The serious skeptical case is routinely caricatured by both sides. It is worth stating precisely, because most arguments about UAP are arguments between two positions that nobody actually holds.

• DOCUMENTED It does not claim witnesses are lying. The mainstream analytical position — as stated in the Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), Volume I (AARO, 8 March 2024) — is that sightings are overwhelmingly genuine observations of misidentified conventional objects, sensor artifacts, or classified-but-terrestrial programs. Sincerity and accuracy are different variables.
• DOCUMENTED It does not claim every case is solved. Project Blue Book itself closed with 701 of 12,618 catalogued reports (about 5.6%) left in the "unidentified" bin. The skeptical claim is about what a residue of unexplained cases licenses you to conclude — not that the residue is zero.
• DOCUMENTED The load-bearing claim is about inference, not observation. "Unidentified" is a statement about the analyst's knowledge. "Extraterrestrial" is a statement about the object. The skeptical case is that no chain of public evidence connects the first to the second.

Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), Volume I — All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), U.S. Department of Defense, 8 March 2024. Project Blue Book case totals: USAF/National Archives Record Group 341.

Mick West is a retired video-game programmer (co-founder of Neversoft, of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater) who since 2003 has run Metabunk and produced the most-cited technical reconstructions of the Navy videos. His work is not rhetoric; it is geometry, and it is checkable.

• RESOLVED "GoFast" is not going fast. The object appears to skim the ocean at high speed. West's reconstruction from the on-screen ATFLIR telemetry (range, camera angle, aircraft altitude) places it at roughly 13,000 ft altitude — not near the surface — moving at approximately wind speed, around 40 mph. The dramatic apparent motion is parallax from a fast-moving jet tracking a slow object against a distant sea. The trigonometry uses only data burned into the video frame and has been independently reproduced. Note: the U.S. Navy has never formally reclassified the video, which remains officially "unidentified."
• DISPUTED "Gimbal" and the rotation. West argues the object is an infrared glare — the smeared thermal signature of a distant jet engine — and that the famous rotation is the ATFLIR's own gimbal-mounted optics de-rotating as the tracking angle passes through a mechanical transition, not the object rolling. Counter-position: Ryan Graves, Chris Lehto and others argue the rotation is not synchronous with the expected de-rotation profile and that the object's shape is stable across the roll. West has published rebuttals identifying geometric contradictions in Lehto's reconstruction, including that his solution requires viewing engine exhaust from an aspect angle that would not produce the observed glare. No participant has access to the raw, uncompressed sensor data, which is the reason the dispute has not closed.
• DISPUTED "FLIR1"/Tic Tac video. West attributes the apparent sudden "zip off frame" to the camera losing lock and slewing, not to the object accelerating. Cdr. David Fravor's separate visual account of the 2004 Nimitz encounter is a distinct claim and is not addressed by any analysis of the video, which was shot by a different aircrew.
• DOCUMENTED West open-sourced his method. Sitrec, a browser-based 3D situation-reconstruction tool, was released on GitHub in 2024 and lets anyone load the videos, adjust assumptions, and see whether a proposed solution holds. Publishing a falsifiable tool rather than a conclusion is the strongest structural feature of his work.
• DOCUMENTED Stake disclosure. West authored Escaping the Rabbit Hole (Skyhorse, 2018; rev. 2023), hosts the Tales from the Rabbit Hole podcast, is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (2020), and derives income from Patreon and media appearances tied to debunking. This is a real professional stake in debunking being interesting, and it is disclosed here for the same reason proponents' book deals are.

Metabunk.org analysis threads on Gimbal, GoFast and FLIR1 (Mick West, 2018–2025); Sitrec source, github.com/MickWest/sitrec; Mick West, Escaping the Rabbit Hole, Skyhorse Publishing, 2018 (rev. 2023). Video authenticity confirmed by U.S. Navy, September 2019; formally released by DoD, 27 April 2020.

Kirkpatrick, a physicist and career intelligence official, was the founding director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office from July 2022 until 1 December 2023. He published his conclusions six weeks after leaving.

