About and our standards
Global Anomaly Network is a free archive of UFO and UAP cases from around the world, alongside a second section covering the actual science of whether life exists anywhere else. Anyone can read all of it without an account.
Where we stand
Most sites about this subject have already decided the answer. Some have decided it is aliens. Others have decided every case is a drone, a balloon, or a liar, and treat the people asking as fools. We think both of those are the same mistake wearing different clothes.
Leaning skeptic is a bias too. It just gets less criticism. A site that explains away everything looks reasonable right up until something real happens, and in the meantime it talks down to the people who came looking for a straight answer.
So when a case genuinely has no explanation, we say that. Not that it is probably swamp gas, and not that it is probably a spacecraft. That no one has explained it: not the witnesses, not the investigators, not the government. That sentence is the most accurate thing available in a lot of these cases, and we would rather write it than fill the gap with a guess in either direction.
Open questions, yes. Invented answers, no. Asking what could possibly do that is honest. Saying it was an alien craft states as fact something nobody can support, and so does saying it was definitely a weather balloon when nobody checked.
How every account is written
Each case follows the same four parts, in the same order, so you can compare entries against each other rather than against our mood:
- What the footage or the record shows, described without interpretation.
- What witnesses and officials actually said, attributed to them by name where names exist.
- What has been confirmed, denied, corroborated, or measured.
- What remains unknown.
That last section is the one that matters most, and it is never empty on an unresolved case. The temptation when writing up a strange story is to smooth the gaps until it reads well. We put the gaps in a labelled box instead.
We do not assert a claim in our own voice. If a pilot says an object accelerated beyond anything he trained against, we write that the pilot said it. We also do not tell you a witness was credible. We tell you they were a naval aviator with radar confirmation, and you can decide what that is worth.
What the labels mean
Every case carries one of four labels, applied from written criteria rather than instinct. The reason for the label appears on the case itself, so you can check our working.
- AcknowledgedAcknowledged
- A government or official body has released or confirmed the material and offered no conventional explanation.
- UnverifiedUnverified
- A public sighting with no official validation and no established conventional explanation.
- Likely explainedLikely explained
- A plausible conventional cause is indicated but not conclusively proven.
- DebunkedDebunked
- A conventional cause is conclusively established, or the material is demonstrably fabricated.
We include the debunked ones deliberately. An archive that only collects mysteries is a collection, not a record. When we find out that a famous photograph was made out of painted polystyrene, that belongs here just as much as the cases nobody can account for. Where two labels both fit, we take the more conservative one and explain the uncertainty in the open.
The science section is not the case section
Exoplanets, biosignatures and interstellar objects are covered separately, and they are held to a different standard because they are a different kind of claim. A sighting is a report. A paper is a published result. We never let one borrow the standing of the other.
Science entries carry a status that reflects how settled the finding actually is, from candidate through to confirmed or disputed, and each one has a section saying what the result does not establish. That section exists because it is usually the first thing dropped when this material reaches a headline.
Where the material comes from
Government releases and national archives first, because they are public record and can be checked: the Pentagon's ongoing UAP releases, the US National Archives, the UK Ministry of Defence files, and France's GEIPAN, which publishes its investigation files openly. Then established civilian databases, then footage, then non-English sources that English-language sites tend to skip.
We embed video from the platform hosting it and never re-host someone else's footage. Documents are linked at the source, and the button on a case takes you to the original rather than our copy of it. News articles are used to find out that a case exists and to check basic facts. We do not reproduce a journalist's writing. Every account here is written from scratch.
What we get wrong
Some of this will be wrong. Sources move, documents get reinterpreted, and a case that looks unexplained today can be solved next year by someone with better data. When that happens we change the entry and the label rather than defending an old call.
If you can show us that something here is inaccurate, or you have footage, a document, or a detail we have missed, send it to gbanomaly@hotmail.com and we will look at it properly.