Rick Robson
Active Member
Okay man!You let me know how it was!
I wasn't planning on watching it, but if test subjects think it's worth it, I might reconsider.
UFOs, Whistleblowers and Mysterious Deaths
- Thread starter NorCal Dave
- Start date
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
The whole thing is getting weird. Look at who they include in this blurb:
Chavez retired almost 10 years ago. Casias was an Administrative Assistant. Thomas was a cancer researcher at Novartis. And everyone is now jumping on the Eskridge case, even though she took her own life nearly 4 years ago.
I'm not trying to be crass or insensitive, but I think the inclusion of Eskridge is telling about this whole story. Her videos are difficult to watch, she seems to be agitated and somewhat unhinged. She has no filter as she drops F-bombs more than guys on a construction site, and her claims are completely un-evidenced. That is, she makes for good content. Including her works both ways. She is a brilliant iconoclast that has been silenced by the powers that be, or one is unfortunately watching a train-wreck go off the rails, either one is seen as compelling.
They're just making a story out of nothing. The video claims they were all working on high level space or nuclear programs:
No. They were not. As noted, Thomas was a cancer researcher and had zero to do with space, nuclear or UFOs. Garcia MAY have worked at a facility that makes the "non-nuclear parts" of nuclear weapons, so he may have been a factory worker. Nobody knows what Chavez did at LANL, other than he stopped doing it 10 years ago.
Again, not trying to be insensitive or morbid, but several of these cases, including Garcia and McCasland involved individuals going off alone with hand guns in New Mexico. Unfortunately, New Mexico has a high rate of suicide (bold by me):
https://ibis.doh.nm.gov/indicator/view/SuicDeath.Cnty.htmlExternal Quote:
The US national rate has been around 14 per 100,000 for the last nember of years:
https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html
While Bernalillo county, which includes Albuquerque, LANL and Kirtland AFB, is not quite double the US rate:
Just saying that maybe they should be looking at known things before developing new conspiracy theories.
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Yes, I also tried to watch a bit of Eskridge, and she seemed to be extremely agitated. I'm not suggesting she had a particular issue or disorder, and perhaps she was just extremely stressed. I was reminded of the symptoms I've read about in certain manuals. I've had conversations with individuals that remind me of her videos. They occurred at parties..
Rick Robson
Active Member
Does hypomania (and consequently BD type II -- BDII), has commonly been more frequently associated with female gender?
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
It might be. We could look it up.
<edit> yeppers.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Tat' the sort of post that a citation would have benefited! ^_^
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
It is more frequently diagnosed, but there might be some controversy there. I just didn't want to pursue trying to diagnose her with any specific disorder, publicly. Though Google AI and probably Scholar, with sources from PubMed can help, as we know.
Rick Robson
Active Member
I didn't realise you had already edited it out, sorry. I had been watching some of Amy's allegedly close friends -- last one Courtney Marchesani (on the link below, min. 52:41) telling the interviewer not being aware of any sort of medical history neither any actually concerning health issues before her death. Anyway, since no official public diagnosis information was issued it's obviously at least inappropriate speculating about it. Yes, from my part, I'm done with all this thread's discussion about Amy too.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/K5NzBVFUf3E?si=cQPXwh7jF1k5QI88
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Some bits of new information via CNN. I linked to my local news station as that's where I saw it and there is no paywall. It appears CNN is reporting that Anthony Chavez was construction foreman of some type at LANL. It's unclear if he was a government employee or a contractor, but it sounds like he wasn't a scientist:
So, not a scientist, not part of the military or Intel community, not in the aerospace industry, not a nuclear guy and unless he was supervising the building of underground bunkers like Dulce base for the aliens, not UFO related. He just did some construction work at LANL some 15 years ago and then went missing in May 2025.External Quote:
In other cases, various family members have weighed in and countered some of the suspicious claims:
External Quote:
External Quote:
https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/...ch-have-died-or-disappeared-in-recent/articleExternal Quote:
John J.
Senior Member.