• DOCUMENTED The Scientific American essay. "Here's What I Learned as the U.S. Government's UFO Hunter," Scientific American opinion, 19 January 2024. Its central mechanism claim: the crash-retrieval narrative is "a textbook example of circular reporting, with each person relaying what they heard," ultimately tracing back to a small, overlapping group of sources — so the apparent independence of many witnesses is an artifact of the social network, not corroboration.
• DOCUMENTED His proposed origin for the recovery legends. Kirkpatrick argues many allegations derive from "inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures of legitimate U.S. programs" unrelated to extraterrestrials — that is, people with partial clearance encountering genuine black programs and drawing the wrong conclusion — plus misrepresentations and unsupported belief.
• DOCUMENTED The evidentiary complaint. He records that no purported whistleblower "had elected to come to AARO to provide their evidence and statement for the record despite numerous invitations," and criticises officials who "take actions on these stories without having seen or even requested supporting evidence."
• DOCUMENTED Kona Blue. AARO's Historical Record Report Vol. I disclosed a real, previously unpublicised proposal — a rejected DHS special access program concept intended to house reverse-engineering of recovered non-human craft. Kirkpatrick's reading: a proposed program, never established, whose paperwork could easily be encountered later and mistaken for evidence that the program existed. Proponents read the same document as evidence the government was preparing a cover structure. The document is not in dispute; its meaning is.
• DISPUTED Whether AARO was a usable channel. Kirkpatrick frames non-appearance as evasion. Counter-position from David Grusch's supporters and several members of Congress: AARO sat inside the chain of command the allegations concerned, lacked authority over the relevant special access programs, and could not offer whistleblower protection sufficient for people bound by non-disclosure agreements. Both positions are arguments about institutional structure; neither has been settled by a public finding.
• DOCUMENTED Stake disclosure. Kirkpatrick was defending the output of an office he built and led, against allegations that implicitly accused that office of failure or complicity. He has since had book and media involvement. His institutional interest in the null result is as real as a proponent's interest in the positive one.

Sean Kirkpatrick, "Here's What I Learned as the U.S. Government's UFO Hunter," Scientific American, 19 January 2024. AARO Historical Record Report Vol. I, 8 March 2024. AARO leadership: Kirkpatrick to 1 Dec 2023; Timothy Phillips acting; Jon T. Kosloski named director 26 August 2024.

This is the strongest single argument in the skeptical arsenal, and it is a piece of arithmetic rather than an opinion.

• DOCUMENTED The denominator is enormous. Roughly 100,000 commercial flights operate daily worldwide. Over 10,000 Starlink satellites are in orbit. Hundreds of thousands of high-altitude balloons — weather, research, commercial — are launched annually. Consumer drone registrations in the U.S. alone number in the millions. Against that denominator, a category of ambiguous sightings is guaranteed to exist by arithmetic alone, with no exotic cause required.
• DOCUMENTED The prior for the exotic hypothesis is not neutral. Interstellar travel requires either energies far beyond anything demonstrated, or physics not currently known. Assigning it a starting probability equal to "it's a balloon" is not open-mindedness; it is a category error about how prior probabilities work. The extraordinary hypothesis needs evidence proportional to how far it sits from established physics — the Laplace/Sagan standard Kirkpatrick explicitly invokes.
• DOCUMENTED Small percentages of huge numbers are large numbers. If 99% of a million annual ambiguous observations are resolvable, 10,000 remain unresolved — not because they are anomalous, but because nobody has the analyst-hours. An unexplained-case backlog is the expected output of a high-volume reporting system, not a signal.
• DISPUTED Where the argument is weaker than it looks. Base rates explain why a residue exists. They do not, by themselves, explain any particular case. Applying a base rate to a specific incident with multi-sensor corroboration — radar, infrared, and trained visual observers concurring — is a misuse of the tool. Proponents including Ryan Graves and physicist Kevin Knuth argue precisely this: that the base-rate argument is deployed as a universal solvent where case-specific analysis is what is actually required.

Flight volume: FAA/ICAO operational statistics. Starlink constellation size: FCC filings and Jonathan McDowell's satellite catalogue. Sagan's formulation of the extraordinary-evidence standard is cited directly in Kirkpatrick, Scientific American, 19 Jan 2024.

