Anomaly•Registry
AR-0194

The Nazca Lines

Partially explained
Date Made c. 500 BC to AD 500. Line-type geoglyphs c. 100 BC to AD 650.
Location The arid pampa of the Nazca Desert, on the plateau between the towns of Nazca and Palpa, southern Peru, about 400 km south of Lima.
Coordinates -14.7167, -75.1333
Category Physical and Geological

Summary

On the desert plateau between Nazca and Palpa, people removed the weathered surface gravel to expose the lighter ground beneath. The resulting figures and lines were made between roughly 500 BC and AD 650, by the Paracas and Nasca cultures. None of that is in dispute.

What the geoglyphs were for is a narrower question than the popular framing suggests. Some proposals, alien landing strips among them, have been rejected. In 2024 a survey that used a machine-learning model to generate candidates for archaeologists to check on foot raised the count of known figurative geoglyphs from 430 to 733, and established a measurable difference in size, subject and placement between two types, from which its authors argue two different purposes.

figurative geoglyphs known, before and after 2024 relief-type 380 683 line-type 50 50 all figures 430 733 pale: before / solid: after all 303 new confirmations were relief-type the line-type total did not move TWO TYPES, AND THE SURVEY ONLY FOUND ONE. A model generated 1,309 candidates. Archaeologists walked the ground and confirmed 303, every one of them relief-type. the sixteenfold figure is a claim about rate of discovery, not about autonomy.
Figure Drawn by Anomaly Registry from the counts in Sakai and colleagues (2024). The line-type total is unchanged because every one of the 303 new confirmations was relief-type, which is the finding the two-function argument rests on.

What is documented

How they were made. In UNESCO’s description, by "removing the overlying weathered gravels to reveal the lighter bedrock". The 2024 survey’s drawings show the same thing at the scale of a single figure: stones removed to expose lighter ground, and the removed stones piled up. This is established and uncontroversial.

When. UNESCO gives the span as 500 BC to AD 500, though two statements on its own listing disagree with each other, one giving a wider range. Independent absolute dating exists for the geometric lines: optically stimulated luminescence dating of quartz buried during construction near Palpa put that work between AD 400 and 650. The 2024 survey assigns line-type geoglyphs to roughly 100 BC to AD 650 and relief-type to about 100 BC to AD 50 or earlier. Relief-type geoglyphs currently rest on iconography and technique rather than on absolute dating.

The 2024 survey, and what the machine actually did. A model was fine-tuned on known relief-type geoglyphs and run over ten-centimetre aerial imagery to produce a probability map. It generated 1,309 candidate locations. Archaeologists then screened an average of thirty-six machine suggestions for each likely candidate and walked the ground between September 2022 and February 2023, checking about a quarter of the candidates. That field work confirmed 303 new figurative geoglyphs. The reported effect is a sixteenfold increase in the rate of discovery, which is a claim about speed, not about autonomy.

The counts. Before the survey, 430 figurative geoglyphs were known: 380 relief-type and 50 line-type. All 303 new confirmations were relief-type. That brings the totals to 683 relief-type and 50 line-type.

The split the survey measured. Relief-type geoglyphs average about nine metres across; line-type average about ninety metres in length. Relief-type depict humans or human-modified things in 81.6 per cent of cases; line-type depict wild animals in 64 per cent of cases. Relief-type lie on average forty-three metres from trails; line-type lie on average thirty-four metres from linear and trapezoidal geoglyphs. These are measurements, and they are what the functional argument is built on.

Visibility, as a field finding. The 2024 survey reports that "All individual geoglyphs that do not form geoglyph groups have been found to be visible from the trails", and concludes that relief-type geoglyphs "were objects to be viewed while walking along the trails".

They were rediscovered before the aerial surveys. Sakai and colleagues date the modern rediscovery to the early twentieth century, citing Toribio Mejía Xesspe’s paper in the proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Americanists, published in Lima in 1940. Field surveys aided by aerial photography began in the 1940s.

The figures can be made without an aerial view, and this was demonstrated. In August 1982 Joe Nickell and five helpers reproduced the 440-foot Nazca condor on a Kentucky field using only ropes marked in Nazca-derived units, a wooden T-square, stakes, twine and powdered lime. Plotting and staking took about nine hours; marking took about a day. No aerial view was used to design or guide it, and an aircraft was used only to photograph the finished result. A wildlife biologist taken to the site to test it identified the figure as a bird.

