We are people who believe in data. We come from the field of technology, science and analytics. We are here for your weird stuff.

As data and research professionals we have often found gold in the anomalies. For example, let’s say a business is making 1k dollars a day online and for two days of last month they made 2k a day, but only 500 dollars on two other days. We would want to know why you made more money on two of those days and make sure it happened again, and we would want to make sure the days you made less don’t happen again.

Those four days of the month would be the outliers. The violators. The anomalies. If those anomalies represent something we can recreate in the case of the positive, or avoid in the case of the negative, they can help us progress. This is how anomalies help a web business discover and grow.

Without change, if you keep making 1k a day (a baseline), the only way to make more money is to test.

The tests would be run according to the scientific method. We have a control and we have variables. Tests begin with a hypothesis, are executed with a methodology and end with a conclusion drawn from evidence. This is how we would determine whether or not we can replicate the anomaly, and turn it from an anomaly into a regular maly or new and better control. It is our general belief, that research into the anomalous phenomenon presented on this site follow the same pursuit of hard nosed evidence.

With the pace and trajectory of technology, Science is discovering new miracles daily. Scientific advancement in AI, Robotics and Medicine have become the baseline. The trajectory of human advancement is at a steep incline, and the public has become immune to it. With so much happening in our virtual spaces (social media, video games), we’ve all become less present.

Chart from ourworldindata.org

So, this leaves us with a pickle. How do we rekindle the public’s sense of wonder and remind the scientific community there are still wonders left to discover?

We’ve established the baseline which is our current state of progress. Unless we have the budget and resources to test, we must find the anomalies and see if they can be replicated. First, we must create a standard of evidence. Here at Fortean Winds, we don’t just want to report on anomalous phenomenon. We’d like to give you some idea of whether or not the anomaly is unexplained and evidence of something science has yet to discover.

In order to do this, we’ll need to agree on a standard of evidence. In our approach, you don’t need to put your critical thinking on hold when examining unexplained phenomenon. In fact, one should be extra critical. Personally, if and when a phenomenon should be so kind as to coincide with a belief I previously held, I (RamX) am doubly critical and suspicious. This is simply attempting to do thorough research. The standards of evidence for the phenomenon should be the same standard of good journalism, science or data analysis.

We at Fortean Winds have done our best to give you a veracity rating to give you an idea of whether a news story evidence of anything pivotal. Our ratings will generally follow the confidence intervals of business or intelligence analysts. With some modifications…

Fortean Winds Veracity Rating System

RatingMeaningTypes of Evidence
High ConfidenceThe story or phenomenon described exists based on the evidence.Sensor Data (Instrumentation)

Multiple reliable eyewitnesses

Photos or Videos

Government Documents

Repeated Occurrences

At least three of these exist
Mid ConfidenceThe story or phenomenon described likely exists based on the evidence.2 of 3 High Confidence evidence types exist. Conflicting evidence does not.
Low ConfidenceThe story or phenomenon might exist based on the evidenceSome evidence exists. Strong skeptical arguments might also.
Likely FalseThe story or phenomenon is likely false based on the evidenceEvidence exists in direct conflict with the claim.
Maybe FalseThe evidence leans toward the story or phenonmenon being falseThere are very strong skeptical arguments verses little to no evidence.
*an argument is not evidence

Fortean Winds shouldn’t be the last stop on someone’s journey into the anomalous. Our ratings will be based on our own research and we’ll strive to provide you with additional sources to substantiate our work and give you leads to explore the events and phenomenon of your choosing. All of our Overviews and Case Files are works in Progress, and we’ll be adding to them as more data (and hopefully with your input), as time goes on.

Much of the undiscovered, naturally involves theory and speculation. When we’re engaged in analysis and speculation, we’ll do our best to call it out. Making inferences and connections based on evidence are important to progress, but we tend to agree with John A. Keel who said “Belief is the Enemy.”

Thanks for coming by the site, and we hope you like it. The above approach is detailed so you can understand the general zeitgeist of our reporting and a template for all those adding content. When dealing with anomalous phenomenon, it’s always helpful to understand the methodology and goals of the observers.

We’ll be looking forward to observing your comments and doing our best to incorporate new information. A rising tide lifts all boats and we appreciate your support!

If you have a suggestion on a topic you’d like us to research, or other question, you can contact us at ramx@forteanwinds.com