Within Death Lists
Does a Government Inquiry Make the Pattern Real?
A congressional request for information showed that officials were checking an unconfirmed claim, not endorsing a verified connection.
On this page
- What the 2026 congressional inquiry actually requested
- Why unconfirmed reporting matters
- The difference between investigating a claim and validating it
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
No. A government inquiry does not, by itself, validate a list of allegedly connected deaths or disappearances. In the April 2026 US case that brought claims about nuclear, aerospace and UFO-adjacent researchers into Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform explicitly described the underlying material as “unconfirmed public reporting” and framed the alleged connection conditionally: “If the reports are accurate”, there could be a national-security problem. The committee then asked federal agencies for information so it could determine whether such a problem existed.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh…
That distinction matters because official attention can easily be mistaken for official confirmation. A congressional letter, an FBI review or White House interest makes a claim more visible and potentially more important to investigate. It does not establish that the people collected on an evolving public “death list” really formed one connected group, that they shared classified UFO or antigravity work, or that their deaths and disappearances had a common cause. Contemporary reporting found important discrepancies on precisely those points.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
What the 2026 congressional inquiry actually requested
On 20 April 2026, House Oversight chairman James Comer and Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs subcommittee chairman Eric Burlison sought information from the Department of Energy, Department of War, FBI and NASA about people reportedly connected to US nuclear secrets or rocket technology who had died or disappeared. Their letter referred to reports alleging that “at least ten individuals” with such connections had died or mysteriously vanished.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh…
The wording is more revealing than the dramatic premise. The committee did not say it had established a ten-person victim group. It said it was investigating reports about such a group. Nor did it announce that a common perpetrator, programme or motive had been identified. Instead, it asked the agencies for a staff-level briefing about whatever information they possessed, together with information on procedures for protecting sensitive scientific knowledge and personnel. The requested briefing was due by 27 April.[Oversight Committee]house.govApril 20, 2026
This was a legitimate oversight question even if the suspected pattern ultimately proved false. Congressional oversight does not require lawmakers to prove an allegation before asking an executive agency about it. Indeed, the committee invoked its broad authority under House Rule X to investigate “any matter” at “any time”. In other words, the existence of the inquiry demonstrates the committee’s authority and willingness to investigate the claim, not the truth of the claim being investigated.[Oversight Committee]house.govApril 20, 2026
There is an especially useful clue in the letter’s conditional language. The committee said that if the reports were accurate, the cases may represent a grave national-security threat. Both qualifications matter. They leave open two separate questions: whether the reported facts and claimed connections are accurate, and, even if they are, whether they amount to a coordinated threat.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh…
The committee was also responding to a claim already circulating through public reporting rather than announcing a pattern independently discovered through government records. Its letter cited press coverage, and its description of the supposed cluster encompassed people associated with JPL, Los Alamos, nuclear fusion, pharmaceutical research and a nuclear-weapons production facility.[Oversight Committee]house.govApril 20, 2026
That makes the sequence important:
public claims and media coverage → political concern → requests for agency information → investigation of whether a connection exists.
Reversing that sequence — “Congress investigated it, therefore Congress verified the connection” — turns a question posed by government into an answer government had not yet supplied.
Why “unconfirmed” is doing important work
The word unconfirmed is not a minor disclaimer in this case. It identifies the evidential status of the proposition that prompted the inquiry.
By 28 April, PolitiFact had traced 14 names circulating in versions of the story, rather than a single settled official roster of ten or eleven. Its examination found that the people did not all work together and were not all scientists. The careers covered NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Air Force, MIT, Caltech, pharmaceutical research and other institutions.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
That creates a basic problem for treating the congressional action as validation of a “death list”. Before asking whether a common force caused the cases, one first has to establish what the relevant population actually is. A government request based on “at least ten” reported cases cannot automatically validate larger internet compilations that add further people under broader criteria.
