagnetic containment principles from 2008 to 2014. It is therefore very plausible that EMC2 received funding from the Navy for a classified antigravity research project at some point.
What is highly significant for Turber’s remarkable testimony about the true origins of the Tic Tac craft revealed at a classified 2005 briefing, is a recent Freedom of Information Act response by the Navy that appears to confirm that such a meeting had indeed taken place, and that highly classified “briefing slides” had been prepared for the meeting.
The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had responded to an FOIA request sent on October 28, by UFO researcher, Christian Lambright. Specifically, Lambright asked:
This request is to include all releasable portions of records and reports related to investigation of the detection of and encounter(s) with Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) by personnel involved with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group (CSG) operations off the western coast of the United States during the period of approximately 10-16 November, 2004. The designation ‘AAVs’ is used here because it appeared in a summary of these events, so there may also be other terms used in the material I am requesting.
On December 9 … the ONI responded to Lambright’s FOIA request, and referred to “briefing slides” concerning the 2004 Tic Tac incident.
Our review of our records and systems reveal that ONI has no releasable records related to your request. ONI has searched our records for responsive documents. We have discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriately Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526, and the Original Classification Authority has determined that the release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States.
The ONI FOIA response confirms that a trained military serviceman with skills as an “AV Specialist” would have been required to prepare the briefing slides for the Navy, and other military personnel and contractors in attendance at such a briefing. This makes Turber’s claim that his source was the AV Specialist who prepared the briefing slides based on classified intelligence data from the Navy ships acquired by the USAF, which he subsequently shared with Turber, quite plausible.
It’s also vitally important to emphasize here that Turber was the first person to discuss “briefing slides” concerning the 2004 Tic Tac sightings when he came forward on November 4, 2019, in an interview with Jim Breslo. Turber announced what his A/V source had confided to him about the briefing slides the source was working on for a classified 2005 meeting.
Turber’s own background as an “Electronic Intelligence Operations Specialist”, with a Top Secret security clearance, which he maintained after he was recruited into covert operations after 1988, makes it very plausible that his AV source shared the intelligence data from the 2004 Tic Tac sightings with him. It is understandable why Turber was being consulted by his AV source, who needed some expert advice in preparing his briefing slides by someone with the necessary clearances to advise him.
I asked Turber for his thoughts on the ONI FOIA response and whether it was referring to the 2005 briefing, or more recent classified briefings involving Navy personnel and members of the US Congress that took place from December 2018 to May 2019:
I believe because the FOIA requests that … Christian Lambright … put out … was trying to reference the Tic Tac event. And if you don’t, if you don’t reference, I know it was they wouldn’t bring up the Congress briefings if the FOI request didn’t mention them. I think he was … as it relates to the Tic Tac event. So I believe that the briefing that he’s referring to … obviously was geared towards the Tic Tac event. So I believe that the briefing that they’re speaking about would be the briefing back in 2005.
And there may have been more than one briefing but the briefing that I’m aware of is the one where the data bricks and all the data from Nimitz and the Hornet and the Hawkeye and the Princeton were all taken to a specific location … be to be analyzed. And they did analyze them individually. And then once that data was analyzed, there was there was a group that that analyzed the data.
Now the that group included DARPA, and included the contractor included Air Force, and it included Navy. So all of those people were there analyzing that same data. Then after the data was analyzed, then it was fed into this group that was going to make it into some form of presentation that the top brass could basically digest, and that’s where he came in. Now, that was done in early 2005. So that would be as much of that as I think I can discuss without getting in anyone in trouble.
I agree with Turber’s analysis that the FOIA response that Lambert got is referring to “briefing slides” that were prepared by his confidential A/V Specialist source concerning the original Tic Tac sightings back in 2004. The FOIA response by ONI is specific to the 2004 sightings, rather than recent briefings of members of Congress that have occurred.
Consequently, the ONI FOIA response is important corroboration for Turber’s account of what he learned about a classified 2005 briefing concerning the origins of the Tic Tac craft, and them being prototype aerospace vehicles built at Plant 42 first on behalf of the USAF, and later for the Navy, by a major aerospace contractor.
Turber’s recollections and analysis have important implications given recent efforts to depict the 2004 Tic Tac and subsequent Gimball and GoFast UFO sightings in 2015 as national security threats posed by possible extraterrestrial visitors. Indeed, Turber’s testimony helps counter a growing narrative over the Tic Tac sightings that may be used to implement a false flag alien invasion plan that has long been rumored to exist.