Why an open notebook on UAP

The problem with almost everything written about unidentified aerial phenomena is that it starts from a conclusion and gathers evidence backwards. Believers want them to be craft; skeptics want them to be balloons. Both arrive with the answer before looking.

This site attempts the opposite: take the cases that survived institutional filters —military, governmental, journalistic— and leave the reasoning on display. Each incident case splits 100% among six mutually-exclusive narratives (a MECE model), so the probabilities are comparable with one another: one can say which explanation accounts for more cases. If you disagree with a number, you can see exactly where it comes from.

There is no thesis to defend. There is a corpus, a method to read it, and the honesty to mark where evidence ends and speculation begins. This blog will document how that gets built: method decisions, new cases, and the mistakes we correct along the way.