UAP Times covers unidentified anomalous phenomena — UFOs, if you're feeling old-fashioned — the way any other news beat should be covered: with sources, scepticism, and a clear line between what's known and what's merely claimed.

Our editorial standard

We don't debunk for sport and we don't believe for sport either. Every story carries a credibility rating so you always know how much weight the evidence actually bears. A government sensor log and a blurry phone video are not the same thing, and we won't pretend they are.

The credibility scale

There's really only one scale here, and it's a sourcing scale. Every story carries a credibility rating shown as five dots — read it like marks out of five, where more filled dots means better-sourced. It measures the strength of the evidence, not whether we think it's aliens: a well-sourced case can still turn out mundane, and a "take with salt" one might still be real.

●●●●● Well-sourced Primary documents or sensor data we've been able to examine ourselves.
●●●●○ Credible Multiple reliable witnesses, or official acknowledgement of the event.
●●●○○ Unconfirmed A genuine report, but corroboration is thin or second-hand.
●●○○○ Thin Single-source, or with shaky provenance.
●○○○○ Take with salt An uncorroborated claim — interesting, but not evidence.

You'll see the dots on every article card and a word (like "Credible") on the article itself; on the sightings map the same rating sets each contact's colour — red is best-sourced, fading to grey for the doubtful — and drives the filters.

How we work

Stories are researched and drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by a human before publication. We think that's the honest way to run a modern newsroom, and we'd rather tell you than have you guess.