Three specific gaps that the extraordinary hypothesis has not filled after eight decades. Each is stated with its strongest counter-argument, because each has one.

← swipe table →

• DOCUMENTED The one honest scoring. Each of these gaps has a legitimate rebuttal, and each rebuttal is itself unproven. That is the actual state of the evidence: a set of absences that are suggestive but not conclusive, and a set of excuses for those absences that are plausible but not demonstrated. Anyone presenting either column as settled is overselling.

To The Stars Academy ADAM program materials analysis — TTSA SEC Regulation A filings and subsequent independent characterisation; U.S. Army CCDC cooperative research agreement, October 2019.

What UAP reports actually turn out to be, when someone does the work. This table is the unglamorous core of the field.

← swipe table →

• RESOLVED The December 2024 Northeastern drone flap. A joint statement from the Department of Defense, DHS, FAA and FBI on 16 December 2024, after review of more than 5,000 reported sightings, concluded most had routine explanations — lawfully operated commercial, hobbyist and law-enforcement drones, plus misidentified manned aircraft and astronomical objects including Venus and the constellation Orion. In January 2025 the White House stated the aircraft were primarily FAA-authorised research and hobbyist drones. This is the cleanest modern demonstration of a mass sighting wave that was overwhelmingly misidentification — and a useful calibration point, because at its peak it was being described in national media as an unexplained incursion.

Joint statement of the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation, 16 December 2024. White House press briefing statements, December 2024 and January 2025.

Two canonical documents are usually cited as having settled the question. Read closely, both are more complicated than their reputations.

• DOCUMENTED Blue Book Special Report No. 14 (Battelle Memorial Institute, completed 1954, released 1955). A statistical study of roughly 3,200 cases. Approximately 22% were classified "unknown" — but the finding that skeptics rarely quote is the quality correlation: 35% of cases rated "excellent" were unknowns, versus 18% of the poorest-rated cases. The expected pattern, if unknowns were simply bad data, is the opposite. The report's own written summary nevertheless concluded the reports were "highly improbable" to represent unknown technology — a conclusion in tension with its own tables. This is a documented instance of a skeptical study over-claiming relative to its data.
• DOCUMENTED The Condon Report — Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, University of Colorado, USAF-sponsored, delivered November 1968, published January 1969. Its conclusion — that nothing of scientific value had emerged in 21 years — ended official U.S. investigation and remains the most-cited skeptical authority in the field.
• DOCUMENTED The Low memo compromises it. Project coordinator Robert Low wrote on 9 August 1966, before the study began, that the work could be presented to the university as being conducted by "non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer," while appearing "totally objective" in public. James McDonald found the memo in July 1967 and made it public; NICAP withdrew cooperation in April 1968; Look magazine ran "Flying Saucer Fiasco" in May 1968; Low resigned that month. A pre-registered conclusion is a methodological defect regardless of which direction it points.
• DISPUTED How much the memo damages the findings. Defenders note the memo was an internal administrative-politics document by a coordinator, not the scientific staff, and that the case analyses stand on their own. Critics — J. Allen Hynek, McDonald, and Peter Sturrock — argued the committee examined only a small fraction of the interesting cases and that roughly a quarter of the cases it did examine were left unexplained by the committee itself, which sits awkwardly with Condon's summary. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics review (November 1970) agreed little of value had emerged but found insufficient basis for Condon's forecast that future study would also yield nothing.

Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, Battelle Memorial Institute, 1954/1955. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the Condon Report), University of Colorado / USAF, Nov 1968, publ. Jan 1969 (scanned edition). Low memo, 9 August 1966 — Edward U. Condon collection, University of Colorado Boulder. AIAA UFO Subcommittee statement, Astronautics & Aeronautics, November 1970.

A sociological argument, not an evidentiary one: the field has a funding structure that rewards claims, and this is a reason for elevated caution rather than a refutation of any specific claim.