The claimed occupational connection was also less uniform than viral summaries suggested. PolitiFact found that some people had worked in nuclear science, while for others involvement in classified nuclear programmes was unclear. Some worked at nuclear-research facilities without holding scientific roles. NASA, meanwhile, said on 20 April that it was cooperating with relevant agencies but that, at that time, nothing related to NASA indicated a national-security threat.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
Nor were the underlying events homogeneous. The circulating group mixed unresolved disappearances with deaths for which substantially different information was available. One person had been found dead after a disappearance with authorities reportedly not suspecting foul play; another death involved a lethal mixture of alcohol and drugs; Amy Eskridge’s death had been reported as a self-inflicted gunshot wound; and some causes of death simply had not been made public.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
A missing public cause of death is particularly easy to misread in list-making. “No publicly disclosed cause” is an information gap, not a finding that a death was suspicious. Likewise, an unresolved disappearance is genuinely unresolved but does not become evidence of the same mechanism responsible for a homicide merely because both people can be placed under a broad heading such as “aerospace researchers”.
Contemporary mainstream reporting therefore continued to describe the connection as unproved even after federal attention began. The Los Angeles Times reported that there was no evidence at that point that deaths and disappearances spread across four years were connected. The Associated Press similarly reported that no definitive evidence established coordinated foul play while explaining how the theory had moved from online discussion into federal and congressional attention.[Los Angeles Times]latimes.comLos Angeles TimesFBI probes cases of missing or dead scientists, including four from the L.A. area - Los Angeles TimesApril 21, 2026…
Investigating a claim is not validating it
An inquiry and a validation perform almost opposite evidential functions.
An inquiry begins because an important question remains open. Officials may investigate because a claim is plausible, alarming, politically salient, widely reported, potentially consequential or simply easy enough to check that ignoring it would be irresponsible.
A validation, by contrast, would require evidence capable of resolving some of those open questions. For a purported researcher death pattern, that would mean establishing matters such as who actually belongs in the comparison group, whether their relevant jobs and clearances are documented, whether the cases have meaningful links beyond broad occupational similarities, and whether evidence connects the deaths or disappearances to a common actor, programme or cause.
The 2026 episode illustrates the gap unusually well because officials themselves described their task as looking for connections. The FBI was reported as “spearheading” an effort to examine possible connections, while the House was seeking agency briefings. That is evidence of investigative activity; logically, it is not evidence that the sought-after connection had already been found.[The Daily Caller]dailycaller.comThe Daily CallerFBI Probing Deaths, Disappearances Of Scientists At Government Labs | The Daily CallerApril 21, 2026…
Even strong rhetoric from an individual politician does not erase that distinction. Lawmakers publicly expressed concern that something sinister might be occurring. But a chairman’s assessment of the apparent odds or seriousness of a pattern is not equivalent to an investigative finding supported by case files, forensic evidence or an agency report. One contemporaneous account captured the procedural distinction when Comer said he wanted to obtain the information first and avoid creating a spectacle “if there’s nothing there”.[National Review]nationalreview.comNational ReviewAre the Eleven Dead or Missing U.S. Scientists Really Connected? | National ReviewApril 20, 2026…
That is exactly why the committee’s formal language carries greater evidential weight than political commentary surrounding it. The formal request calls the reporting unconfirmed and asks agencies to supply the information needed to assess it.
Official attention can still enlarge the list
For researcher death lists, however, an inquiry can have an important secondary effect even before investigators reach any conclusion: it can make the alleged pattern look more established than it is.
Once headlines accurately report that “Congress” or the “FBI” is investigating deaths and disappearances, those institutional names become part of the story. When that headline is later shortened in social media discussion, the crucial verb can effectively change from investigating to recognising. A tentative category assembled through public reporting can begin to look like an official government category.
The 2026 numbers demonstrate the risk. Viral discussion referred to roughly ten or eleven cases; the congressional letter used “at least ten” while explicitly attributing that figure to unconfirmed reports; PolitiFact subsequently identified 14 names circulating publicly.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com. The existence of different totals is not proof that any particular compilation is wrong, but it does show why references to “the official list” require caution. The public category was not obviously a single fixed dataset.
