About

The site, the author, and how it all works.

About the Site

Background

This website started as a passion project when I was 16 years old and obsessed with conspiracy theories. Since that time, technologies like generative artificial intelligence have effectively made the internet into a sinkhole in which even those of us who think of ourselves as savvy can be misled by the things we see online. The goal of this website is to bring clarity and transparency to an increasingly disinformational internet by offering an overview of where and how these theories have formed.

Readers should not take these claims as fact. I encourage everyone, regardless of their level of education or perceived intelligence, to maintain a healthy degree of curiosity when making absolute claims. For this reason, it is unlikely any of the claims on this site will receive a 5/5 ranking for veracity (For more information about the rankings system, please see the Rankings section below).

Every theory claim that gets covered in an Encryptid article will contain 4 distinct sections:

These four sections are intended to maintain a transparent way of reporting how the author has come to their conclusions about the claim, as well as providing resources for readers to form their own.

About the Author

Who writes this?

As an avid enthusiast for unexplained phenomena since my teenage years, I'm spending my twenties writing about these curiosities here on encryptid.co.uk instead of going out socialising like a normal person.

My passion for exploring these topics stems from my experiences growing up in the north of England, where I encountered a litany of people who (through limited fault of their own) had found themselves spouting outlandish theories about the so called 'true' nature of politics, hollywood, and the world at large.

Though conspiracy theorists can justifiably attain a bad reputation for the harmful attitudes that their conclusions often perpetuate, a large amount of the people I knew who believed these theories were decent, well-meaning people who struggled to navigate the informational labyrinth of the internet. In creating a site that examines these topics with a rational lens, I hope to be able to not only clear some of the haze, but also to teach others how to navigate research in a political landscape that discourages critical thought.

Rankings

The ranking system, explained

I will always attempt to be honest and accountable when sharing my opinion on the veracity of the claims on this website, and anything ranked with an S tier indicates that I, the writer, believe in the theory myself.

This ranking system is not an absolute measure for which the reader should base their own beliefs. It is intended to be a guide with which you can decide for yourself whether or not you believe in the theories posited on this site.

Ranking Categories

Veracity — How much of the claim relies on fact? How many reliable sources can back it up? Rated from 1 to 5.

Supernature — Does the claim contain elements that can't be explained by science? Is it beyond our modern understanding of the laws of nature? Rated from 1 to 5.

Overall — The summary rank on how accurate the writer finds these claims:

Grade Label Description
S Outstanding Significant evidentiary support; author considers this claim to be ostensibly true.
A Acceptable Solid evidence exists, but minor gaps in information mean that further questions still need to be asked.
B Standard Evidence is present, but multiple significant flaws and gaps mean that it should not be considered reliable.
C Average Unsubstantiated evidence holds this claim together by a thread, and few verifiable sources are able to maintain it.
D Weak Claim is significantly stymied by disinformation and hoaxes, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
U Unclassified Actively and intentionally harmful claims that are deliberately made to stir up civil unrest.

* It should be noted, the supernatural ranking does not in and of itself denote that the claim should be received with any less veracity. Scientific discoveries are borne out of the observation of natural phenomena, and just because something cannot yet be explained by science does not mean that it hasn't occurred.

Methodology

How the research is conducted

My methodological approach on this site is as follows:

Source Standards

Sources are not a foolproof way of reaching the truth in an investigation, but when properly researched they can provide a fuller and more comprehensive account of what information is available about a topic.

In investigating claims, it should always be a priority to trace any assertions to a primary source when this is possible. The difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is outlined below:

Primary sources — These are usually firsthand accounts, interviews or documented testimonies from individuals who claim direct experience with the subject matter. These accounts should be treated as data points rather than definitive evidence. When it is possible, these interviews will be conducted firsthand by the author, recorded and transcribed with the subject's consent. Any revisions or embellishments that contradict earlier versions of an interview will be noted wherever possible.

Secondary sources — Archival or recorded documents that relate to information that was originally presented elsewhere. This includes:

These documents are cited in full; links to the originals or scans wherever they exist in the public domain will be provided.

Tertiary sources — The definition of a tertiary source varies across academia, and for the purposes of this website it refers to any accounts of the phenomena discussed on the site before they have been traced to a more concrete origin. These sources are used sparingly and only for the purposes of chasing a lead and/or protecting a named source that would face credible professional or personal risk. Readers are told why a source requested anonymity. Anonymity will not be granted just because a source finds a topic embarrassing or controversial.

Physical and Photographic Evidence

When physical evidence is available in the form of photographs, video footage, biological samples, audio recordings — independent analysis is sought on their accuracy. The limits of that analysis are made transparent in the descriptions. "Inconclusive" is a legitimate and often honest conclusion about the nature of such evidence.

There is an extensive history of 'hoax' evidence in spaces that report about questionable phenomena, and I do my best to report on that history wherever relevant. The existence of such fakery does not disprove the existence of these phenomena, however, but it does mean that any evidence presented must be appropriately scrutinised.

Conspiracy Theories

The community of conspiracy theorists at large is littered with bad-faith activists who attempt to hoodwink the general population into subscribing to harmful ideas. Particularly with regard to public health, ethnic or religious groups, or public officials.

While theories exist that do reflect the realities of historical events, a significant portion of conspiracy theorists utilise scapegoating techniques deliberately in order to stir up political unrest in their peers. This site operates in direct opposition to these figures and any mention of their work is not an endorsement of their rhetoric. Wherever possible and relevant, the harm that these figures cause will be named alongside their mention.

Corrections Policy

Errors will be corrected as soon as they are identified. Any changes will be clearly marked on pieces with a date and a clear description of what changed and why. It is my firm belief that any false information should be corrected with as much publicity as the original falsehood, and thus any corrections will be given the same level of page room as their original assertions.