• DOCUMENTED To The Stars Academy's finances are public. Founded 2017 by Tom DeLonge, Harold E. Puthoff and Jim Semivan, TTSA raised roughly $1 million against a planned $50 million Regulation A offering as of its October 2018 SEC filing, and reported a $37.4 million deficit driven largely by a stock incentive plan for employees. Its ADAM materials program paid $35,000 for specimens including "six pieces of Bismuth/Magnesium-Zinc metal." Luis Elizondo, who led the publicity effort around the Navy videos, was a TTSA officer until late 2020. None of this makes the videos fake — the Navy confirmed their authenticity in September 2019 — but the primary vehicle that pushed them into public view was a company selling stock to retail investors on the strength of the story.
• DOCUMENTED The incentive structure is legible. Books, documentary deals, paid conference circuits, subscription podcasts and streaming series constitute the field's dominant revenue source. Congressional testimony reliably precedes or follows book publication. This is a structural observation about how attention converts to income; it is not an accusation against any named individual absent specific evidence.
• DOCUMENTED Skeptics are inside the same economy. Debunking sustains books, Patreons, podcasts, media bookings and institutional fellowships. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is an advocacy organisation with a fundraising model. A skeptic who resolves a famous case gains professionally in the same currency a proponent does. Applying the stake test to only one side is not skepticism.
• UNSUPPORTED The strong version of the claim. "The whole field is a grift" is asserted frequently and demonstrated nowhere. It requires showing that specific individuals knowingly made false claims for money — a much higher bar than showing they benefited financially, which is all the public record establishes. Motivated belief and fraud are different things, and the evidence generally supports the first, not the second.

To The Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences Inc. — SEC Regulation A offering circulars and annual reports (Form 1-K), 2017–2021; contemporaneous reporting in Ars Technica and Vice. U.S. Army CCDC cooperative research agreement, October 2019 (≥$750,000 in support and resources). U.S. Navy statement on video authenticity, September 2019.

The scientists who professionally search for extraterrestrial intelligence are, as a group, among the most skeptical of UAP claims — a fact that surprises people, and which carries real evidential weight.

• DOCUMENTED SETI and UFOlogy are methodologically opposite. SETI publishes raw data, defines detection thresholds in advance, and treats every candidate as instrumental or terrestrial until independently confirmed at a second observatory. The 1977 "Wow!" signal — the field's most famous candidate — was never re-detected and has never been claimed by SETI researchers as evidence of intelligence. UAP claims characteristically run the other way: unrepeatable observation first, interpretation attached, primary data unavailable.
• DOCUMENTED The reputational objection is institutional and long-standing. SETI researchers — Jill Tarter, former director of the Center for SETI Research and holder of the Bernard M. Oliver Chair at the SETI Institute, prominent among them — have consistently objected to media conflation of SETI with UFOlogy on the grounds that it costs a rigorous, data-transparent research program its scientific standing and its funding. Verification note: we could not confirm the exact wording of specific Tarter quotations frequently attributed to her on this point, and have therefore characterised the position rather than quoting it. The institutional stance is well documented; a particular sentence is not.
• DOCUMENTED Stake disclosure. The SETI Institute is a non-profit dependent on grants and philanthropy, and association with UFOlogy is a direct threat to that funding. Tarter is a public figure with an institutional interest in the boundary being policed. This does not make the methodological argument wrong — it is a good argument — but the incentive is real and belongs on the record.
• RESOLVED The Pacific spherules. Avi Loeb (Harvard) founded the Galileo Project in July 2021 to search for technological artifacts with dedicated instruments — the right instinct, executed in a way that became a cautionary case. In 2023 Loeb announced recovery of seafloor spherules from the presumed impact zone of meteor CNEOS 2014-01-08, suggesting possible interstellar-technology origin. Patricio Gallardo's analysis, presented through the American Astronomical Society, found the composition consistent with coal ash contamination — a common seafloor industrial pollutant. In 2024 Benjamin Fernando's team showed the seismic signal used to localise the impact site came from a truck passing near the sensor, meaning the search was conducted in the wrong place. Steve Desch (Arizona State) publicly described the claims as "ridiculous sensationalism" and reported colleagues declining to engage with the work in peer review.
• DOCUMENTED What the Galileo episode actually demonstrates. Loeb has authored popular books (Extraterrestrial, 2021; Interstellar, 2023) and the project attracted private philanthropic funding on the strength of publicised claims. But note the direction of the correction: the debunking came from within astronomy, fast, using published data. That is the system working. It is also the clearest available demonstration that instrumented, well-funded searching does not automatically produce anomalies — which is a data point about the phenomenon, not just about Loeb.

