Skinwalker and beyond / comparative research

The full
comparison archive.

The application sample is a separate, linear brief with a factual comparison table, source images and interview clips. This page preserves the wider 34-case working archive and its optional research-priority ratings.

Read the new research brief ↗

Compare the locations

Where would I look next?

34 cases. Open a photograph for the finding, the source and the next useful question.

How I ranked them ↓

34 casesScores compare research value, not the probability of aliens.

Compare the six reported features side by side

Reported results, published measurements and hypotheses are different labels. “Not established here” means the reviewed sources did not establish it; it does not mean the effect is impossible.

New visual follow-up

Korea, the Baltic
and three places in the ice.

I traced the horseshoe clip, checked the lunar-image paper and separated three Antarctic image stories. Compare source frames, see which records connect, and open the next interview questions.

Open the visual comparison ↗

The working method

Five ratings. Visible weights.

I use this score to decide what to research next. A well-documented ordinary landform can be a valuable comparison. A compelling story with no located site may be a lower field priority. Neither score settles its origin.

Rating, 0–3	Weight	What earns the top rating
Similarity	30%	Several features, including reported equipment trouble and a localized target
Documentation	25%	Multi-method field documentation of the compared feature; not proof of its proposed origin
Repeat observations	20%	Independent controlled replication of the same specified effect
Independent checks	15%	Multiple independent controlled investigations converge
Useful next step	10%	Specific data, operator or comparison can answer a well-defined question

Score = sum of each rating × its weight ÷ 3. These are explicit editorial judgments, not a validated scientific scale. Open a case to see the reason for every rating. Change the sort to “Equal weights” to test the result.

All case data · JSON ↓Ratings & weights · Excel ↓

Full reading scope and what has not been checked

This AI-assisted revision includes full readings of the existing transcripts of the 2026 Fugal interview, 2025 Åsberg interview and 2022 ranch visit. These are the project's existing machine-caption transcripts, not new human-verified transcriptions. Clip links use their approximate passage-start timestamps. Case-level sources record what was available and what remains unacquired. Parallel research agents reviewed the locations, with a separate synthesis and audit of the central interview comparison and priority field-report passages. This is a selected comparison, not an exhaustive list of worldwide reports.

Photos show the named place or the original source figure; none are generated depictions of buried craft. Credits and reuse status are available inside each case. Limited source-image excerpts remain under their original rights, not the dataset's licence.

Ten additional comparisons from the earlier research

A stationary target should give a repeatable spatial signature.

Both accounts combine an interpreted subsurface feature with reported equipment effects. The modalities and available records differ. No common mechanism has been established.

↔

Compare repeated measured approach/retreat profiles with off-target controls; separate positioning, electrical and magnetic quantities.

A reflector can be real before its identity is known.

An acoustic or radar return can motivate a new survey without already identifying a manufactured vehicle. The Swedish expeditions explicitly separate inspected natural targets from later unidentified echoes.

↔

Request raw profiles, positioning, resolution and an independent interpretation before recovery claims.

What changes when an image interpretation meets an actual field survey?

Sycamore supplies a site-specific methodological comparison; its geology is not an explanation transferred to the Baltic by analogy.

↔

Co-register disputed visual features with actual sonar/seismic lines and directly observed surfaces.

One label—“scan”—can hide different instruments and inferences.

A broadcast-described GPR survey and an apparent-conductivity survey do not directly return the same physical quantity. Hypothesis-led target selection is not blind replication.

↔

Identify device, settings, sampling footprint, raw output and interpretation steps separately.

Recurrence makes an experiment possible; it does not select the answer.

Distinct field programs record lights and uncertainty. Their common research design is more defensible than a claim that the lights share an operator.

↔

Use synchronized independent sensors, event deduplication and full negative/control records.

The apparent location can belong to the observer’s geometry.

Terrain, range and atmospheric refraction can create a stable viewing experience without a nearby fixed source.

↔

Triangulate before attaching a light to a mountain, water body or entrance.

Four places; one target-selection lineage.

Price’s exercise supplied the later target framework. Claimed viewer blinding and independent selection of the sites are separate questions.

↔

Compare original cue sheets and contemporaneous feedback; do not count later retellings as detections.

A documented installation cannot authenticate a neighboring contents allegation.

Real aviation infrastructure is a baseline, not transferable proof of extraordinary hardware.

↔

Require specific access, structure, task and custody records for the contents claim.

No disclosed location links these claims.

They occur in different sections of one interview; the source does not locate the enormous craft story at Bradshaw.

↔

Keep the undisclosed location out of geographic matching.

Files, proposals and physical inventory are different records.

A documented UFO investigation or proposed program does not by itself show the existence or transfer of extraordinary hardware.

↔

Trace specific custody and disposition records rather than inferring contents from institutional association.

Four remote-viewing mountains: compare the coordinate versions

These are target labels in source documents, not surveyed entrances. Later sessions share an earlier target-selection chain.

Mountain	Price sheet	Later Atwater resource
Mount Hayes	63°32′ N, 146°40′ W	63°39′ N, 146°45′ W
Mount Zeil	23°15′ S, 132°45′ E	23°30′ S, 132°24′ E
Monte Perdido	42°40′ N, 0°00′	42°40′ N, 0°02′ E
Mount Nyangani / Inyangani	18°06′ S, 32°37′ E	18°18′ S, 32°54′ E

Earlier registry screening: all 71 decisions

The prior screening decisions remain in the downloaded data. Screening is not full historical research into every place.

Read the originals

The source shelf.

68 entries, with the available record and its limits.

Brandon Fugal · American Alchemy

Participant interview · Published 26 July 2026; selected continuous caption sequences

Full existing machine-caption transcript read for this revision; not fresh full audio verification

The fullcomparison archive.