What Would Amy Eskridge's Warning Message Prove?

Introduction

Amy Eskridge’s reported warning before her death is potentially important evidence, but its significance is narrower than the most dramatic interpretations suggest. Reporting published in 2026 attributes to Eskridge a text sent to former British military officer Franc Milburn on 13 May 2022, less than a month before her death, in which she said that any future report that she had killed herself should not be believed. Other reported messages indicate that she was telling people around the same period that she feared threats. Eskridge died in Huntsville, Alabama, on 11 June 2022; contemporary obituary records confirm the date, while later reporting says her death was ruled suicide by self-inflicted gunshot.[arabheritagememorialchapel.com]arabheritagememorialchapel.comArab Heritage Memorial Chapel Ms. Amy Catherine Eskridge ObituaryArab Heritage Memorial ChapelMs. Amy Catherine Eskridge Obituary - Visitation & Funeral InformationJune 11, 2022…Published: June 11, 2022

If the warning is authenticated, it would establish something genuinely significant: before her death, Eskridge expressed an expectation that she might die in circumstances subsequently described as suicide, and explicitly rejected that anticipated explanation. It would therefore be relevant to any review of her death. But it would not, by itself, establish that she was murdered, that the threats she perceived came from a real external actor, or that any such actor was connected to her unconventional-propulsion research. Those are separate propositions requiring separate evidence.

The reported May 2022 warning and its provenance

The most widely reported version of the warning is dated 13 May 2022. Hindustan Times, citing reporting about messages supplied by Milburn, reproduced the central passage in which Eskridge denied three possible future accounts: that she had killed herself, overdosed, or killed somebody else. The first sentence — beginning, “If you see any report that I killed myself” — has subsequently become the most frequently quoted part of the exchange.[Hindustan Times]hindustantimes.comOpen source on hindustantimes.com.

Milburn’s importance to the provenance of this evidence should not be overlooked. He is not simply somebody retrospectively interpreting Eskridge’s behaviour: he says he was the recipient of communications from her. In an April 2026 NewsNation interview, he also said that he had spoken with Eskridge only hours before her death and that she had described herself as endangered and subjected to attempts to stop or disrupt her work. That makes him a potentially important witness to both the provenance of the communications and Eskridge’s state of mind shortly before she died.[Yahoo]yahoo.comresearcher felt endangered her 2022 070000699Researcher felt endangered before her 2022 death: Acquaintance | Elizabeth Vargas ReportsApril 23, 2026…Published: April 23, 2026

There is also reporting about another communication later in May. A message dated 24 May and attributed to Eskridge describes repeated death threats and says that she had been telling people close to her that she had not killed herself, whatever they might subsequently hear. Secondary reporting about messages associated with her business partner Samuel Reid similarly describes her claiming that threats had begun after recent work and that she believed she had ended up on a “kill list”.[The Grounded]thegrounded.ghost.ioThe Grounded The Weight of SilenceThe GroundedThe Weight of SilenceMay 12, 2026…Published: May 12, 2026

Taken together, these accounts make the warning more interesting than an isolated sentence with no surrounding context. They suggest that the reported 13 May statement belonged to a broader period in which Eskridge was expressing fear to more than one person. But there is an important distinction between multiple reports of communications and independent authentication of the underlying communications. Much of the material available to the general public in 2026 consists of journalism, screenshots, interviews and material supplied or described by associates. That is not the same evidential position as investigators possessing the original devices, complete message histories and associated digital records.

A useful benchmark is Federal Rule of Evidence 901. It says that authentication requires sufficient evidence to support a finding that an item “is what the proponent claims it is”, and gives examples including testimony from somebody with knowledge and distinctive characteristics of the item considered alongside surrounding circumstances. The rule is not being applied here as though an internet investigation were a federal trial; rather, it illustrates the underlying evidential question. Before asking what Eskridge’s message proves, one first needs reasonable confidence that Eskridge actually sent it, on the stated date, to the stated recipient, and that the published version has not lost material context.[Legal Information Institute]law.cornell.eduLegal Information InstituteRule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Informatio…

That distinction matters especially with screenshots. A screenshot can accurately depict a genuine message, but it does not automatically reveal the complete conversation, metadata, edits, exports or device history. The strongest verification would therefore come from the original message database or device, corresponding records on the recipient’s device or account, contemporaneous backups, and testimony from the recipient and other people who received comparable warnings. Federal evidence rules likewise distinguish authentication from proof of the contents of writings and recordings, illustrating why original records can matter when precise wording is disputed.[Legal Information Institute]law.cornell.edurule 1002rule 1002

What the warning actually establishes

Suppose, for analytical purposes, that forensic examination established beyond reasonable dispute that Eskridge sent the May messages exactly as reported. The evidence would then become substantially stronger — but not unlimited.

