UAPedia Editorial Standard – December 5th, 2025.
Purpose
Government sources are essential for documenting UAP history, policy, and events. However, due to the unique secrecy architecture surrounding UAP programs – including the existence of Unacknowledged, Waived, and Bigoted Special Access Programs in the US Government environment – government records cannot be treated as inherently authoritative or complete.
This standard sets the methodology UAPedia uses to classify, weigh, and contextualize government-derived information.
Core Principle
Government sources are indispensable, but not authoritative.
They are inputs, not verdicts.
UAPedia treats government-supplied information as one evidentiary stream among several, acknowledging both its strengths and its structural limitations.
Why Government Sources Require Special Handling
Unlike typical scientific fields, the UAP subject intersects with:
- classification barriers;
- black-budget structures;
- waived special access programs;
- bigot lists restricting oversight;
- deliberate misinformation campaigns in past decades;
- gaps in archives and selective declassification;
- contractor-controlled materials and research beyond FOIA;
- some of these with lack of oversight, and others issues.
These factors mean that:
Absence of evidence in government records does not imply evidence of absence.
Government documentation often reflects whatever survives classification filters—not the full operational reality.
Government Source Evidence Tiers
UAPedia organizes government-derived information into four distinct evidence levels.
Tier 1 | Direct, Multi-Sensor, or Operational Data
High evidentiary weight.
Examples:
– radar tracks
– FLIR telemetry
– authenticated aviation safety reports
– NORAD logs
– military nuclear security reports
Guidance:
These data streams establish events, not explanations.
Interpretation must still be grounded in multi-source corroboration.
Tier 2 | Official Reports, Statements, Policy Documents
Moderate evidentiary weight.
Examples:
• AARO Historical Review
• ODNI UAP reports
• NASA UAP Study
• Congressional Research Service summaries
• DoD public statements
Guidance:
These documents reflect policy posture, not total information holdings.
They may exclude or be structurally blind to waived or bigoted compartments.
Tier 3 | Historical Archives and FOIA Releases
Moderate evidentiary weight, requiring contextualization.
Examples:
• Project Sign, Grudge, Blue Book files
• 1947–1970 USAF intelligence records
• CIA & NSA FOIA declassifications
• Cold War-era radar incidents
Guidance:
These documents may contain gaps, misclassification, context loss, or artifacts of historical misinformation campaigns.
Tier 4 | Cleared Personnel Testimony
Variable evidentiary weight depending on rank, access, and corroboration.
Examples:
– military pilots
– program managers
– IC analysis
– SAP reviewers
– nuclear security officers
– whistleblowers testifying under oath
Guidance:
Testimony from individuals with SAP visibility or IC authority is treated as primary evidence of witness experience, not physical confirmation. Such testimony is mapped through the UAPedia Claims Taxonomy.
The Secrecy Environment Weighting Factor
All government sources are evaluated with a “secrecy environment modifier” recognizing that:
– waived SAPs can legally omit information from Congress
– bigot lists restrict information to a handful of individuals
– contractor custody can shield materials from FOIA and IG oversight
– public offices including AARO may not have access to relevant compartments
Thus government-derived negatives (e.g., “No evidence found”) carry reduced evidentiary weight when addressing domains known to sit behind waived or bigoted structures.
Treatment of Denials, Absences, and Omissions
UAPedia applies the following standards:
A. Official denial ≠ disproval.
Denials are treated as statements of institutional position, not factual refutations.
B. Lack of documentation ≠ lack of event.
Absence of records is expected in environments involving waived USAPs or contractor-owned materials.
C. Missing archives are treated neutrally.
Gaps are documented but not interpreted.
D. Early-era disinformation programs (1950–1980) require contextual caution.
Examples include psychological operations, the Robertson Panel, and Cold War misdirection.
Integration with UAPedia Claims Taxonomy
All government-sourced information is still classified under:
- Verified
- Probable
- Disputed
- Legend
- Misidentification
- Hoax
Example application:
- A multi-sensor radar/FLIR event may be “Verified.”
- An AARO denial of legacy programs may be “Disputed” due to SAP oversight limitations.
- A Cold War-era rumor may be “Legend.”
- A satellite misidentification may be “Misidentification.”
Government documents do not automatically elevate a claim’s status.
Integration with Speculation Labels
Where government information leaves gaps, UAPedia applies:
Hypothesis (analytical inference)
Witness Interpretation (human meaning-making)
Researcher Opinion (expert-generated perspective)
Government statements never override visible contradiction from empirical sensor data, multi-witness events, or documented historical inconsistencies.
Cross-Referencing Requirements
Every government source must be evaluated against:
- independent civilian or military witnesses
- contractor statements
- international government programs (e.g., GEIPAN, CEFAA, Brazil FAB)
- physical effects or biological data
- metadata or instrumented evidence
- reports from non-U.S. intelligence agencies
No single government source is permitted to determine UAPedia’s interpretation of an event.
Editorial Guideline Summary
UAPedia adopts the following operational rule:
Government sources are reliable for what they say,
unreliable for what they omit,
and incomplete by legal design.
This standard protects UAPedia from:
- overreliance on government authority;
- mistaking non-disclosure for counterevidence;
- prematurely dismissing high-quality testimony;
- replicating historical patterns of misinformation and stigma; and
- creating false dichotomies between testimony and documentation.
It positions UAPedia at the forefront of balanced, rigorous, multi-source UAP research.
Note from Editors
We would like to thank Eric Weinstein for his debate with Grok on an X post here:
https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1993726460390240398?s=20
The post discusses the internal logic of trusting government. We have over the course of building UAPedia noticed the slant of information changing when reports issue verdict on unresolved cases in the past, clearly ignoring testimony and in some cases omitting evidence. Because of this we have revised our editorial stance moving forward as of today and will correct over 70 of UAPedia past articles that treat it differently from this standard.
Thank you for your trust.
UAPedia Editors (Eduardo Mace and Tim Spenny)