Overview
A Reddit post has drawn attention to “Where Are They — UAP / NHI Case Archive,” a source-linked online compilation intended to organize material associated with unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), alleged non-human intelligence (NHI), and government disclosure debates. The project catalogs more than 180 people alongside incidents, congressional hearings, programs, organizations, documents and media. Its author invites readers to examine the links between entries, assess the underlying evidence and provide feedback on the archive’s structure and accuracy.
The archive is available at wherearethey.info, where visitors can browse material through several formats, including a timeline, a world view, an alphabetical index and thematic categories. The site describes its timeline as covering “eighty years of events, decade by decade,” reflecting the project’s effort to place contemporary UAP developments within a longer historical record.
Scope of the Compilation
According to the site’s displayed counts, the archive includes 181 people, 73 incidents, 10 hearings and briefings, 15 programs, 44 organizations and 65 documents. It also lists eight documentaries, 10 books, 140 videos, 27 events, 11 concepts, three places and four channels or sources. The database identifies 210 dated entries and allows users to filter material by themes such as Congress, military activity, intelligence, radar, nuclear facilities, whistleblowers, crash retrieval claims, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), freedom-of-information requests and scientific research.
The archive’s settings include an “official sources only” option, described as covering officials, military personnel, pilots, intelligence figures, academics and congressional records. It also offers a setting to hide cases that have received a credible conventional explanation or have been exposed as hoaxes. These tools are intended to help users distinguish between documented government or firsthand records and broader claims circulating in the UAP debate. However, inclusion in a catalog does not itself establish that an incident occurred as alleged or that a related disclosure claim is accurate.
Networked Research
One of the project’s central features is a visual graph connecting people, cases, documents and other entries. The site reports 1,110 entries and 4,902 links, with 139 transcripts representing approximately 128.6 hours of material and 4,086 transcript mentions. These connections may help readers trace recurring names, locations, organizations and terminology across interviews, hearings, reports and historical accounts.
The project also links to documentaries, books and source files, while making its underlying code available through GitHub. This open structure could make the archive useful to journalists, researchers and members of the public seeking a navigable starting point for reviewing a fragmented subject. At the same time, network visualizations can give associations an appearance of equal evidentiary weight, even when one connection is supported by official documentation and another rests on disputed testimony or secondary reporting.
Verification and Limitations
The site displays 383 build warnings, including notices that specific source files could not be found. Examples include documents associated with alleged covert UAP programs, crash-retrieval claims, the proposed UAP Disclosure Act, AARO historical records and a 1967 military history. These warnings do not necessarily invalidate the associated entries, but they indicate that some links or source references require further checking.
For that reason, the archive is best treated as a research aid rather than a definitive account of UAP history. Readers should consult the original documents, distinguish verified records from allegations, and account for official denials, competing explanations and unresolved questions. The Reddit post’s invitation for review underscores that the compilation remains an evolving project—one that seeks to map the disclosure conversation while leaving the credibility of individual claims open to scrutiny.