Its clearest significance would concern her state of mind and stated intentions. She would have placed on record, before her death, that she feared a future suicide account and rejected it. This is precisely the sort of distinction recognised in evidence law between a statement demonstrating someone’s then-existing intention or mental condition and a statement being used to prove that an external allegation contained within it was objectively true. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), for example, specifically recognises statements of then-existing state of mind, intent or plan while limiting the use of statements of belief to prove the fact believed.[Legal Information Institute]law.cornell.eduOpen source on cornell.edu.

Applied to Eskridge, that produces several different evidential propositions that should not be collapsed into one:

• Strongly supported if authenticated: Eskridge said before her death that she would not kill herself and feared that her death might later be presented that way.
• Potentially supported by multiple contemporaneous communications: she appeared seriously concerned about threats or interference rather than the warning being invented entirely after her death.
• Not established by the messages themselves: somebody was actually threatening or surveilling her.
• Still less established: whoever was responsible for any harassment was connected to her research.
• Not established: another person caused her death.
• Not established: her death formed part of a wider operation against UFO, antigravity or advanced-propulsion researchers.

The third step is particularly important. A sincere belief and an objectively verified event are different kinds of evidence. If Eskridge genuinely believed somebody was following her, threatening her or attacking her with an exotic weapon, an authenticated message can demonstrate the existence and timing of that belief. It cannot identify the supposed perpetrator simply because Eskridge herself proposed an explanation.

The same applies to her reported insistence that she would not commit suicide. Such a declaration is plainly relevant when a death is subsequently classified as suicide, because it creates an apparent contradiction worth examining. But people’s future behaviour cannot invariably be inferred from earlier declarations. The message consequently weighs against a simplistic assumption that her intentions before death are known merely from the later ruling; it does not logically make homicide the only remaining explanation.

That is why describing the text as Eskridge having “predicted her murder” goes beyond what the message itself says. The reported wording anticipates possible accounts of her death and denies responsibility for them. It does not name a future killer, document a murder plan or demonstrate that a particular organisation intended to harm her. The difference may sound semantic, but it is the central evidential distinction in the case.

Why the contradiction still deserves scrutiny

Recognising the message’s limits does not mean dismissing it. A contemporaneous declaration inconsistent with a later suicide determination is exactly the kind of information an investigator could reasonably want to reconcile with the physical and forensic record. Former FBI special agent Andrew Black told NewsNation in April 2026 that renewed federal scrutiny of Eskridge’s case was a welcome development after details of the messages became public.[Yahoo]yahoo.comfbi probe researcher death welcome 010757268fbi probe researcher death welcome 010757268

The wider federal interest does not itself validate the homicide theory. The Wall Street Journal reported that federal authorities had examined claims linking a number of deaths and disappearances involving scientists and people associated with sensitive research, while stressing that officials had not established the purported connections among the cases. The newspaper also reported resistance from affected families to conspiracy narratives, including Eskridge’s family.[The Wall Street Journal]wsj.comThe Wall Street Journal How a Fringe Conspiracy Theory About Missing Scientists Got the FBI's AttentionTheories escalated after the disappearance of William McCasland, a retired general with a history in classified programs. As the narrativ…

That family position is particularly important when evaluating the warning rather than simply accumulating evidence that points in one direction. Eskridge’s father has been reported as rejecting the theory that her death was part of a sinister research-related pattern. His position does not disprove the warning messages any more than the messages disprove the suicide determination. It does, however, demonstrate that people with close knowledge of Eskridge have not interpreted the available circumstances uniformly.[The Wall Street Journal]wsj.comThe Wall Street Journal How a Fringe Conspiracy Theory About Missing Scientists Got the FBI's AttentionTheories escalated after the disappearance of William McCasland, a retired general with a history in classified programs. As the narrativ…

There is also a practical obstacle to independent public assessment. Alabama’s Department of Public Health states that death certificates remain confidential and access-restricted for 25 years after death, except for specified relatives, estate representatives and other authorised people. Alabama’s electronic death-registration guidance explains that the death certificate is the legal record containing information concerning an Alabama death and that its medical certification can involve physicians, coroners or medical examiners. Eskridge’s 2022 certificate is therefore not an unrestricted public document that any researcher can simply obtain and compare with the circulating allegations.[Alabama Department of Public Health]alabamapublichealth.govOpen source on alabamapublichealth.gov.