Amy Eskridge has been described as a scientist by some media outlets, including The Daily Mail
("UFO-linked scientist who warned 'my life is in danger' before she was found dead at 34 becomes ELEVENTH mysterious case", https://www.dailymail.com/sciencete...-scientist-amy-eskridge-death-huntsville.html).
I don't think we've seen any evidence that she worked as a scientist at all, in the sense of being employed as a scientist in an academic, government/ government agency or corporate setting. She might have done, we know very little about her life.
But if she did, the media sources and conspiracy theorists who claim there was something mysterious about her death have not offered any evidence that this was the case.
Of course there's nothing to prevent anyone describing themselves as a scientist, or doing research as a personal venture, or in a company or other commercial/ not-for-profit setting they (perhaps alongside others) have set up.
But claims of a major, paradigm-breaking breakthrough in physics by an individual without any obvious access to substantial resources, and apparently without an academic/ work background that might indicate extraordinary insight or relevant practical experience, should be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism. Particularly in the absence of any evidence for those claims, other than the assertions of the claimant, who has made other improbable claims.
Re. anti-gravity,
(1) How did Amy Eskridge supposedly discover it? Were there any collaborators?
(2) Were her findings theoretical- "pencil and paper" and therefore untested- or was there any experimental work?
(3) How did she test her claims?
(4) Is there any evidence, of any sort, that her claims had any factual basis? Is there any material originating from Amy Eskridge that demonstrates she had a profound understanding of physics, or had performed replicable experiments that support her claims? (I don't think there is).
The groundbreaking physicists of the early 20th century often had limited resources, but they were aware of each other's work, and they left substantial, checkable "paper trails" showing how their ideas developed over time; their theories (and where relevant, experimental findings) were published and testable (or at least open to review and criticism).
Eskridge's claims seem highly improbable. We cannot assess their accuracy or veracity, because (at present, AFAIK) there is nothing that she published, or described, that can be examined. We know people sometimes make extraordinary claims that are mistaken, misguided and/ or objectively false.
There are conspiracy theories about government agencies, or corporations, or perhaps rogue factions within them, that are prepared to harm others in order to steal or suppress their work or silence investigators. The concept features in The X-Files, the BBC series Edge of Darkness, and William Gibson's novel Count Zero, amongst many other examples. In UFO lore, there is maybe some overlap with the (probably folkloric) Men in Black (MiBs).
If we imagine for a moment that there are professional "operatives" acting for some agency or corporation, prepared to murder on their behalf, why would Amy Eskridge be of interest to them? It seems unlikely that professional assassins are murdering everyone who makes unverified (and improbable) claims about scientific breakthroughs, or having knowledge about UFOs.
Amy Eskridge's father has said there was nothing suspicious about her death (@Ann K's post #15). Those responsible for investigating the circumstances have not said that there was anything mysterious or unexplained. No one has suggested any reason- or forwarded any evidence- to doubt them.
It is not the business of the police service/ medical professionals involved to share all information that they hold to satisfy the curiosity of a small number of people with no connection to the deceased, nor are Amy's relatives/ loved ones obliged to share everything they might know about the circumstances surrounding what must remain an intensely saddening, painful event.
Amy Eskridge's death does not appear to be mysterious. We do not know all the relevant details, but others involved in her life, and/or those who investigated her tragic demise, might.
We have not seen any evidence that Amy Eskridge was involved in meaningful research that might have revolutionised physics or produced any revolutionary technology.
I think it is unfortunate that The Daily Mail, amongst others, has chosen to imply otherwise.
("UFO-linked scientist who warned 'my life is in danger' before she was found dead at 34 becomes ELEVENTH mysterious case", https://www.dailymail.com/sciencete...-scientist-amy-eskridge-death-huntsville.html).
I don't think we've seen any evidence that she worked as a scientist at all, in the sense of being employed as a scientist in an academic, government/ government agency or corporate setting. She might have done, we know very little about her life.
But if she did, the media sources and conspiracy theorists who claim there was something mysterious about her death have not offered any evidence that this was the case.
