How we cover the unexplained
Our method: report the claim, weigh the evidence, and say what we don't know.
Stories about UFOs, ghosts and monsters are easy to sensationalise. We try to do the opposite. Our approach is simple: we report what was claimed and who claimed it, we look at what evidence actually exists, and we say plainly when that evidence is thin or absent.
Claims are not conclusions
When someone reports an extraordinary experience, that report is real — but it is not, by itself, proof of an extraordinary cause. A light in the sky might be a drone, a planet or an aircraft before it is anything stranger. Where a mundane explanation is plausible, we mention it. Where a mystery genuinely remains open, we say so honestly.
Occam's razor
A useful rule of thumb, named after a medieval philosopher, is that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the right one. A blurry photo is more likely to be a known object seen badly than an unknown one seen clearly. That does not make every mystery boring — it means the genuinely puzzling cases stand out precisely because the ordinary ones have been ruled out.
Why we still find it worth covering
Scepticism is not the same as dismissal. History is full of things once ridiculed that turned out to be real — giant squid, ball lightning, rogue waves. Keeping an open but critical mind is how science actually works, and it is how we try to work too.
What we will not publish
Curiosity is not an excuse for harm. We do not publish medical misinformation, political conspiracy theories, or claims that target or endanger real people. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not just a slogan here — it is the standard we hold ourselves to.