How we find, verify, and publish information about underground facilities — and what we will never publish.
How we find, verify, and publish information about underground facilities — and what we will never publish.
This page explains how this project works — how we research and verify facilities, how we grade the strength of our evidence, and what standards guide every publication decision. We believe transparency about our process is just as important as the information itself. If you are curious about how a facility was labeled "Confirmed" versus "Unverified," or want to understand why we declined to publish something, this page has the answers.
Definition: Verified by official government acknowledgment, declassified architectural plans, or public museum/historic site status.
Example
The Greenbrier Resort — officially exposed by The Washington Post in 1992, revealing a Congressionally-mandated emergency bunker beneath the resort. Now operates as a public tourist attraction and museum.
Definition: Supported by multiple independent high-reliability sources — credible news outlets, academic papers, or verified satellite imagery — but lacking official government confirmation.
Example
Facilities documented in multiple credible news investigations and corroborated by satellite imagery analysts, but never officially acknowledged by government agencies.
Definition: Single-source claims, local accounts, or historical reports that lack physical or documentary corroboration. These are documented but not confirmed.
Example
Eyewitness accounts from local residents or former workers, documented in a single source without supporting documentation or physical evidence.
Definition: Facilities where credible evidence exists on both sides. Official explanations are plausible, but specific anomalies or inconsistencies remain unexplained.
Example
Sites where official government purpose is documented and plausible, but the documented scope is contested by independent analysts who cite physical evidence suggesting larger or more complex facilities.
Definition: Claims proven false through physical inspection, geological impossibility, or identified as hoaxes or fictional media.
Example
Denver Airport conspiracy theories — tunnels documented beneath the airport are verified logistics infrastructure for baggage handling and airfield operations, not secret military installations.
We gather primary and secondary source materials across multiple categories: FOIA releases and declassified documents, satellite and aerial imagery analysis, credible news reporting, academic research, and historical records. Sources are catalogued before any publication decisions are made.
We standardize all facility records into a common format: facility name, location coordinates, documented purpose, ownership or operator, construction era, and known current status. Inconsistent naming, location variations, and conflicting reports are flagged and reconciled at this stage.
Each facility receives a confidence grade — Confirmed, Corroborated, Unverified, Disputed, or Debunked — along with a written rationale explaining the evidence basis. This rationale is attached to every record and is never hidden.
We generalize or omit precise structural details, entry locations, or technical specifications when we determine that public release could contribute to security risks. This does not mean suppressing facts — it means not publishing specifics that could enable exploitation of active security measures.
All publication decisions and content changes are logged with the reviewing editor's name and the date of the decision. This creates a transparent audit trail for every facility record, including the reasoning behind grade assignments and redactions.
Sources must be independent of each other. A claim corroborated by three articles from the same wire service or editorial syndicate counts as one source. We seek independent reporting — multiple journalists, outlets, or researchers who have reached similar conclusions through separate investigation.
Every claim must be checkable against a named, accessible source. Anonymous tips, unverifiable internet rumors, or "a source close to..." statements are documented as unverified unless corroborating evidence exists. We do not publish claims we cannot trace to a named source.
For active facilities, recent sources carry more weight than historical accounts. A facility's status may have changed since an older report was published. We note the publication date of all primary sources and flag situations where information may be outdated.
A civil engineering journal article on tunnel construction methodology is weighted higher than a general media article making the same point. We favor sources with demonstrated subject-matter expertise and penalize sensationalized coverage from outlets known for inaccurate reporting on defense and infrastructure topics.
We are transparent about who controls our editorial decisions. This matters because conflicts of interest shape what gets published — and what gets buried.
This project is not funded by any government agency, military contractor, NGO, or corporate interest with a stake in underground construction or facility management.
Editorial decisions are made independently, based solely on evidence quality and source reliability.
No external party reviews or approves content before publication. We do not submit drafts to government agencies, military officials, or corporate entities for clearance.
Some boundaries are firm, not because we are afraid to report, but because publishing certain information would cause real harm without serving any legitimate public interest. These lines are not negotiable.
Classified information or documents
We will not republish or describe classified documents not already in the public domain. The existence of a public FOIA release does not mean all related materials are publishable.
Active security patrol schedules or vulnerabilities
We will not publish information that could assist in planning unauthorized access or exploiting known security gaps at active facilities.
Specific structural details that could be exploited
We will not publish precise entry point locations, security system layouts, or structural specifications that could contribute to a real-world security incident.
Operational personnel names or home addresses
We will not publish personally identifiable information about current or former personnel at any facility. This applies regardless of how that information was obtained.
Trespassing guidance or facility access instructions
We will not provide instructions, maps, or procedural guidance for gaining unauthorized access to any facility, active or decommissioned.
Unverified speculation presented as fact
We will not present a claim as confirmed when it is unverified. Every confidence grade reflects actual evidence — not what we suspect or hope to be true.
If you have identified an error in our content — a factual inaccuracy, an outdated source, or an incorrect grade assignment — we want to know. Corrections from domain experts, former facility personnel, and researchers are particularly valuable.
Contact UsWhen a facility's confidence grade changes — for example, when a previously unverified facility is confirmed through new evidence — we update the record and document the reason for the change, the new evidence that prompted it, and the date of the revision. Grade changes are never silently applied.
Every facility record includes a publicly visible changelog showing all edits, additions, and grade changes with reviewer attribution and dates. We do not quietly edit records. The full history of every change is available on the individual facility page.
If credible evidence shows that specific published information poses a genuine safety risk or legal concern, we will review that content promptly. Where appropriate, we will redact specific details while preserving the broader record, or remove content entirely. We do not respond to legal threats without substance review — but we do respond seriously to legitimate safety concerns from qualified parties.