Editorial Standards

These standards govern how UFOPress reports on UAP claims, records, and developments. Our posture is skeptical but curious: we take extraordinary claims seriously enough to examine the actual evidence, and we do not overstate what that evidence shows.

The questions every report answers

• What happened?
• What is directly documented?
• What is being claimed beyond the record?
• What remains unknown?
• What evidence would change the current conclusion?

Evidence vocabulary

We describe the status of a claim using a consistent set of terms rather than a single unexplained score:

• Confirmed — directly established by primary records, observable evidence, or attributable official statements.
• Documented — a record or statement exists, but the underlying event or larger claim is not necessarily independently established.
• Attributed — a named individual or organization made the claim.
• Unverified — no independently reviewable evidence currently establishes the claim.
• Contradicted — reliable evidence materially conflicts with the claim.
• Unresolved — available evidence is incomplete, ambiguous, inaccessible, or insufficient to support a responsible conclusion.

A status is never permanent. It is an evidence state that can change as new records emerge.

Headlines and certainty

Headlines never exceed the evidence. Allegations are not presented as facts. We distinguish reporting, analysis, document explanation, and aggregation. A source can be authoritative about what a person said without independently proving that the statement is true, and we keep that distinction visible.

Imagery

We do not present generated or stock imagery as documentary evidence, and we do not fabricate images of officials, witnesses, craft, facilities, or events.