This creates an awkward evidential situation. Public reporting repeatedly describes the official determination as suicide by self-inflicted gunshot, while the underlying official records necessary for outsiders to reconstruct every forensic basis for that conclusion are not all readily available for public inspection. That gap justifies caution in both directions: it is a reason not to pretend the public possesses a complete forensic case file, but it is equally not evidence that the unavailable records contain proof of homicide.

What a homicide claim would require beyond the message

The decisive question is not whether Eskridge was frightened. Authenticated communications could provide unusually good evidence that she was. The decisive question is whether independent evidence connects that fear to the physical circumstances of her death.

A persuasive homicide case would therefore need evidence of a different order: forensic findings inconsistent with self-infliction; scene evidence indicating another person’s involvement; credible witness or surveillance evidence placing a relevant individual at the scene; communications containing identifiable and independently traceable threats; digital evidence connecting those threats to a person or organisation; or demonstrable inconsistencies between the official reconstruction and medical, ballistic, toxicological or other physical evidence.

The reported threats would also need attribution. Saying that threats existed is not equivalent to showing who made them. If original threatening messages survived, investigators could potentially examine account records, timestamps, routing information, device data and other digital traces. If Eskridge reported a stalker, corroborating evidence might include contemporaneous photographs, vehicle records, security-camera footage, witness observations or police reports. Without such corroboration, the allegations remain evidence of what she reported experiencing rather than proof of who, if anyone, was responsible.

Finally, establishing a research-related motive would require another evidential bridge. Even proof that Eskridge was murdered would not automatically demonstrate that the killing concerned antigravity research. Investigators would still need evidence connecting a perpetrator or organiser to her work, discoveries, planned disclosures or professional relationships. The further a claim moves from “Eskridge feared she might be killed” towards “Eskridge was killed to suppress advanced-propulsion research”, the more independent links the evidence must supply.

The May 2022 warning therefore occupies an important but precisely bounded place in the Eskridge case. If authenticated in its original context, it would be powerful contemporaneous evidence that she expressed fear before her death and explicitly disavowed suicide. That makes it relevant evidence to be reconciled with the official determination. What it cannot do on its own is identify a perpetrator, verify the threats she described, establish homicide, or connect her death to suppression of UFO or antigravity research. Treating those propositions separately preserves what is genuinely striking about the message without asking it to prove more than a message can.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What Would Amy Eskridge's Warning Message Prove?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The Demon-Haunted World

By Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan

Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • From the renowned astronomer and author of Cosmos comes a “powerful [and] stirring defense of informed ration...

See on Amazon

Book

The Craft of Research

By Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb et al.

Rating: 4.3/5 from 6 Google Books ratings

Since 1995, students, researchers, and professionals have turned to The Craft of Research for clear and helpful guidance on how to conduc...

See on Amazon

Book

Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World

By Carl T. Bergstrom, Jevin D. West

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...

See on Amazon

Book

Unnatural Causes: The Life and Many Deaths of Britain's Top F...

By Richard Shepherd

THE TRUE CRIME BOOK OF THE YEAR AND SUNDAY TIMES TOP 10 BESTSELLER 'One of the most fascinating books I have read in a long time. Engross...

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The Demon Haunted WorldThe Craft of ResearchCalling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data Driven World

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromUFO memorabilia oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

ED WALTERS UFO GULF BREEZE POSTCARD UFOLOGY MEMORABILIA

GBP 6.52 | Shipping GBP 3.38GoodSeller: dianearl6 (98.9% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Original 1996 Buzz Sightings Flyer UFO Design Washington DC Rave Memorabilia

GBP 35.91 | Free shippingSeller: old school303 (0.0% positive)Ships from: JP

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

The Pleasuredome UFO Poster Limited Edition Memorabilia Print Rave Poster Gift

GBP 39.59 | Free shippingNewSeller: posterglam (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: yahoo.com
Title: researcher felt endangered her 2022 070000699
Link:https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/researcher-felt-endangered-her-2022-070000699.html

Published: April 23, 2026

2. Source: yahoo.com
Title: fbi probe [researcher death]({{ ‘missing-denominator/’ | relative_url }}) welcome 010757268
Link:https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/fbi-probe-researcher-death-welcome-010757268.html