Leading explanations

Two functions, by geoglyph type (Sakai and colleagues, 2024; hypothesis, untested). That relief-type geoglyphs, being small, close to trails and overwhelmingly depicting humans and human-made things, shared information about human activities with individuals or small groups; and that line-type geoglyphs, being large, grouped with linear and trapezoidal figures and mostly depicting wild animals, were built and used by the community for ceremonial purposes. The underlying measurements are solid data. The functional inference drawn from them was published in 2024 and has not been independently tested.

Sacred space and ritual movement (Silverman, 1994, and others; the predominant opinion). That the linear geoglyphs "were an integral part of the Nasca sacred space", the view Sakai and colleagues describe as predominant. Some lines are associated with pilgrimage routes to and from the ceremonial centre at Cahuachi, with the territory of particular social groups, or with subterranean water sources. UNESCO describes the lines as believed to have had ritual astronomical functions, and notes that some tracks appear to have been laid out to accommodate large numbers of people.

Calendar and astronomy (one of five hypotheses in Aveni’s 1990 survey; disputed). That the lines marked astronomical events or mapped the sky. The version in which the animal figures correspond to constellations has been criticised as resting on a Western view of the constellations, since no such constellations are recorded ethnohistorically or ethnographically.

Landing strips for visitors from elsewhere (von Däniken; rejected). Joe Nickell notes that the idea "is not his own and it originated in jest": the lines were nicknamed prehistoric landing fields when first viewed from the air. Maria Reiche’s objection, as Nickell reports it, was that the ground is quite soft: "I’m afraid the spacemen would have gotten stuck."

What the popular version gets wrong

"They can only be seen from the air, so the makers never saw them." False. Joe Nickell noted in 1983 that this "is not quite true, certainly not of the smaller figures", and that "even the large drawings can be appreciated to some extent from the ground". Relief-type figures tend to sit on hill slopes, where they can be seen from a distance. And the 2024 field survey reports that every individual geoglyph not in a group was found to be visible from the trails.

"Figures this large could not be laid out without an aerial view." Demonstrated false by physical replication in 1982, using rope, stakes, a wooden T-square and lime, with no aerial view used in the making.

"An artificial intelligence discovered hundreds of hidden figures." The model generated 1,309 candidates. Archaeologists screened about thirty-six suggestions per likely candidate and confirmed 303 by walking the ground over six months. The documented contribution is a sixteenfold increase in the rate of discovery.

"Nobody has any idea what they were for." Overstated. The landing-strip idea is rejected, and a reading of the lines as part of a sacred, ritual landscape is the predominant opinion. What is genuinely open is the function of particular classes of geoglyph.

Current status

Partially explained. This is not a mystery about origin. The construction method is established, the cultural attribution is established, and there is independent absolute dating for the geometric lines. What remains open is narrower: what specific social function each class of geoglyph served. The 2024 survey changed the evidence available for that question, raising known figurative geoglyphs from 430 to 733 and establishing a measurable split in size, subject and placement between the two types. Its two-function reading would move toward acceptance if an independent team reproduced the trail-proximity and motif statistics on a separate sample, if direct absolute dates were obtained for relief-type geoglyphs specifically rather than inferred from iconography, and if excavation recovered use-related deposits consistent with small-group viewing. It would be weakened if relief-type geoglyphs proved to date from a markedly different period, or if the trails proved to postdate the figures beside them.

Sources

  • Sakai, M., Sakurai, A., Lu, S., Olano, J., Albrecht, C. M., Hamann, H. F. and Freitag, M. (2024). "AI-accelerated Nazca survey nearly doubles the number of known figurative geoglyphs and sheds light on their purpose." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(40), article e2407652121, 23 September 2024. Read as the full-text PDF in an institutional repository. Source of every count, size, distance and motif proportion above, of the construction drawings, and of the review of earlier hypotheses and of the rediscovery.
  • Yamagata University (2024). News release on the survey, 24 September 2024. Source of the 1,309 candidates, the thirty-six suggestions screened per candidate and the sixteenfold figure.
  • Rink, W. J. and Bartoll, J. (2005). "Dating the geometric Nasca lines in the Peruvian desert." Antiquity, 79(304), pp. 390 to 401. The AD 400 to 650 result was read from the publisher’s record; the article body is paywalled, so the error margins are not stated here.
  • Nickell, J. (1983). "The Nazca Drawings Revisited: Creation of a Full-Sized Duplicate." The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1983, pp. 36 to 43. Read as a scanned copy. Source of the replication account, of the observation that the figures can be appreciated from the ground, and of the landing-strip history and Maria Reiche’s objection.
  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre. "Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa", property 700, inscribed 1994. Source of the construction description, the distance from Lima and the description of the lines’ believed ritual functions. The introduction and the brief synthesis on that page give conflicting dating spans, which is why this record gives a range.
  • Aveni, A. F., ed. (1990). The Lines of Nazca. American Philosophical Society. Silverman, H. (1994). World Archaeology, 26, pp. 1 to 18. Silverman, H. and Proulx, D. A. (2002). The Nasca. Blackwell. Cited through Sakai and colleagues for the earlier hypotheses; not retrieved directly.
  • Mejía Xesspe, T. (1940). Actas del 27 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Lima. Cited through Sakai and colleagues for the modern rediscovery; not retrieved directly.