The same problem affects the alleged UFO or unconventional-propulsion connection. UFO claims appeared prominently in online discussion, and some politicians discussed the deaths in that context. But PolitiFact found the assertion that the people were connected through secret space, nuclear or UFO programmes unsupported by the evidence it could establish. NASA’s own statement did not identify such a connection.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
This is particularly relevant to older antigravity-related names. Public compilations can append historical researchers because their work appears thematically similar to newer cases. That expansion is analytically separate from the narrower set of people that prompted the April 2026 oversight request. Nothing in the congressional letter establishes that every later-added UFO, exotic-propulsion or antigravity researcher belongs to the same evidential cluster.
Official attention therefore creates a paradox. It can increase the visibility and perceived legitimacy of a death-list narrative at precisely the stage when government is still trying to determine whether the narrative’s organising premise is valid.
What would actually strengthen the pattern
The congressional inquiry is nevertheless relevant evidence — just evidence of a different proposition. It shows that senior lawmakers judged the allegations sufficiently consequential to seek information from agencies responsible for nuclear security, defence, federal law enforcement and space research. It also documents that a possible personnel-security problem had entered formal government oversight rather than remaining solely an online discussion.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh…
What it does not establish is considerably more important when evaluating a death list. The inquiry alone does not prove that:
- the circulating names constitute one coherent group;
- everyone listed had access to comparable classified information;
- UFO or antigravity research was the common denominator;
- unexplained cases share a cause with explained deaths;
- the people were deliberately targeted;
- a foreign intelligence service, government programme or other actor was responsible.
Those would require affirmative evidence emerging from the investigation rather than the mere existence of the investigation.
The most persuasive future evidence would therefore not be another politician announcing concern. It would be material that independently links cases: verified shared programmes or access, communications or threats involving multiple subjects, forensic similarities, intelligence identifying a common actor, investigative findings contradicting apparently unrelated explanations, or an official report concluding that a coordinated threat existed.
Conversely, case-by-case evidence can weaken the aggregate theory even while leaving individual mysteries unresolved. A charged suspect in one homicide, an accidental or self-inflicted death in another case, a disappearance with no evidence of foul play, or proof that an alleged “scientist” held an unrelated role does not answer every question about every person. It does, however, make it harder to treat the entire collection as one event merely because the names appeared together online. Contemporary fact-checking had already found precisely this mixture of occupations and circumstances.[PolitiFact]politifact.comOpen source on politifact.com.
The key distinction
The April 2026 congressional action is best understood as an official test of an allegation, not an official endorsement of it. The House Oversight Committee’s own words preserve that distinction: the reporting was unconfirmed; the alleged pattern would be threatening if accurate; and agencies were asked for information so officials could determine what, if anything, connected the cases.[Oversight Committee]oversight.house.govOversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh…
That does not make the inquiry meaningless. Government scrutiny can uncover links that journalists, families or local investigators could not see because relevant information is classified or dispersed among agencies. The appropriate conclusion is therefore neither “Congress investigated it, so the death list is real” nor “Congress had not proved it, so there was nothing worth investigating”. The evidence supports the narrower position: there was a claim serious enough to check, while the connection that made it a single pattern remained the very thing being checked.
For UFO and antigravity researcher death lists, that distinction is essential. A list does not become a verified dataset simply because an official body asks questions about some of the people appearing on it. Until an inquiry produces evidence linking the cases, the inquiry establishes government attention — not the pattern itself.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Does a Government Inquiry Make the Pattern Real?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Know...
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information than ever before. These societal gains, however, ha...
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
An all-encompassing guide to skeptical thinking from podcast host and academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine Steven N...
Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World
Bullshit isn’t what it used to be. Now, two science professors give us the tools to dismantle misinformation and think clearly in a world...
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
Three decades after making history by releasing the Pentagon Papers, the former U.S. Marine and Pentagon insider reveals why he did it an...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-burlison-seek-information-on-missing-nuclear-and-rocket-scientists/
Source snippet
Oversight CommitteeComer & Burlison Seek Information on Missing Nuclear and Rocket Scientists - United States House Committee on Oversigh...
