Anomaly•Registry
AR-0175

The Carancas Impact

Partially explained
Date 15 September 2007, about 11:40 local time
Location Carancas, Puno, Peru, about 10 kilometres south of Desaguadero, near the southern shore of Lake Titicaca and the Bolivian border
Coordinates -16.6644, -69.0439
Category Physical and Geological

Summary

On 15 September 2007 a stony meteorite blasted a crater 13.5 metres wide near Carancas, Peru, described by its investigators as the first impact crater seen forming by witnesses. Villagers who went to look reported headaches and nausea, and the cause of that illness has not been established.

The first reports more than doubled the crater's size and put the number of sick at 600, and a widely repeated explanation blames arsenic in vapour from the crater. The Peruvian geologists who analysed the crater water found that the meteorite had added nothing to it and that its arsenic was low. The impact itself is well recorded, although by the accepted picture of how stony meteoroids behave in the atmosphere it should not have happened.

first reports, September 2007, against the later record FIRST REPORTS, 2007 LATER RECORD, 2008 TO 2009 crater people ill arsenic the object 30 metres wide, 6 deep 13.5 metres across 600 said to be ill some tens (INGEMMET) blamed for the illness 0.02 mg/l, described as low doubted as a meteorite an H4-5 ordinary chondrite THE IMPACT IS EXPLAINED. THE ILLNESS IS NOT. the meteorite added no foreign ions to the crater water. no medical study of the illness has been traced. a well-recorded crater beside an unmeasured illness.
Figure Drawn by Anomaly Registry from CBC News and The Register (September 2007), the English Wikipedia article, Space.com (2007), Núñez del Prado and colleagues (2008) and Tancredi and colleagues (2008, 2009). What the first reports said about the crater, the sick, arsenic and the object, set against the later record.

What is documented

The fall. Close to noon on 15 September 2007 a bright fireball was seen and a large explosion heard by many people near the southern shore of Lake Titicaca (Tancredi and colleagues, 2009). Tancredi and colleagues timed the impact at 16:40:17 Universal Time, 11:40 in Peru. The site, in the community of Carancas about 10 kilometres south of Desaguadero, lies at an altitude of 3,824 metres (Tancredi and colleagues, 2008). Kenkmann and colleagues (2008) reported that "a plume of smoke with sulfurous smell occurred for several minutes above the crater."

The crater. It measures 13.5 metres across (Brown and colleagues, 2008; Tancredi and colleagues, 2009), or 14.2 metres in the survey of Kenkmann and colleagues (2009). Geologists of Peru's Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Institute (INGEMMET) described a central hole 7.5 metres in diameter inside an ejecta rim up to 1 metre high (Núñez del Prado and colleagues, 2008). Kenkmann and colleagues put its depth at about 5 metres into the soil and found ejecta up to 200 metres away. The crater cut the water table and held a shallow pond of groundwater. Bubbles could be seen rising from the water for several minutes (Tancredi and colleagues, 2008). Residents reported that the water "appeared to be boiling"; Schultz and colleagues (2008) proposed air compressed ahead of the meteorite in the water-saturated sand, and clumps of clay frothing as they broke down in the water.

The meteorite. Fragments found near the crater are an H4-5 ordinary chondrite, a stony meteorite (Tancredi and colleagues, 2008). Tancredi and colleagues (2009) called Carancas "the first impact crater whose formation was directly observed by witnesses" and "the first unambiguous seismic recording of a crater-forming stony meteorite impact".

The energy and the speed. Brown and colleagues (2008) analysed eyewitness, seismic and infrasound records. They found that the impact released energy of order 10¹⁰ joules, the equivalent of 2 to 3 tons of TNT, from a body that entered the atmosphere at below 17 kilometres per second, most likely close to 12, at 63 degrees from the horizontal. Its mass on entry was 3 to 9 tonnes; modelling suggested a few tonnes striking the ground at 1.5 to 4 kilometres per second. Kenkmann and colleagues' early modelling (2008) gave a far lower final speed, about 160 metres per second, or 180 allowing for the altitude, for a stone of about 700 kilograms. Their fuller modelling (Kenkmann and colleagues, 2009) gave an impact energy of about 100 to 1,000 megajoules and an impact speed of 350 to 600 metres per second, after an entry at 12 to 14 kilometres per second at a shallow angle; they noted that this conflicts with the trajectories inferred from the infrasound signals. Tancredi and colleagues (2009) concluded that the event "should have not occurred according to the accepted picture of stony meteoroids ablating in Earth's atmosphere."

The illness. People who went to the crater reported headaches and nausea, and "poisonous vapors" were alleged as the cause (Núñez del Prado and colleagues, 2008). The numbers conflict. The INGEMMET geologists wrote of "some tens of people"; Space.com, on 19 September 2007, of "some 200 residents"; CBC News reported that "about 600 people sought medical treatment after visiting the site, authorities say." The INGEMMET team analysed water from the crater and from a neighbouring hole. The two were similar, "indicating that the meteorite did not add any allochthonous ions", and "arsenic was low: 0.02 mg/l." They added that scientists from Peru's National Health Institute were investigating a sample of the people who had fallen ill. The registry has not traced any published result of that investigation.

The first doubts. Before the fragments were identified, several scientists doubted there had been a meteorite at all. Space.com quoted Don Yeomans of NASA's Near Earth Object Program: "Statistically, it's far more likely to have come from below than from above." Benny Peiser expected the crater to turn out to be "just another 'meteorwrong.'"

Leading explanations

A meteorite impact. Established. Recovered chondrite fragments, witnesses, and seismic and infrasound records of the fireball and the impact leave no competing explanation for the crater.