Last reviewed: November 2026. Records are provisional. Where the evidence changes, the entry changes. Found an error? Tell us.

Related records
AR-0147 The Yonaguni Monument Stepped terraces rise from 25 metres of water off Yonaguni, Japan. One geologist calls them a sunken monument; the sandstone breaks that way unaided. Found 1986 Debunked
AR-0154 The Bimini Road A road-like line of stone blocks off Bimini was hailed as Atlantis. Cores show shell rock cemented about 2,800 radiocarbon years ago. 1968 Debunked
AR-0138 The Nebra Sky Disc A bronze disc inlaid with a gold sky, looted in 1999 and seized in 2002. Its date comes from swords buried with it, a link disputed in 2020. c. 1600 BC; found 1999 Partially explained
AR-0030 The Tunguska Event Roughly 2,000 square kilometres of Siberian forest flattened by a meteoroid airburst. 1908 Later explained

Advertise on Anomaly Registry

A documentary archive of 200 investigated cases, read slowly and at length by an audience that arrives on purpose. Below are the current delivery figures and what is available to buy.

Figures are rolling daily averages, current as of September 2026. They are restated as the traffic changes rather than left to age quietly, and we are happy to screen-share the underlying Ad Manager and analytics reporting before an insertion order is signed.

Anomaly Registry is a reference archive rather than a feed. Every one of its 200 records is written to a fixed structure, sourced to contemporaneous documents, inquest files, peer-reviewed literature or credible reporting, and each carries a section setting out precisely what the popular version of the story gets wrong. Cases that were later explained and cases that were comprehensively debunked are kept alongside the unsolved ones, because an archive that keeps only its mysteries is not an archive. That editorial position is the reason people stay.

It also explains the shape of the traffic. A session here runs to more than four pages and close to nine minutes, which is several times what a typical content site sees. Readers arrive looking for one case, find the sources laid out, and follow the cross-references into the next record. For an advertiser, the practical consequence is that a banner on this site is in front of a settled, attentive reader for minutes rather than seconds, and it is seen repeatedly across a single visit without ever being the reason someone leaves.

Three placements are available on every page. The leaderboard sits above the masthead and accepts 728x90, 970x90 and 320x50. The in-article unit sits inside the body of the record, where the reader is already stopped, and accepts 728x90, 300x250 and 336x280. The footer unit closes the page and accepts 728x90, 970x90 and 320x50. There are three slots per page and there will not be a fourth: the inventory is deliberately limited so that each impression is worth more than it would be on a page carrying eight.

What we do not run matters as much as what we do. There are no interstitials, no pop-ups, no auto-playing video, no content-recommendation chumboxes, and nothing that reflows the page after the reader has started reading. Ads are served in reserved space so the layout does not jump. This protects viewability for the advertiser as directly as it protects the reading experience, and it is the reason we can quote the session figures above with a straight face.

The editorial environment is unusually safe for a subject area that is often anything but. This site does not publish conspiracy content, it does not promote pseudoscience, and it does not treat a rumour as a finding. Its entire method is to separate what is documented from what has merely been proposed, and to say plainly when a famous mystery has an unglamorous answer. A brand placed here sits next to sourced, corrected, carefully hedged writing rather than next to speculation dressed as news.

The readership is a general-interest one with a research habit: people who read long-form nonfiction, follow science and history coverage, and check citations. In practice the categories that fit well are books and publishing, documentary and streaming, museums and exhibitions, education and online courses, audio and podcasts, consumer technology, outdoor and travel, and financial services. If your product rewards attention and explanation rather than impulse, this is a good room to be in.

