Have aviation authorities or investigators released statements or radar data about an Egyptian airliner shadowing the Kirks?

1. Allegations: repeated overlaps and a Provo sighting

Multiple news and opinion pieces report that two Egyptian‑registered or Egyptian military jets overlapped with Erika Kirk’s travel dozens of times—figures reported range from 68 to 73 occurrences between 2022 and September 2025—and that one aircraft was briefly “powered on” at Provo Airport the day Charlie Kirk was shot ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These accounts are driven by commentators and podcast hosts publicizing flight‑tracking data they say they examined ^[3].

2. What the available tracking services can—and cannot—confirm

Commercial trackers such as Flightradar24 and FlightAware collect ADS‑B, MLAT, satellite and radar feeds and can replay historical tracks, aircraft positions, altitudes and timestamps, which is why commentators cite them when alleging repeated proximity ^{[4] [6] [5]}. Those platforms provide raw positional records to users, but the sources here do not include direct downloads or screenshots from those services proving the cited counts; the reports instead summarize what private commentators found ^{[4] [6]}.

3. No cited official aviation authority confirmation in reporting

None of the stories in the provided set include a cited statement from an aviation regulator, military authority, or the formal investigative body verifying that Egyptian aircraft shadowed the Kirks, nor do they include a release of primary radar tracks or an official chain‑of‑custody for the data being referenced. The articles present claims and derived flight‑tracking counts, but they do not quote an FAA, Egyptian Air Force, NTSB, or other investigator saying they released radar evidence corroborating the allegation ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Sources blend open tracking data and interpretive claims

The reporting mixes publicly available flight‑tracking capabilities with interpretive claims by commentators. Flightradar24 and similar services are described as capable of showing historical tracks and replays that users can analyze ^{[4] [6]}. The media pieces cite those capabilities as the basis for claims, but they stop short of publishing the underlying raw data or official corroboration in the items provided ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Competing perspectives and why certainty is limited

News items show competing impulses: commentators assert repeated matches and suggest suspicious coordination, while the lack of an official data release or investigator statement in these reports leaves room for alternative explanations ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Possible alternative interpretations—coincidence in flight paths, civil vs. military registration quirks, or misidentified aircraft—are not resolved by the supplied articles; available sources do not supply investigator conclusions to rule those options in or out ^{[1] [3]}.

6. How to get definitive answers (what’s missing from current reporting)

A definitive public answer would require: (a) an official statement from the investigative authority (e.g., FAA, NTSB, Egyptian military or civil aviation body) confirming release of radar or ADS‑B logs; (b) publication of the raw positional/radar files or authenticated replays; and (c) analysis from independent aviation data experts tying specific tail numbers or military registrations to the tracks cited. None of these elements are present in the current reporting set ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [6]}.

7. Bottom line

Reporting to date relies on public flight‑tracking platforms’ capabilities and claims from commentators that they found dozens of overlaps ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The provided sources do not include an aviation authority or formal investigator releasing radar data or confirming an Egyptian airliner “shadowed” the Kirks; for an authoritative determination, an official release of primary radar/ADS‑B records or an investigative statement is necessary—and not found in current reporting ^{[1] [3] [4] [6]}.