01 / START WITH THE QUESTION
Unidentified does not mean extraterrestrial.
Unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) is a descriptive category. It is not a scientific conclusion that an object is extraterrestrial, that a camera reading is accurate, or even that a physical object has been established.
NASA's UAP study stresses a central limitation: there are too few high-quality, well-calibrated observations to reach firm conclusions about the nature of many reports. A witness can sincerely report something unusual, while the remaining evidence is still insufficient to explain it. NASA UAP FAQ
02 / A PRACTICAL METHOD
Five checks before drawing a conclusion.
Trace the original record
Find the earliest available document, recording, agency report or firsthand account. Note its date, publisher and how it reached the public. Five websites repeating the same video are not five independent sources.
Separate observation from interpretation
Record what is actually described: time, apparent direction, duration, movement, sound and any instrument readings. Keep inferred speed, size, intent or origin separate. A striking headline does not substitute for a measurement.
Identify missing context
For footage, ask for the original file, full sequence, camera motion, frame rate, location, date, field of view and possible editing. Without distance and camera information, apparent motion rarely establishes an object's physical speed or dimensions.
Compare plausible alternatives
Depending on the evidence, investigate aircraft, drones, balloons, satellites, planets, atmospheric effects, reflections, compression artifacts and perspective. These are questions to test, not automatic explanations for every case.
Publish a limited, revisable conclusion
Use precise language such as identified, plausibly identified, insufficient data or unresolved after investigation. Explain the basis, list limitations and update the record if better information emerges.
03 / PROVENANCE MATTERS
Not every source carries the same weight.
Original and traceable
An agency file, unaltered recording with provenance, contemporaneous log or direct witness statement. Even primary sources can contain mistakes and gaps.
Method, not authority
A separate analysis that describes its assumptions, measurements and limits. Repeating a publisher's account without independently checking it adds little evidentiary value.
A route to the source
Journalism and interviews can be useful leads. Check whether the original material is linked and whether qualifiers disappear as stories are retold.
A lead, not a finding
A viral edit with no date, source, raw file or context is not sufficient to substantiate a specific physical claim.
04 / THE LANGUAGE OF UNCERTAINTY
Unexplained is not the same as insufficient information.
France's official GEIPAN distinguishes identification from unresolved cases, using both the consistency of available evidence and the degree of residual strangeness after analysis. Its classifications include identified (A), probably identified (B), insufficiently documented (C), and unidentified after investigation (D, with subcategories). These labels belong to GEIPAN's own methodology: they are not automatically assigned to every case in AURORA's international source archive.
An investigation may end with no confident answer. That is a valid result. It does not turn missing information into positive evidence for a favored explanation.
05 / APPLY IT TO AN ARCHIVE
Read a dossier in four passes.
Read the reported event. What did witnesses or instruments actually describe?
Open the original sources. Do linked documents support the headline or summary?
Mark the gaps. Note missing original media, timing, independent corroboration or technical context.
Leave room for revision. Distinguish public allegations from documented facts and provisional hypotheses.
Try the process on the Kenneth Arnold (1947) case dossier or browse the country archive. AURORA presents historical records and sources so readers can assess competing claims; publication does not constitute an endorsement of an extraordinary explanation.
06 / REFERENCES & DISCLOSURE
Sources and editorial transparency.
This is an original AURORA educational guide, not an official NASA or GEIPAN publication. It summarizes publicly described research practices and includes additional editorial recommendations. The cited agencies do not endorse AURORA or validate its archive.
- NASA — UAP Independent Study and Final Report
- NASA — UAP Frequently Asked Questions
- GEIPAN / CNES — Mission and Classification Methodology
Editorial approach: source attribution, uncertainty labels, and corrections when evidence changes. Guide updated 9 November 2026.