Everything is delivered through Google Ad Manager, so you can buy the way you already buy. Direct-sold campaigns can be trafficked as a guaranteed line item with standard reporting on impressions, viewability and click-through. Programmatic demand can reach the same inventory through the open auction or through a preferred deal or private marketplace at a floor we agree in advance. We accept standard IAB display creative and HTML5, and we can accommodate a reasonable third-party ad server or verification tag.

Category sponsorship is available for advertisers who want something more durable than a rotation. The register is organised into seven categories, and a sponsor can take the whole of one, appearing across every record inside it with an acknowledgement in the page furniture. Sponsorship never buys editorial influence: a sponsor cannot commission a record, cannot review one before publication, cannot have a record altered, and cannot have one removed. That rule is not negotiable and it is the thing that keeps the inventory worth buying.

Some categories are declined outright, and it is fairer to say so up front than to discover it after an insertion order. We do not accept adult content, gambling, payday or high-cost short-term credit, cryptocurrency speculation and token sales, dietary supplements making health claims, political advocacy, psychic or clairvoyant services, or anything that reads as a scare advertisement dressed up as an article. Nothing may be styled to look like a record or like part of the editorial page.

Rates depend on placement, volume, whether the buy is run-of-site or targeted to a category, and how long it runs. There is no rate card on this page because a sensible number depends on what you are trying to do, and quoting one in the abstract usually wastes both parties' time. Tell us the campaign, the flight dates and the budget you are working to, and you will get a straight answer including whether we think the fit is wrong.

To start, write to or use the contact form and mark the message for the advertising desk. Include the flight dates, the placements you want, the creative sizes you have ready and any verification requirements, and we will come back with availability and a quote. Media buyers who want the underlying analytics before committing are welcome to ask; we would rather show the reporting than be taken on trust.

Privacy Policy

This policy explains what information Anomaly Registry collects when you visit this website, why it is collected, how it is used, and what choices you have. It applies to anomalyregistry.com and to any subdomain operated by us. It was last updated on the date shown at the end of this policy, and we will revise it if our practices change.

We have designed this site to collect as little personal information as possible. You do not need an account to read anything here. There is no login, no user profile, and no comment system. In the ordinary course of reading the register, you are not asked to identify yourself, and we do not ask you to.

Like virtually every web server, ours produces access logs. These logs record the internet protocol address of the requesting device, the date and time of the request, the page or file requested, the referring page if one was sent, and the browser user agent string. These logs exist for security, abuse prevention, and diagnosing technical faults. They are retained for a limited period and then discarded. We do not use them to build profiles of individual readers.

If you write to us through the contact form, we receive whatever you choose to put into it: typically a name, an email address, and a message. We use that information for the sole purpose of reading and answering your message. Writing to us does not add you to any list, and we do not sell, rent, or trade contact details with anyone.

There is one optional mailing list, and you only join it by asking. If you submit the subscribe form we store the address you gave, the time you submitted it, the IP address it came from, and the exact wording of the consent you agreed to. We keep that record because Canadian anti-spam law expects us to be able to show when and how you asked to hear from us. The list is used to say that records have been published or materially revised, and for nothing else. Every message carries a way to leave, and asking to be removed by email works just as well.

Corrections are a special case, and worth stating plainly. If you write to point out an error in a record, we may act on that correction and revise the entry. We will not publish your name or your email address in connection with a correction unless you explicitly ask us to be credited.

This site is supported by advertising served through Google Ad Manager. Advertising technology providers may set and read cookies or similar identifiers on your device in order to select advertisements, limit how often you see the same advertisement, and measure performance. These identifiers are set by those third parties, not by us, and the data they collect is governed by their own privacy policies rather than this one.

We do not have access to the personal data that advertising partners collect, and we cannot delete it on your behalf. If you wish to limit interest-based advertising, you can adjust the advertising settings offered by Google, use your browser's cookie controls, or use the industry opt-out tools that are available in your region. Details are set out in our Cookie Policy.

We may use privacy-respecting aggregate analytics to understand which records are being read and how people move through the register. Where we do, we configure it to avoid collecting information that identifies individual readers. Aggregate figures tell us that a case page is popular; they do not tell us who read it.

