Project Aletheia

Finding What's Hidden Beneath Reality

Consciousness, cold cases, and the questions science left untouched. All of it made testable.

Sources
What Can It Prove?
Leads
Rules Locked First
Machine Verdicts
Proving the Detector
Honest Answers
The Ledger Grows

Independent research lab

An independent lab for the questions nobody tests.

Aletheia is an independent research lab. It takes hard questions about reality that supposedly can’t be answered and it makes them testable.

NASA/JPL confirmed and fixed eight records in its close-approach database after this lab reported them. Google DeepMind confirmed and merged a fix to its Formal Conjectures mathematics library. Every finding here carries its evidence and its limits and the exact test that could kill it.

Every question runs through the same machine. Basanos is that machine. Rules get locked before any data is read and verdicts come from code with no AI in the scoring path and every detector has to catch planted fake answers before it touches anything real. How Basanos works →

14
Supported findings
1
Verified discovery
40
Open questions
3
Ready-now tests

These are lifecycle counts from the reconciled public catalog. A supported finding passed its evidence checks; a discovery also needs verified novelty.

When a question dies interesting

11 cases are open and each one names what would settle it.

Not every question ends in an answer. Some die on a defect and some run out of data and some just stall. Aletheia publishes those too. Each cold case says what was found and how it died and the exact dataset or file or expert read that would reopen it. One reply with the right data can restart a case.

See the open cases →

How It Works

Everything enters as sources with provenance. Each dataset gets honest limits, each test gets its rules locked before the data is read, verdicts come from code with no AI in the scoring path, and every detector proves itself on planted answers first. What survives is published with its receipts. What dies interesting stays open as a cold case. The ledger grows either way.

Full methods → · Read the open research questions →

What Survives, What Dies

Honest disposition is the credibility signal. These rules hold for every result the platform publishes.

Nulls stay visible

A failed prediction remains in the findings ledger as a bounded null instead of disappearing.

Exploratory does not mean true

An interesting pattern can stay available for follow-up without receiving claim authority.

Observation ecology, not explanation

The Hessdalen claim is about observation ecology under matched controls. It is not a physical explanation of the lights.

Novelty is a separate gate

A supported finding is not called a discovery until a dated prior-art review permits it.

Current Supported Findings

These outcomes clear the evidence gate. Each one is bounded by the data and the controls that produced it and none of them is a universal claim. Showing 6 of 14.

Supported finding

Does the matched weather/Kp result replicate on direct station data and held-out dates?

In the full-date Hessdalen event corpus, dated observations behave as an observation-ecology result rather than a physical explanation: event days are not elevated on same-day Kp against matched +/-7/14/21/28 day controls, while precipitation and wind-gust metrics are lower than controls. This claim does not explain what the Hessdalen lights are, does not claim weather causes the phenomenon, and does not refute geomagnetic hypotheses generally; it only says same-day Kp is not elevated in this bridge. Weather evidence is Open-Meteo reanalysis-grid data, not direct station instrument logs for every event.

Supported finding

Does the LZc effect remain absent after preregistered aperiodic control in new raw EEG?

In two raw psychedelic-EEG datasets (ketamine and DMT), apparent increases in signal-diversity complexity (Lempel-Ziv) are largely explained by flattening of the 1/f aperiodic slope; after controlling for the aperiodic exponent, no separable complexity effect remains in these datasets.

Supported finding

Does dream-report linkage generalize to independent open-set contributors?

Closed-set pseudonymous linkage within DreamBank after obvious content clues were removed.

Supported finding

Does the coarse telling-order gradient replicate in the independently collected NDERF corpus?

Validated markers in 2,192 OBERF narratives follow a coarse order in the telling: onset/body markers early, tunnel and light mid-narrative, felt presence after them, return-to-body last; p=1e-4 in both corpus halves under an event-set-preserving null. Early-cluster internal order is not stable, so the supported claim is a coarse gradient, not a step-by-step sequence.

Supported finding

Does the database-level structure (robust pooled excess, no decline, weak small-study signal) hold in the independent Tressoldi compilation?

In the public 128-study ganzfeld compilation: pooled excess +376.2 hits over the ~5,459-trial chance expectation (p<1e-5), robust to greedy removal of 46 of 128 studies; decline over time absent at the frozen 0.01 threshold; small-study association suggestive only (p=0.019-0.047). Structure of the compiled file; upstream selection untested; no psi conclusion either way.

Supported finding

Does human mathematical review confirm that the nine checked formulas exactly resolve Question 3.3 for n=7?

All nine frozen machine cases for the seven-vertex rainbow-stacking problem are closed as unsatisfiable. Six have direct checked certificates. Three have checked symmetry-reduced certificates plus a reviewed transfer argument. This is a conditional resolution pending human review of the encoding and mathematical reductions.

What This Is, and What It Is Not

This is

  • An independent research lab run by one operator, with every supported outcome gated by recorded decisions.
  • Discovery infrastructure where findings, nulls, questions, and novelty reviews stay separate.
  • A lab that works on consciousness and cold cases and the questions other people skip.

This is not

  • A proof project. No finding here establishes that any contested phenomenon is real or explained.
  • A believer site or a debunking site. Every verdict has to be earned by a test.
  • Institutionally endorsed. No collaboration, funding, or affiliation is implied by anything on this site.

What the Lab Works On

Aletheia works on contested questions across several fields. The method is the same in all of them.

Hard questions and contested claims

Fields where selection bias and wishful thinking usually win, and public records nobody has audited.

  • Consciousness transitions (NDE, anesthesia emergence, G-LOC/syncope)
  • Anomalous experience reports (sleep paralysis, out-of-body, apparitions)
  • Public science databases (NASA/JPL close-approach records, atomic-mass tables)
  • Machine-checked mathematics libraries and conjecture statements
  • Instrument-linked records (Hessdalen observation ecology)
  • Reported results in physics and AI systems that nobody has re-checked

The general infrastructure

Nothing on this list is specific to anomalies. It ports to any contested evidence domain.

  • Question-to-outcome lifecycle tracking
  • Null tests and matched-control ledgers
  • Adversarial review before any promotion
  • Null retention — failed predictions stay in the record
  • Recorded operator decisions on every supported outcome
  • End-to-end evidence trails from source to bounded finding

The corpus is the stress test. The method is the product.

Where to Start

For scientists

Methods, controls, null results, and the evidence trail behind every finding.

Read the methods

For funders and operators

What the lab is and what it has corrected and how every result is gated.

About the lab

For builders

Open-source website: public lifecycle catalog, provenance links, and validation gates.

View on GitHub

Read the work, or send a dataset for review.

Findings, questions, tests, and failures stay separate by design. Have a dataset or replication target? Send it for review.