2.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: Oversight Committee
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/DOE-[Missing-Scientists
Source snippet
April 20, 2026...
Published: April 20, 2026
3.
Source: politifact.com
Link:https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/apr/28/missing-dead-scientists-nuclear-weapons-ufos/
4.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/SH.html
5.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2026-07_NH.html
6.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2026-06_SH.html
7.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/
8.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/NH.html
9.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_2026_MERRA2_SH.html
10.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2026-05_SH.html
11.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/?came_from=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fwanted%2Fwcc%2Fjulieanne-baldueza-dimitrion%2Fdimitrionjulie2.jpg%2Fview
12.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2026-04_SH.html
13.
Source: science.nasa.gov
Link:https://science.nasa.gov/uap/faqs/
14.
Source: burlison.house.gov
Link:https://burlison.house.gov/media?page=1
15.
Source: fbi.gov
Title: provides investigative update on march 1 austin shooting
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sanantonio/news/fbi-provides-investigative-update-on-march-1-austin-shooting
16.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_2026-03_SH.html
17.
Source: fbi.gov
Title: body of missing truck driver recovered in georgia
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/tampa/news/body-of-missing-truck-driver-recovered-in-georgia
18.
Source: appropriations.house.gov
Title: budget hearing national aeronautics and space administration
Link:https://appropriations.house.gov/schedule/hearings/budget-hearing-national-aeronautics-and-space-administration
19.
Source: appropriations.house.gov
Title: budget hearing environmental protection agency 0
Link:https://appropriations.house.gov/schedule/hearings/budget-hearing-environmental-protection-agency-0
20.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/patel-doj-whcd-042726.mp4/view
21.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/index.php?Itemid=29&extid=244&extmode=view&option=com_jcalpro
22.
Source: burlison.house.gov
Title: comer burlison seek information missing nuclear and rocket scientists
Link:https://burlison.house.gov/media/press-releases/comer-burlison-seek-information-missing-nuclear-and-rocket-scientists
23.
Source: docs.house.gov
Title: By Event.aspx
Link:https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventId=119223
24.
Source: docs.house.gov
Title: By Event.aspx
Link:https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119227
25.
Source: docs.house.gov
Title: By Event.aspx
Link:https://docs.house.gov/committee/calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119182
26.
Source: fbi.gov
Title: fbi offers 50000 reward for capital murder suspect abel elias acosta
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/dallas/news/fbi-offers-50000-reward-for-capital-murder-suspect-abel-elias-acosta
27.
Source: astrobiology.nasa.gov
Title: ask an astrobiologist
Link:https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/?ms=GT24_CFIlightbox
28.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sandiego/news/fbi-offers-reward-of-up-to-10000-for-information-about-the-homicide-of-yunique-puckett
29.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/news/RSS?TiFdSYP=nPpMra
30.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/news/rss.xml
31.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: comer burlison letter to epa
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/letter/comer-burlison-letter-to-epa/
32.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: letter to epa administrator regan
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/letter/letter-to-epa-administrator-regan/
33.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: letter to anthony bernal
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/letter/letter-to-anthony-bernal/
34.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: letter to hhs secretary
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/letter/letter-to-hhs-secretary/
35.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: melanie stansbury
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/member/melanie-stansbury/
36.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: kelly armstrong 2
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/member/kelly-armstrong-2/
37.
Source: ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/monthly_1994-08_SH.html
38.
Source: svs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13083/
39.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Title: greg gianforte
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/member/greg-gianforte/
40.
Source: fbi.gov
Title: new fbi wanted app
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/new-fbi-wanted-app
41.
Source: burlison.house.gov
Link:https://burlison.house.gov/media
42.