Why the stone arrived so fast (partly explained; the speed is disputed). Brown and colleagues attribute the crater to the body's unusually high strength, and the low degree of fragmentation that went with it, and add that the site's altitude of about 3,800 metres let it strike much faster than it would have near sea level. Schultz and colleagues suggested that weak or fragmented objects reshape during entry in a way that reduces drag and stress. Kenkmann and colleagues (2009) argued instead that a slow, shallow entry kept aerodynamic stresses low enough for the stone to survive, and their estimates of the final speed, about 160 metres per second in 2008 and 350 to 600 in 2009, are well below Brown's. Tancredi and colleagues present the event as a challenge to current models of atmospheric entry.

Toxic vapour from the crater (alleged; arsenic is not supported by the water analysis; other gases were not measured in any study the registry has found). A sulphurous smell was recorded above the crater. The INGEMMET analysis of the crater water found low arsenic and nothing added by the meteorite. At the time, sceptical scientists doubted that a meteorite could produce fumes at all. "Meteorites don't give off odors," Yeomans told Space.com.

What the popular version gets wrong

"Six hundred people were made ill by a crater 30 metres wide." CBC News reported a crater "30 metres wide and six metres deep" and about 600 people seeking treatment, and The Register said that 600 people had "succumbed" to headaches, vomiting and nausea. The crater is 13.5 metres across. Other counts of the sick are far lower: "some 200" (Space.com) and "some tens" (INGEMMET). The CBC's own figure was of people seeking treatment, which is not the same as being ill.

"Arsenic in the groundwater poisoned the villagers." The English Wikipedia article says the illness "is now believed to have been caused by arsenic poisoning incurred when residents of the area inhaled the vapor of the boiling arsenic-contaminated water." The geologists who sampled the water found arsenic at 0.02 milligrams per litre, which they described as low, and no ions added by the meteorite. For the apparent boiling, Schultz and colleagues proposed causes that need no heat: compressed air and frothing clay. No medical study of the illness has been traced.

"It was a gas explosion, not a meteorite." This was a serious suggestion in the first days, made by scientists quoted on Space.com. The recovered fragments are an ordinary chondrite, and seismometers and infrasound stations recorded the impact.

Current status

Partially explained. The crater is a meteorite impact, among the best recorded of its kind. Why a stony body survived to make the crater is explained in part, by its strength and the altitude of the site on one analysis and a slow, shallow entry on another, and the estimates of its impact speed range from 350 metres to 4 kilometres per second. The illness is not explained. The reported numbers differ tenfold, the arsenic explanation is not supported by the INGEMMET water analysis, and no medical findings have been traced. The case would change with the publication of the National Health Institute's findings or any other medical study of the people who fell ill.

Sources

  • Tancredi, G., Ishitsuka, J., Schultz, P. H., Harris, R. S., Brown, P., ReVelle, D. O., Antier, K., Le Pichon, A., Rosales, D., Vidal, E., Varela, M. E., Sánchez, L., Benavente, S., Bojorquez, J., Cabezas, D., and Dalmau, A. (2009). "A meteorite crater on Earth formed on September 15, 2007: the Carancas hypervelocity impact." Meteoritics and Planetary Science 44 (12): 1967 to 1984.
  • Brown, P., ReVelle, D. O., Silber, E. A., Edwards, W. N., Arrowsmith, S., Jackson, L. E., Tancredi, G., and Eaton, D. (2008). "Analysis of a crater-forming meteorite impact in Peru." Journal of Geophysical Research 113: E09007.
  • Tancredi, G., and colleagues (2008). "What do we know about the 'Carancas-Desaguadero' fireball, meteorite and impact crater?" 39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract 1216.
  • Núñez del Prado, H., Macharé, J., Macedo, L., Chirif, H., Pari, W., and colleagues (2008). "The meteorite fall in Carancas, Lake Titicaca region, southern Peru: first results." 39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract 2555.
  • Kenkmann, T., Artemieva, N. A., and Poelchau, M. H. (2008). "The Carancas event on September 15, 2007: meteorite fall, impact conditions, and crater characteristics." 39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract 1094.
  • Kenkmann, T., Artemieva, N. A., Wünnemann, K., Poelchau, M. H., Elbeshausen, D., and Núñez del Prado, H. (2009). "The Carancas meteorite impact crater, Peru: geologic surveying and modeling of crater formation and atmospheric passage." Meteoritics and Planetary Science 44 (7): 985 to 1000.
  • Schultz, P. H., Harris, R. S., Tancredi, G., and Ishitsuka, J. (2008). "Implications of the Carancas meteorite impact." 39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract 2409.
  • Earth Impact Database, Planetary and Space Science Centre, University of New Brunswick. "Carancas."
  • Thompson, A. (2007). "Scientists doubt meteorite sickened Peruvians." Space.com, 19 September 2007.
  • CBC News (2007). "600 sick in Peru after 'meteorite' crashes." September 2007.
  • Haines, L. (2007). "Peruvian 'meteorite' strike provokes noxious gas attack." The Register, 19 September 2007.

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

Related records
AR-0133 The Stones That Fell at L'Aigle About 3,000 stones fell around a Normandy town in 1803. The inquiry that followed convinced the last sceptics that rocks fall from the sky. 1803 Later explained
AR-0030 The Tunguska Event Roughly 2,000 square kilometres of Siberian forest flattened by a meteoroid airburst. 1908 Later explained
AR-0037 The Mad Gasser of Mattoon Reports of a gas-spraying prowler, widely attributed to collective hysteria. 1944 Later explained
AR-0031 The Carrington Event One of the largest recorded solar storms. Worldwide auroras and telegraph systems disrupted. 1859 Later explained

Advertise on Anomaly Registry

A documentary archive of 175 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 175 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.