THE VAULT DOCUMENT
Research Methodology
The Vault Research Methodology defines the principles and processes used when researching, documenting and assessing cases, locations, phenomena and historical events within The Vault.
The purpose of this methodology is to ensure that articles are accurate, transparent and balanced, while recognising the distinction between:
- What is documented to have occurred.
- What witnesses or sources claim occurred.
- What evidence exists to support those claims.
- What explanations have been proposed.
- What conclusions can reasonably be drawn.
The Vault documents mysteries and unexplained phenomena without assuming that reported events are either automatically true or automatically false.
Purpose
The Vault exists to preserve information about:
- Paranormal reports.
- Historical mysteries.
- Unexplained events.
- Cryptid sightings.
- UFO and UAP reports.
- Fortean phenomena.
- Scientific and parapsychological research.
- Notable investigations.
Each article aims to provide readers with the available information while allowing them to understand the strengths and limitations of the evidence.
Core principles
Neutrality
The Vault follows a neutral approach.
Articles should not:
- Present unverified claims as fact.
- Dismiss reports without considering available evidence.
- Promote a particular belief system.
- Exaggerate evidence for dramatic effect.
Instead, articles should describe:
- What happened.
- What was reported.
- What investigations found.
- What explanations exist.
Evidence-based assessment
Evidence is evaluated according to its quality rather than its popularity.
A famous case does not automatically have strong evidence.
A lesser-known case may have stronger documentation.
Factors considered include:
- Reliability of sources.
- Quality of documentation.
- Availability of physical evidence.
- Independent verification.
- Repeatability.
- Alternative explanations.
See:
Source evaluation
Sources are assessed based on reliability and relevance.
Priority is generally given to:
- Primary sources.
- Official records.
- Contemporary reports.
- Academic research.
- Independent investigations.
- Reputable secondary sources.
Sources are used to establish:
- Historical facts.
- Dates and locations.
- Witness statements.
- Investigation details.
- Previous explanations.
Sources that exist only to promote a particular belief should be treated carefully and their claims should be clearly identified as interpretations.
See:
Historical research
Many Vault subjects involve events from decades or centuries ago.
Historical research considers:
- Original documents.
- Newspaper reports.
- Government records.
- Court records.
- Archives.
- Contemporary accounts.
Historical sources may contain inaccuracies, exaggerations or misunderstandings.
The age of a claim does not automatically make it more or less credible; the quality of the available evidence is what matters.
Investigating claims
When examining an alleged phenomenon, The Vault separates the investigation into several stages.
Stage 1: Documentation
The first step is establishing what is claimed to have happened.
Questions include:
- Who reported the event?
- When did it occur?
- Where did it occur?
- Are records available?
Stage 2: Evidence collection
Available evidence is identified, including:
- Witness testimony.
- Photographs.
- Video recordings.
- Audio recordings.
- Physical evidence.
- Investigation reports.
Stage 3: Evaluation
Evidence is examined for:
- Authenticity.
- Reliability.
- Possible explanations.
- Contradictory information.
Stage 4: Assessment
A final assessment considers the overall strength of the available evidence.
The conclusion may be:
- Explained.
- Unexplained.
- Contested.
- Insufficient evidence.
- Strongly supported.
The role of the scientific method
The Vault uses principles associated with the TheVault:Scientific Method when evaluating claims.
These principles include:
- Testing explanations.
- Considering alternative causes.
- Avoiding assumptions.
- Reviewing evidence objectively.
- Allowing conclusions to change when new evidence appears.
The scientific method is especially important when assessing claims involving:
- Physical phenomena.
- Experimental research.
- Environmental measurements.
- Biological claims.
Reported events versus confirmed facts
A central principle of The Vault is distinguishing between an event and an explanation.
For example:
Documented fact:
"Several witnesses reported seeing an unusual object over a town."
Claim requiring evaluation:
"The object was an extraterrestrial spacecraft."
The first statement concerns a reported observation.
The second is an interpretation that requires supporting evidence.
Alternative explanations
All major cases should consider reasonable alternative explanations.
These may include:
- Misidentification.
- Human error.
- Environmental conditions.
- Psychological factors.
- Fraud or hoax.
- Equipment failure.
- Incomplete information.
Considering alternatives does not prove a claim false; it ensures that conclusions are based on the strongest available evidence.
Limitations of research
Some subjects documented by The Vault present significant research challenges.
These include:
- Events that cannot be repeated.
- Missing historical records.
- Limited physical evidence.
- Reliance on eyewitness testimony.
- Conflicting accounts.
Where evidence is incomplete, articles should acknowledge uncertainty rather than fill gaps with speculation.
Article structure
Where appropriate, Vault articles should include:
- Background and history.
- Documented events.
- Reported claims.
- Investigations.
- Evidence analysis.
- Alternative explanations.
- Cultural impact.
- Evidence assessment.
Relevant templates may include:
Updating and revision
Research is an ongoing process.
Articles may be updated when:
- New evidence becomes available.
- Historical information is corrected.
- Additional sources are discovered.
- Previous claims are challenged.
Changes should improve accuracy rather than simply strengthen or weaken a particular viewpoint.