Of course there's nothing to prevent anyone describing themselves as a scientist, or doing research as a personal venture, or in a company or other commercial/ not-for-profit setting they (perhaps alongside others) have set up.
But claims of a major, paradigm-breaking breakthrough in physics by an individual without any obvious access to substantial resources, and apparently without an academic/ work background that might indicate extraordinary insight or relevant practical experience, should be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism. Particularly in the absence of any evidence for those claims, other than the assertions of the claimant, who has made other improbable claims.
Re. anti-gravity,
(1) How did Amy Eskridge supposedly discover it? Were there any collaborators?
(2) Were her findings theoretical- "pencil and paper" and therefore untested- or was there any experimental work?
(3) How did she test her claims?
(4) Is there any evidence, of any sort, that her claims had any factual basis? Is there any material originating from Amy Eskridge that demonstrates she had a profound understanding of physics, or had performed replicable experiments that support her claims? (I don't think there is).
The groundbreaking physicists of the early 20th century often had limited resources, but they were aware of each other's work, and they left substantial, checkable "paper trails" showing how their ideas developed over time; their theories (and where relevant, experimental findings) were published and testable (or at least open to review and criticism).
Eskridge's claims seem highly improbable. We cannot assess their accuracy or veracity, because (at present, AFAIK) there is nothing that she published, or described, that can be examined. We know people sometimes make extraordinary claims that are mistaken, misguided and/ or objectively false.
There are conspiracy theories about government agencies, or corporations, or perhaps rogue factions within them, that are prepared to harm others in order to steal or suppress their work or silence investigators. The concept features in The X-Files, the BBC series Edge of Darkness, and William Gibson's novel Count Zero, amongst many other examples. In UFO lore, there is maybe some overlap with the (probably folkloric) Men in Black (MiBs).
If we imagine for a moment that there are professional "operatives" acting for some agency or corporation, prepared to murder on their behalf, why would Amy Eskridge be of interest to them? It seems unlikely that professional assassins are murdering everyone who makes unverified (and improbable) claims about scientific breakthroughs, or having knowledge about UFOs.
Amy Eskridge's father has said there was nothing suspicious about her death (@Ann K's post #15). Those responsible for investigating the circumstances have not said that there was anything mysterious or unexplained. No one has suggested any reason- or forwarded any evidence- to doubt them.
It is not the business of the police service/ medical professionals involved to share all information that they hold to satisfy the curiosity of a small number of people with no connection to the deceased, nor are Amy's relatives/ loved ones obliged to share everything they might know about the circumstances surrounding what must remain an intensely saddening, painful event.
Amy Eskridge's death does not appear to be mysterious. We do not know all the relevant details, but others involved in her life, and/or those who investigated her tragic demise, might.
We have not seen any evidence that Amy Eskridge was involved in meaningful research that might have revolutionised physics or produced any revolutionary technology.
I think it is unfortunate that The Daily Mail, amongst others, has chosen to imply otherwise.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Indeed, her father's comments sound like a resigned sadness about a daughter who he knew to be bright, but disturbed.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I agree, and just to be clear I was not asking that to happen -- it appears to me that this was already done -- rather, that claims of whatever sort be sourced.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
But that's not what the 911 call from his wife indicates at all. I suggest giving it a listen.
For reference, this below indicates to me something entirely different
From the 911 Transcript:
- Susan Wilkerson: And he's—it's been about three hours and I have some indication that he must have planned not to be found. He's left his phone. He changed his clothes into I don't know what. I think he's on foot. All of our cars and bicycles are in the garage. I left for a doctor's appointment at about 11:10 and, uh, he was here at that time at the house and I got back from that at noon and he was gone. He turned it off and left it behind which seems kind of deliberate because he's always got his phone. He has a smartwatch. I don't know if that's with him or not.
- April: Has he ever done this before?
- April: Has he been diagnosed with any mental, um, disorders or anything like that?
- Susan Wilkerson: Well, we've been seeing a doc for both physical and mental in terms of anxiety, short-term memory loss, lack of sleep. The same doc I went to see today.