We do not knowingly collect personal information from children. This site is a documentary archive intended for a general adult and older student readership. If you believe a child has sent us personal information through the contact form, write to us and we will delete it.

Depending on where you live, you may have rights over personal data relating to you, including the right to ask what we hold, to ask for a copy, to ask for correction, and to ask for deletion. Because we hold so little, these requests are usually simple to answer. Write to us and we will respond within the period required by the law that applies to you.

Our servers are located in North America, and information sent to this site is processed there. If you are visiting from elsewhere, your request necessarily crosses borders in order to reach us. By using the site you understand that this transfer takes place.

If we change this policy, the revised version will be posted here with a new date. Material changes will be noted plainly rather than buried. Questions about this policy should be sent through the contact page.

Cookie Policy

A cookie is a small text file that a website asks your browser to store, and that your browser sends back on later requests. Similar technologies, including local storage and pixel tags, do comparable work. This policy explains which of these are used on Anomaly Registry, by whom, and what you can do about them.

The registry itself is a reading site. It does not require a cookie to show you a record. We do not set cookies to track you across the internet, and we do not operate a first-party advertising identifier of our own.

Strictly necessary cookies may be set to keep the site secure and functioning, for example to help mitigate automated abuse of the contact form. These are limited in scope and are not used for advertising or profiling.

Advertising cookies are set by Google Ad Manager and by the advertising technology partners that operate within it. Their purposes include selecting which advertisement to show, capping the number of times a given advertisement is repeated, detecting invalid traffic and click fraud, and measuring whether an advertisement was actually seen.

Some of these advertising cookies support interest-based advertising, in which the advertisement you see is influenced by inferences drawn from browsing activity over time and across sites. Whether this occurs depends on your region, your settings, and the choices you have already made with those providers.

We may use aggregate analytics to count page views and understand which records are read. Where an analytics tool is used, we prefer configurations that do not identify individual readers and that do not follow readers across other websites.

We do not embed social media widgets, share buttons, or tracking pixels from social networks. This is a deliberate choice for an archive of this kind, and it removes an entire category of third-party tracking that most content sites carry.

Your browser gives you direct control over cookies. Every major browser can block third-party cookies, delete existing cookies, and clear stored data on exit. Blocking third-party cookies will not prevent you from reading anything on this site, though it may make the advertising you see less relevant.

You can also manage advertising preferences with Google directly through its advertising settings, and through the industry opt-out mechanisms operated in various regions. Because these are operated by third parties, we cannot make the choice on your behalf.

Where the law in your region requires consent before non-essential cookies are set, a consent notice will be shown and your choice will be respected. Withdrawing consent later is possible through the same mechanism.

Advertising partners may change over time. Rather than publish a list that goes stale, we identify the advertising system in use, which is Google Ad Manager, and direct you to Google's own disclosures for the current set of partners operating within it.

If you have a question about cookies on this site that this policy does not answer, write to us through the contact page and we will answer it.

Anomaly Registry is an independent documentary archive. It is published as a work of reference and public interest reporting, and it is supported by advertising. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any government, university, police service, coroner, scientific institution, or investigative body named in any record.

The register documents real events, including in some cases deaths, criminal investigations, and inquests. Where a record concerns a criminal matter, nothing on this site should be read as an allegation of guilt against any living person. Where an individual has been named in the public record, we report the fact of that naming and its evidentiary standing; we do not accuse.

Records are written from sources. Where a source is a primary document, we say so. Where a claim rests on secondary reporting, we say so. Where sources conflict, we state the conflict rather than quietly choosing a side. Where a widely repeated claim cannot be traced to any source, we say that too, because an untraceable claim is itself a finding.

Every record separates what is documented from what has been proposed. Hypotheses are labelled as hypotheses and attributed to whoever advanced them, together with their standing: peer-reviewed, contested, dismissed, or untested. We do not advance theories of our own.

The registry treats its own entries as provisional. Records carry a review date, and they are revised when the evidence changes. A record you read today may be corrected tomorrow, and that is a feature of the method rather than a defect in it.

Despite this method, errors will occur. If you find one, write to us. Corrections supported by evidence are made promptly, and we would rather be corrected than be consistent.

Scientific and forensic conclusions reported here are the conclusions of the researchers and officials who reached them, not ours. Reporting that a study proposed a mechanism is not an endorsement that the mechanism is correct, and the status assigned to a case reflects the state of the evidence rather than our opinion of it.

