Fact Checking Methodology
Technical Verification Protocol
UFO/UAP Claims
With this methodology, the work of our site is not to "prove" or "deny" UFO claims, but to offer a technically substantiated, reproducible and transparent assessment of evidence without exaggeration, alarmism or bias.
Fact Checking
Primary Claim Recording
(Claim Logging & Typology)
Each claim is registered in an internal incident tracking system with a unique ID and structured fields (structured claim registry).
Basic recording fields:
-
Chronostamp (UTC & local time)
-
Geolocation (lat/long in WGS84, altitude, margin of error)
-
Claim type (visual sighting, radar track, SIGINT intercept, photographic evidence, eyewitness testimony, etc.)
-
Source tier (primary / secondary / tertiary)
-
Evidence medium (video, image, telemetry, textual, hybrid)
-
Metadata integrity score (based on completeness & reliability)
Τυπολογία περιστατικών
(UAP Classification Taxonomy):
-
Class A - Verified physical or sensor-based data
-
Class B - High fidelity photographic/video evidence
-
Class C - Testimony or anecdotal reports without corroboration
-
Class D - Claims of unknown or unverifiable origin
Primary & Secondary Source
(Source Vetting & Provenance Analysis)
The reliability of information depends primarily on the traceability of its source provenance.
Control steps:
-
Verification of origin (e.g. IP geolocation, EXIF geotags, DNS traces on online sources).
-
Cross referencing source identities (OSINT methods: reverse image search, WHOIS, archives).
-
Assessment of witness credibility (background consistency check, timeline validation).
-
Chain of custody evaluation: has the content been altered from the time of first publication to our access?
Tools:
-
FotoForensics (ELA analysis)
-
InVID (video verification toolkit)
-
ExifTool (metadata extraction)
-
Archive.org (temporal versioning)
Audiovisual Material Analysis
(Forensic Media Analysis)
Photo and video verification is based on digital forensics techniques.
Metadata Extraction & Integrity
-
EXIF parsing → GPS, timestamp, camera make/model
-
Hash verification (SHA-256) for integrity checks
-
Error Level Analysis (ELA) for alterations
-
Bit-level inspection in containers (MP4, MOV, JPEG) for trace editing
Geospatial Verification
-
Reverse geolocation via Google Earth & Sentinel Hub
-
Sky orientation validation (azimuth, elevation, heading)
-
Shadow length / sun angle reconstruction for temporal alignment
-
Star map & celestial object cross-check via Stellarium or Heavens Above
Motion & Trajectory Analysis
-
Frame by frame vectorization (optical flow algorithms)
-
Trajectory reconstruction (parallax correction, camera movement compensation)
-
Comparison with flight paths (ADS-B / Mode-S data from Flightradar24 or ADS-B Exchange)
-
Speed/altitude estimation (using known reference points)
Cross-Section with Independent Data
(Correlative Data Fusion)
For each claim, data fusion is performed from multiple sources, with the aim of eliminating explained causes (IFO elimination).
-
Data categories to cross-reference:
-
Meteorological (METAR, TAF, atmospheric soundings)
-
Astronomical (planets, satellites, meteorites)
-
Civil/military air traffic (ADS-B, NOTAMs)
-
LEO/GEO satellite data (e.g. NASA Heavens Above DB, Celestrak)
-
Sensor systems (radar, SIGINT reports, if available via FOIA or leaks)
Probability Analysis & Ranking
(Assessment & Classification)
Each claim is evaluated with a multiparametric risk scoring model.
-Evaluation criteria:
-
Source reliability (R-score)
-
Media integrity (M-score)
-
Correlation strength (C-score)
-
Explainability index (E-index) - probability of natural/anthropogenic explanation
-Ending categories:
-
Verified Event 0 high R/M/C, low E-index
-
Indeterminate / Unresolved 0 moderate or contradictory data
-
Explained / Hoax 0 documented explanation or hoax detection
-
Pending / Under Investigation 0 awaiting additional information
Documentation & Transparency
(Documentation & Transparency Protocol)
The research steps are recorded in an audit trail (immutable log).
-
Each finding is accompanied by a citation, link or hash reference.
-
The methods and tools are made public along with the evaluation.
-
The files (raw evidence) are stored offline for integrity reasons.
-Standards:
-
RFC 3161 (trusted timestamping)
-
SHA-256 / PGP signatures for hardware verification
-
Transparency reports with changelog for each claim
The scientific process requires constant revision.
-
Incident files are reviewed periodically (or when new data emerges).
-
New versions of assessments are released with versioning (v1.0, v1.1, etc.)
-
Each change is documented publicly on the incident report page.
Testimony Categorization
Level A
Multiple credible eyewitnesses
Pilots, astronomers, military, professionals
Level B
A reliable eyewitness
Accurate description, without contradictions
Level C
Anonymous or poorly documented testimony
Unclear or unconfirmable
Level D
Unverified social media reports
Clickbait, memes, rumors
Reliability Factors
Each report is evaluated based on 5 key criteria, each with a score of 0 to 5 points.
Maximum total: 25 points
Location & Conditions
Number & credibility of witnesses
Material (Photo/Video/Radar)
Control/verification capability
Absence of alternative explanation
Reliability Scale
0–7
Unreliable 🔴
Incomplete or conflicting information
8–14
Low 🟠
Limited data, requires further verification
15–20
Medium 🟢
Serious report with good indications but some gaps
21–25
High 🔵
Very well-documented, reliable report requires scientific examination
Optional Indicators
-
Radar corroboration (e.g. military or civil radars)
-
Cross-reference with satellite data
-
Object flight analysis (speed, direction, height)
-
Analysis by independent experts
These indicators can add +1 to +5 bonus points in cases of very good data.
Evaluation Example
Location/Conditions: 5
Number of witnesses 4: 5
Material: good analysis + radar corroboration: 5
Verification: 4
Alternative explanation: difficult → 4
Radar Bonus: +3
