How we research, verify and report on UFOs, UAP and disclosure.
UFO Disclosure supports greater transparency, access to records and informed public scrutiny of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). Our reporting should help readers understand what the evidence establishes, who is making a claim and what remains uncertain.
Supporting disclosure does not require a predetermined conclusion about the origin of UAP. We follow the evidence and revise our reporting when reliable new information changes the picture.
Research starts with original sources
We prioritise original documents, official releases, hearing records, research papers and complete interviews. Reporting by other publications can provide context and leads, but central claims should be traced to their original source wherever possible.
Before using material, we examine its origin, date and context. We distinguish the date of an event from the date it was reported or released. Older information must not be presented as a new development simply because it is circulating again.
We link to the material supporting our reporting so readers can examine it themselves. If a source is unavailable or we cannot inspect the underlying evidence, we make that limitation clear.
Verification and independent corroboration
For central or disputed claims, we seek corroboration from sources with independent access to relevant information. Several articles repeating the same account do not constitute independent confirmation.
Social media posts, podcasts and anonymous submissions can provide leads. They are not sufficient verification on their own. We prefer named, attributable sources. When reporting an anonymous claim, we explain the limits on assessing its source and supporting evidence.
A source’s position, credentials or public profile may provide context, but these do not substitute for evidence.
Distinguishing evidence from claims
Our reporting distinguishes documented facts, witness testimony, allegations, scientific findings, hypotheses and editorial analysis.
When covering testimony, we identify whether the speaker describes a personal observation, information received from others or an interpretation. Testimony given under oath warrants careful examination; the oath does not independently establish that every claim is accurate.
An authentic document may contain mistaken or unverified information. We distinguish officially declassified records from other public documents and alleged leaks, and explain what a document actually establishes.
An unresolved observation does not, by itself, establish an extraterrestrial or other extraordinary origin. Where the available evidence cannot support a conclusion, we say so.
Assessing scientific research and visual evidence
Scientific coverage identifies whether work has undergone peer review, is a preprint awaiting review or represents an individual’s hypothesis. We consider methods, data quality, limitations and whether findings have been independently tested. Peer review is a useful safeguard, but it does not make a finding conclusive.
Images and videos require scrutiny of their source, context and any available technical information. Missing metadata, edited footage or uncertain provenance can limit what can reasonably be inferred. An unusual appearance alone is insufficient to establish an object’s nature or performance.
Fairness and critical scrutiny
We assess official statements, whistleblower accounts and sceptical explanations critically. No source receives automatic acceptance or dismissal.
Relevant alternative explanations and counterarguments belong in our reporting, weighted according to their supporting evidence. Fairness does not require giving every claim equal weight.
For serious allegations about an identifiable person or organisation, our standard is to seek a response before publication and explain when one could not be obtained. We do not imply that we conducted an interview, contacted a source or inspected evidence unless that happened.
Accurate presentation and editorial independence
Headlines and summaries must reflect the strength of the evidence. Terms such as “confirmed” and “proof” require specific support. Material uncertainty belongs in the article itself, where readers encounter the relevant claim.
We distinguish reporting from analysis and opinion, credit original reporting and preserve the meaning and context of quotations.
Relevant financial or personal interests must be disclosed. Sponsored content must be clearly identified, and commercial relationships must not determine editorial conclusions.
Responsible use of AI
AI tools may assist with research organisation, translation or drafting. Their output is not a source of evidence. Factual claims, quotations and references require verification against the underlying material, and responsibility for publication remains with UFO Disclosure.
AI-generated or substantially altered illustrations and reconstructions must be clearly labelled. They must never be presented as authentic footage, documentary photographs or evidence of an event.
Corrections and updates
When we identify a factual error, we correct it promptly. Substantive corrections should carry a dated note explaining what changed. Minor spelling or formatting fixes may be made without a correction notice.
When new evidence materially changes a story, we update the reporting and explain its effect on the earlier account. If an article’s central claim can no longer be supported, a prominent correction or retraction is required.
Our commitment to disclosure includes making the basis of our reporting open to scrutiny—and acknowledging when that basis changes.