Galileo Project, Harvard University, founded July 2021. P. Gallardo, analysis of CNEOS 2014-01-08 spherule composition (AAS). B. Fernando et al., 2024, on seismic mislocalisation of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 site. Desch quoted in contemporaneous science press coverage, 2023–2024.

A debunker's job is to make a case go away. A skeptic's job is to find out what happened. These are the places where the skeptical literature stops being the second and becomes the first.

• DISPUTED "A plausible explanation exists" is treated as "the case is solved." Demonstrating that a balloon could produce the observed data is not the same as demonstrating that a balloon did. Much popular debunking stops at the first and reports the second. The GoFast reconstruction is strong because the on-screen telemetry constrains the answer; many other "explanations" are unconstrained hypotheses presented with the confidence of the constrained ones.
• DISPUTED "Balloon" and "drone" have become unfalsifiable catch-alls. An explanation that can absorb any reported behaviour — hovering, high-speed departure, radar returns, no radar returns — has stopped functioning as a hypothesis. Skeptics correctly criticise proponents for unfalsifiable claims about hidden programs; the same standard applies here.
• DOCUMENTED The primary data is withheld from everyone. The raw ATFLIR sensor files, the associated radar tracks, and the AARO case files behind the resolved-case statistics have not been publicly released. Every public analysis — West's included, as he acknowledges — works from compressed, cropped video and public telemetry burn-ins. Confident resolution from degraded data is a real limitation, and it is not the skeptics' fault, but it does bound how strongly their conclusions can be stated.
• DOCUMENTED The historical record contains skeptical over-claiming. Special Report No. 14's summary contradicted its own quality-versus-unknowns tables; the Condon Report's framing was compromised by the Low memo before data collection began. These are not proponent talking points — they are documented features of the canonical skeptical texts, and they are the reason "official study concluded X" is not a conversation-ender.
• DISPUTED Ridicule is not analysis. The social cost imposed on witnesses — particularly military aviators before the 2019–2023 reporting reforms — suppressed reporting and degraded the dataset that skeptics then criticised for being thin. This is a self-inflicted wound on the analytical enterprise, acknowledged in the ODNI Preliminary Assessment (25 June 2021), which identified stigma as a barrier to data collection.
• DOCUMENTED What survives all of this. None of the above rescues the extraordinary hypothesis. It remains true that no material, no unambiguous imagery, and no independent confirmation has been produced, and that the base-rate argument is sound at the population level. The honest position is that the skeptical case is very strong on the general question and weaker than usually presented on specific cases — and that "we do not know what that was" is a complete and respectable sentence.

Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 25 June 2021 (stigma and under-reporting). Metabunk analysis threads, 2018–2025, on data-quality limitations.

• Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), Volume I AARO / U.S. Dept of Defense, 8 Mar 2024 · the full 63-page historical review
• Project BLUE BOOK — UFO Investigations (Record Group 341) U.S. National Archives · custody and totals for 12,618 cases
• Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14 Battelle Memorial Institute / USAF, 5 May 1955 · the 3,200-case statistical study
• Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (the Condon Report), full text Univ. of Colorado / USAF, 1968 · complete report, hosted by NCAS
• Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects — scanned edition Internet Archive · page images of the printed Condon Report
• Edward U. Condon collection finding aid CU Boulder Rare & Distinctive Collections · archive holding the Low memo
• AIAA UFO Subcommittee statements, Astronautics & Aeronautics AIAA, Nov 1970 · the professional-society review of Condon
• Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ODNI, 25 Jun 2021 · nine pages; names stigma as a barrier
• Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos U.S. Dept of Defense, 27 Apr 2020 · official release of FLIR1, GIMBAL, GO FAST
• DHS, FBI, FAA and DoD Joint Statement on Ongoing Response to Reported Drone Sightings FBI, 16 Dec 2024 · four-agency finding on 5,000+ sightings
• DHS, FBI, FAA & DoD Joint Statement (FAA newsroom copy) FAA, 16 Dec 2024 · identical text, second official host
• Top NSA researcher tapped to lead Pentagon's UAP investigation hub DefenseScoop, 26 Aug 2024 · Kosloski named AARO director
• Here's What I Learned as the U.S. Government's UFO Hunter Sean Kirkpatrick, Scientific American, 19 Jan 2024 · the circular-reporting essay
• "GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird? Balloon? Mick West, Metabunk, 2018– · the original GoFast trigonometry
• Gimbal UFO — A New Analysis Mick West, Metabunk, Mar 2022 · the glare-and-derotation argument
• A Gimbal Glare Explainer Mick West, Metabunk, Jan 2022 · seven lines of evidence for glare
• Some Refinements to the Gimbal Sim Metabunk, Aug 2022 · measured horizon-vs-glare rotation angles
• F-16 Pilot Chris Lehto Analyses Gimbal Footage Metabunk, 2021– · the West–Lehto exchange in full
• 2004 USS Nimitz Tic Tac UFO FLIR Footage (FLIR1) Metabunk, 2017– · camera-lock and slew analysis of FLIR1
• Explained: The Navy UFO Videos Mick West, Metabunk · consolidated index of all three analyses
• Sitrec — situation-recreation tool, source code Mick West, GitHub, 2024 · open-source 3D reconstruction engine
• Escaping the Rabbit Hole Mick West, Skyhorse, 2018 (rev. 2023) · publisher's page for the book
• Tales from the Rabbit Hole Mick West · the podcast named in the stake disclosure
• Mick West at Skeptical Inquirer Committee for Skeptical Inquiry · his CSI fellowship and articles
• To The Stars (CIK 0001710274) — Regulation A filings, EDGAR U.S. SEC · offering circulars and Form 1-K annual reports
• U.S. Army CCDC–TTSA CRADA, released under FOIA The Black Vault, 2019 · the signed agreement itself
• TTSA Announces CRADA with U.S. Army CCDC To The Stars, 17 Oct 2019 · the company's own announcement
• The Galileo Project Harvard University, founded Jul 2021 · Loeb's instrumented search program
• Discovery of Spherules of Likely Extrasolar Composition in the Pacific Ocean Site of the CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1) Bolide Loeb et al., arXiv, Aug 2023 · the original spherule claim
• Anthropogenic Coal Ash as a Contaminant in a Micro-meteoritic Underwater Search P. Gallardo, Research Notes of the AAS, 19 Oct 2023 · the coal-ash rebuttal
• Seismic and Acoustic Signals from the 2014 "Interstellar Meteor" Fernando et al., arXiv, Mar 2024 · the signal was a passing truck
• Jill Tarter — Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute SETI Institute · official biography and institutional role
• Starlink Statistics — Jonathan's Space Report Jonathan McDowell · launch-by-launch constellation counts
• Air Traffic By The Numbers U.S. FAA · daily flight volumes and drone registration totals
• Robert Low memo, "Some Thoughts on the UFO Project," 9 August 1966 — full text no stable public URL found; the archival collection is linked above
• John G. Fuller, "Flying Saucer Fiasco," Look magazine, 14 May 1968 no stable public URL found
• U.S. Navy statement confirming the authenticity of the three videos, September 2019 no stable public URL found; superseded by the DoD release above
• White House press briefing statements on the drone flap, December 2024 and January 2025 no stable public URL found
• Steve Desch, "ridiculous sensationalism" — original science-press interview, 2023 no stable public URL confirmed for the quotation
• Contemporaneous Ars Technica and Vice reporting on TTSA's finances no stable public URL found for the specific articles

Links verified August 2026. Unlinked items in this section are ones for which no stable public URL could be confirmed.

Images are public domain or freely licensed; each carries its credit and licence, and links to its source record. Served from this site rather than hotlinked.