- April: Does he carry any weapons on him?
- Susan Wilkerson: Well, not generally. I—he does have a gun safe and I went to look in the gun safe to see if anything was missing, but I couldn't tell if anything was. He has quite a number of pistols and rifles. Other than saying if his brain, body keeps deteriorating, he didn't want to live like that. But it seemed to me that was just a "man, I hate how this is going" kind of thing. 'Cause I told him, "Yes, you do. Yes, you do."
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Thanks, that is informative.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Source?
Minus0
Senior Member
We certainly don't know enough about her life or research.
However, to be charitable, from the introduction at her HAL5 "A Historical Perspective on Anti-Gravity Technology" lecture in 2018 it claims:
https://www.hal5.org/program-2018-12.shtml
Given the overview of the Material Science PhD program requirements, I suspect the lecture may have been inspired by the Dissertation Proposal Examination, part of the qualifying process after completing required coursework
https://catalog.ua.edu/graduate/interdisciplinary-program/materials-science/phd/phd.pdf
A committee of advisors would then vote on whether or not to accept the student's proposal. I have no idea if Amy made it to the formal proposal examination stage nor if her dissertation was accepted, but if she had been, the UAH lab could have provided an institutional capacity for unconventional research
https://www.uah.edu/prc/capabilities/aerospace-materials-structures
Her death was ~4 years after the lecture so within the timeline of ongoing PhD completion. The video of her sitting inside her house with the laptop disconnected from Wi-Fi and expressing such strong persecution beliefs doesn't give the impression of institutional support, however. My guess would be her dissertation proposal was rejected and she continued her research independently (and without access to actual research facilities)
Also believe the inclusion of the screenshot from r/conspiracy in her 2018 lecture was significant since it could suggest she was already in a mindset primed for paranoia. Amy was clearly a bright young woman, very sad how it ended. My heart goes out to her father
So, a few things about the PhD angle:
- In the hard sciences, at least, PhD students typically work for a principal investigator, a faculty member with a lab and funding, so she should have been attached to an advisor and have been listed somewhere. (See for example the website of the UAH department chair at https://mtec.uah.edu/people, where he lists his graduate students.)
- You often need some track record of publishing to get into a PhD program; once in the program, you should be contributing to your PI's work, for which you would be listed as a co-author.
- The bio on her archived version of her Institute for Exotic Science website from late 2019 actually says "She enrolled in the Biotechnology and Biosystems Engineering PhD Program at UAH and conducted non-viral polymeric drug delivery formulation and gene therapy research at a gene therapy company."
There's no sign she had an advisor; there's no one on the The University of Alabama in Huntsville materials science faculty list who appears to do anything related to the work Eskridge claimed to be doing.
Her Facebook page shows her spending the years before 2019 working on cloud storage and cloud computing for Arkham Storage, which appears never to have launched. She seems to have bounced around in the Huntsville startup community for several years. The "portfolio companies" page of her website lists four companies that don't show any evidence of actually launching. There's such a weird web of company names and positions, jumping from being "Former BioTrain Intern at HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology" to "President, Co-Founder at The Institute" (which links to the website of a management consulting company founded by Brett Johnson in 1996), though that's probably an error intended to be The Institute for Exotic Science.
Her company Holochron Engineering (which seems to be a riff off the Jedi holocrons of Star Wars) doesn't seem to have had a business license in 2021, the earliest for which Huntsville offers records.
Though there is a business license record for The Institute for Exotic Science (typo from the original):
INSTITUE FOR EXOTIC SCIENCE, THE | INSTITUTE, THE LLC | LLC | 2022 | 3001 NINTH AVE SW | HUNTSVILLE 35805 |
Which is the address for a co-working business called Huntsville West, which offers co-working packages ranging from "baller" and "hustler" to "mogul." I'm not sure that's the right setting for anti-gravity experiments:
None of which is definitive, of course, but I'm not seeing any evidence she was doing research, had a lab, or other facilities or actual employees. At this point I'm not entirely clear what she was doing, other than trying to be an entrepreneur, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