Source: science.house.gov
Link:https://science.house.gov/oversight
43.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/all/?a_page=17&f-post-category=biden-family-investigation&f-post-month=&f-post-type=&f-post-year=
44.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/all/?a_page=17
45.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/page/5/?month=11&post_type=release&pyear=2014&update=update
46.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/release/page/8/?month=4&post_type=release&pyear=2013&update=update
47.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/page/7/?month=3&post_type=release&pyear=2012&update=update
48.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/release/page/4/?month=7&post_type=release&pyear=2009&update=update
49.
Source: oversight.house.gov
Link:https://oversight.house.gov/all/?a_page=7
50.
Source: fbi.gov
Title: STEE R CLEAR OF EMPLOYMENT SCAMS
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/news/RSS?PQZbxSJnkbv=G43cDa
51.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/counterintelligence/yevgeniy-alexandrovich-grinin
52.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/?came_from=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fwanted%2Fwcc%2Fjulieanne-baldueza-dimitrion%2Fjulieanne-baldueza-dimitrion-en-espanol.pdf%2Fview
53.
Source: fbi.gov
Link:https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap/vicap
54.
Source: politifact.com
Link:https://www.politifact.com/artificial-intelligence/
55.
Source: eere-exchange.energy.gov
Link:https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/FAQ.aspx?FoaId=28e0ebed-de32-4b3a-97f3-4184df7f5420
56.
Source: latimes.com
Link:https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-04-21/fbi-probes-missing-or-dead-scientists-including-four-from-la-area
Source snippet
Los Angeles TimesFBI probes cases of missing or dead scientists, including four from the L.A. area - Los Angeles TimesApril 21, 2026...
Published: April 21, 2026
57.
Source: dailycaller.com
Link:https://dailycaller.com/2026/04/21/fbi-probing-deaths-disappearances-scientists/
Source snippet
The Daily CallerFBI Probing Deaths, Disappearances Of Scientists At Government Labs | The Daily CallerApril 21, 2026...
Published: April 21, 2026
58.
Source: nationalreview.com
Link:https://www.nationalreview.com/news/are-the-eleven-dead-or-missing-u-s-scientists-really-connected/amp/
Source snippet
National ReviewAre the Eleven Dead or Missing U.S. Scientists Really Connected? | National ReviewApril 20, 2026...
Published: April 20, 2026
59.
Source: reddit.com
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1sud715/oversight_committee_now_investigating_missing/
60.
Source: imdb.com
Title: Amy Eskridge
Link:https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13210059/news/
Additional References
61.
Source: apnews.com
Link:https://apnews.com/article/c046ce6d0a004e6a3e1971ff769244b5
Source snippet
scientists gained traction, escalating from niche online forums to being addressed by the White House and U.S. Congress. Theories propose...
62.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QatWn2nMQnw
Source snippet
11 MISSING SCIENTISTS: The Pattern Nobody's Talking About...
63.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Missing US Scientists Anti Gravity Link?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK-98ik44Kg
Source snippet
Amy Eskridge Predicted Her Own Death – Before Becoming 1 of 11 Scientists Now Dead or Missing...
64.
Source: youtube.com
Title: The “Conspiracy” to Kill [Cold Fusion]({{ ‘cold-fusion/’ | relative_url }})
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWlBZT7L1qM
Source snippet
Comer Burlison missing scientists nuclear rocket Scientists Keep Disappearing...
65.
Source: shinysideout.com.au
Link:https://www.shinysideout.com.au/05-monica-reza.html
66.
Source: cbsnews.com
Link:https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/university-of-south-florida-doctoral-students-missing/
67.
Source: medium.com
Link:https://medium.com/%40timventura/amy-eskridge-aidan-shaffer-mark-mccandlish-arent-missing-scientists-3d8826c92454
68.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/theiowastandard/posts/comer-burlison-seek-information-on-missing-nuclear-and-rocket-scientists/1247431554042701/
69.
Source: theiowastandard.com
Link:https://theiowastandard.com/comer-burlison-seek-information-on-missing-nuclear-and-rocket-scientists/
70.
Source: x.com
Link:https://x.com/IowaStandard/status/2046726472652718112