It shows the source behind every claim — including the claims that don't have one.

Where it stands today

What “open” means, exactly. Of the 441 connections whose document a reader can open, 388 point at a record with its own address you can go straight to. The other 29 point at 16 documents — DAF Committee to Review Project Bluebook, 1966-1967, General Correspondence of Sandia, Pantex Unidentified Object Incident Report, Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process, Project Blue Book File on Tremonton Film, Utah, 1952, Joint US Canadian Aviation Projects and UFO Sighting Reports, 1954-1955, Hearing to Receive Testimony on the Mission, Activities, Oversight, and Budget of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office - stenographic transcript, James Tuck correspondence on the Los Alamos green light sightings, The Sary Shagan Weapons Testing Range, USPER Narrative, Senior USIC Official, Report of Meetings of Scientific Advisory Panel on Unidentified Flying Objects, Convened by Office of Scientific Intelligence, CIA, 14-18 January 1953, Report on Conversations With Soviet Scientists on Subject of Unidentified Flying Objects in the USSR, Speculative Paper by N Kardashev and A Sakharov on Charged Mass in Space at Conference on Origins of Life, Armenia, 6-8 September 1971 / Low Scientific Level of Other Soviet Papers, The Sary Shagan Weapons Testing Range, AAWSAP Solicitation and Original Order, September 22, 2008, Statement of Objectives for the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program — that have no address of their own and are reachable only by downloading the archive they came out of. That is still openable, and it is why the archive is on the map at all — but it is a heavier click than the word suggests, and you should know which kind you are getting. 24 are reachable by neither route.

Those numbers are generated from the file this site is built from. They are not encouraging, and they are not meant to be. 31.7% is the honest figure, it is displayed on every page, and it is the number this project is trying to move.

What it is not

Not a believer's shrine and not a debunker's blog. It takes claims seriously enough to source them and skeptically enough to label them.

Nothing here is scored. No confidence percentages, no rankings, no credibility ratings. The moment a number appears next to a claim the tool starts arguing, and this one exists to hold questions open rather than close them.

It will not tell you what to conclude. It shows what is documented, what is testimony, what is contested, and what is nobody's claim but ours — and leaves the verdict where it belongs.

How to read a connection

Every connection on this site is in one of these states, and they look different on purpose.

• opens a documentA record you can go and read. 441 of 1393.
• assertedSomeone said it and we recorded who, but no document is attached yet.
• No source recorded at all. The bar is not decoration — absence is on the map because it is as informative as a presence.
• ours18 connections were made by this project to organize the map. Nobody else asserts them, so they can never be "sourced". They say so.

Some pages carry a further note: what this page does not support. That appears where a document was read and turned out to be weaker than the claim resting on it — the source is real, and it does not say quite what we said it said. 110 connections currently carry a caveat of that kind.

How documents are handled

A document is only quoted if someone read it. 99 of the 144 documents here carry a passage that was read off the page. The rest say plainly that they have not been — a document held and a document read look different, and neither pretends to be the other.

Machine-read text is never a source. OCR is used to find things and never to quote them. Where a scan is quoted, someone rendered the page and read it.

Some pages are held and cannot be shown. Government files often contain newspaper clippings, and a newspaper's words do not become a public record by being filed in one. Those pages say what is being withheld and why. Withholding an image is a rights decision, not a gap in the record.

The rules this operates under

• No fabricated URLs, quotes, sources or dates. Ever. If it cannot be verified, it is left empty and said so.
• Contested claims are labeled contested, and both sides are recorded.
• Consciousness research is treated as co-equal with UAP research, not as a footnote.
• Official denials are part of the story, not the end of it. Statements from AARO and others are recorded as one party's position, not as adjudication.
• A single person's account is attributed to that person and never quietly promoted into settled fact.
• Where a claim turns out to be wrong, it is corrected and the correction is recorded — including what the old version said. 11 connections have been taken off the map and kept in the file, so the judgment stays checkable: 1 suppressed because the same path is already drawn with a source on each leg, and 10 withdrawn because this project could not source them at all — most of them allegations about a named person. Every one of them, and the reasoning, is on the page where the record disagrees with itself.

Who this is for

Three kinds of visitor: someone who heard about the hearings and wants the shape of it; someone who follows this closely and wants to check a specific thing; and someone who wants to know whether this is credible before spending any attention on it at all.

It is built for the third one first. Their bar is the highest, and clearing it costs the other two nothing — visible sourcing, honest gaps and plain naming are what a newcomer needs too.