Nothing on this site is legal, medical, psychological, financial, or safety advice. Records that touch on medical or psychological matters, including mass psychogenic illness, report the diagnoses reached by clinicians at the time and afterward. They are not a substitute for professional care.

Quotations from sources are used sparingly and for the purposes of reporting, comment, criticism, and review. Copyright in quoted material remains with its owner. If you hold rights in material you believe has been used improperly, contact us and we will address it.

Original text, structure, record numbering, and editorial apparatus on this site are the property of Anomaly Registry. You are welcome to quote briefly and link to us. Wholesale reproduction of records, including reproduction for the purpose of training generative models, is not permitted without written permission.

Outbound links are provided as references. We do not control linked sites and are not responsible for their content, their accuracy, or their handling of your data.

This site is operated from British Columbia, Canada, and these notices are governed by the laws applicable there, without regard to conflict-of-law principles.

Accessibility Statement

Anomaly Registry is built to be usable by as many people as possible, including people who use screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, or other assistive technology. We treat accessibility as part of the build rather than as a later remediation.

We aim to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.1 at level AA. This is a target we work toward continuously rather than a certification we claim to have completed.

The site is written as semantic HTML. Headings describe the real structure of a record, lists are marked up as lists, and the register is a genuine table with proper header cells, so that a screen reader can announce which column a value belongs to.

Every interactive element is reachable and operable by keyboard alone. Focus is visible at all times, and a skip link at the top of each page lets keyboard and screen reader users jump straight to the register without traversing the navigation.

Status is never conveyed by colour alone. Each status carries its written label in text, so a reader who does not perceive the colour difference between "Unsolved" and "Debunked" still receives the distinction.

Text colours have been chosen to meet or exceed the contrast ratios required at level AA against the page background. The typefaces are set at a comfortable reading size with generous line height, and the layout reflows to a single column on small screens without loss of content or function.

The site contains one animated element, an annotation on the home page. It respects the reduced-motion preference set in your operating system, and when that preference is on, the annotation appears without movement.

Text can be resized up to two hundred percent in the browser without breaking the layout or clipping content. Nothing on this site depends on a specific screen orientation.

Advertising is served by a third party. We control where advertisements are placed and label them as advertisements, but we do not control their internal markup, and their accessibility is ultimately determined by the advertiser.

We are developing an audio version of each record. When it is published, it will be an alternative way to receive the same content, not a replacement for the written entry, and the written entry will remain the authoritative version.

Accessibility work is never finished, and parts of this site will fall short of the standard we have set. If you encounter a barrier, we want to know about it. Please tell us what page you were on, what you were trying to do, and what assistive technology you were using.

Write to us through the contact page. We aim to respond within five business days and to fix genuine barriers promptly.

Terms of Use

These terms govern your use of anomalyregistry.com. By using the site you accept them. If you do not accept them, please do not use the site.

Anomaly Registry is offered as a free documentary reference. There is no account, no subscription, and no paywall, and nothing here is offered as a professional service of any kind.

You may read, quote briefly with attribution, link to, and print records for personal, educational, and research use. This is an archive, and it is meant to be used.

You may not reproduce records wholesale, republish the register or substantial parts of it, or scrape the site systematically. In particular, you may not reproduce this content for the purpose of training generative models. Permission for other uses can be requested through the contact page and is often granted.

Original text, the record numbering system, the status taxonomy, the editorial apparatus, and the design of this site are the property of Anomaly Registry. Third-party material quoted or referenced remains the property of its owners.

We work hard to make records accurate, and we correct them when they are not. Even so, the site is provided as it is, without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty of accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose.

Records are provisional by design. A status can change, an identification can be confirmed or overturned, and a leading explanation can be displaced by a better one. Do not treat any record as a final word, and check the review date.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Anomaly Registry and its operator are not liable for any loss or damage arising from your use of, or reliance on, anything published here.

If you send us a correction, a source, or a suggestion, you grant us permission to use it in the register. You will not be identified in connection with it unless you ask to be credited.

Do not use the contact form to send abuse, threats, spam, or automated submissions. We may block access to anyone who misuses the site or attempts to interfere with its operation.

Outbound links are provided as references and are not endorsements. We are not responsible for the content or conduct of any site we link to.

We may revise these terms. The version published here is the version in force. These terms are governed by the laws of British Columbia, Canada, and any dispute will be heard in the courts of that province.