3. Source: arabheritagememorialchapel.com
Title: Arab Heritage Memorial Chapel Ms. Amy Catherine Eskridge Obituary
Link:https://www.arabheritagememorialchapel.com/m/obituaries/amy-eskridge/media/album/00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000

Published: June 11, 2022

4. Source: obits.al.com
Title: amy eskridge obituary
Link:https://obits.al.com/us/obituaries/huntsville/name/amy-eskridge-obituary?id=35311909

5. Source: hindustantimes.com
Link:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/amy-eskridge-update-ufo-scientists-old-texts-cast-doubt-on-cause-of-death-would-never-kill-myself-101776897906208.html

6. Source: thegrounded.ghost.io
Title: The Grounded The Weight of Silence
Link:https://thegrounded.ghost.io/the-weight-of-silence/

Published: May 12, 2026

7. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901

8. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: Legal Information Institute28a U.S. Code Article IX
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28a/courtrules-Evid/article-IX

9. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1002
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1002

10. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

11. Source: wsj.com
Link:https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/how-a-fringe-conspiracy-theory-about-[missing-scientists

12. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/vitalrecords/death-certificates.html?iframed=true

13. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/edrs/

14. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/edrs/faq.html

15. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Marriage Certificates | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/vitalrecords/marriage-certificates.html

16. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Contact Us | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/about/contact.html

17. Source: hindustantimes.com
Link:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/amy-eskridge-update-ufo-scientists-old-texts-cast-doubt-on-cause-of-death-would-never-kill-myself-101776897906208-amp.html

18. Source: disclosuremonitor.com
Title: Amy Eskridge | Disclosure Monitor
Link:https://disclosuremonitor.com/people/amy-eskridge-antigravity-researcher

19. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/edrs/death-certificates-corrections.html

20. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Requesting Access | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/edrs/requesting-access.html

21. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/houston/vital-records.html

22. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Contact Us | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/vitalrecords/contact.html

23. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/wilcox/vital-records.html

24. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/washington/vital-records.html

25. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/baldwin/vital-records.html

26. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/shelby/vital-records.html

27. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Vital Records | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/chambers/vital-records.html

28. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

29. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Keepsake Birth Certificates | Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH)
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/vitalrecords/keepsake-birth-certificate.html

30. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/blog/2023/09/sho-september.html

31. Source: ufouap.com
Title: amy eskridge
Link:https://www.ufouap.com/case-files/amy-eskridge/

32. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu28 CFR § 32.5
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/32.5

33. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: Ill Admin Code tit 95 SS 400.720
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/illinois/Ill-Admin-Code-tit-95-SS-400.720

34. Source: alabamapublichealth.gov
Title: Identification required to request Alabama restricted vital records
Link:https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/blog/2017/04/25.html

35. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1008
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1008

36. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 802
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802

37. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sec 28a 03000901 000 notes
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_03000901—-000-notes.html

38. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sup 05 28 10 sq5notes
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sup_05_28_10_sq5notes.html

39. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/488/153

40. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu29 CFR § 18.901
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/18.901

41. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sec 28a 03000901 000 combined
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_03000901—-000-_combined.html

42. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/authentication

43. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 902
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

44. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu29 CFR § 18.902
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/18.902

45. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu37 CFR § 351.10
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/351.10

46. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/18.1002

47. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sec 28a 04001002 000
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_04001002—-000-.html

48. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu28a U.S. Code Article X
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28a/courtrules-Evid/article-X

49. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sec 28a 03001002 000
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_03001002—-000-.html

50. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 106
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_106

51. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu29 CFR § 18.803
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/18.803

52. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1004
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1004

53. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/index.php/wex/doctrine_of_completeness

54. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu28a U.S. Code Article VIII
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28a/courtrules-Evid/article-VIII

55. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1001
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1001

56. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 613
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_613

57. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1007
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1007

58. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: usc sec 28a 03000106 000 combined
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_03000106—-000-_combined.html

59. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: edu29 CFR § 18.106
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/18.106

60. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 1006
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1006

61. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_gestae_witness

62. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 26.2
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_26.2

63. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 404
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

64. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 804
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804

65. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 401
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

66. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 405
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_405

67. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 608
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608

68. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: rule 704
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_704

Additional References

69. Source: crbcnews.com
Link:https://www.crbcnews.com/articles/69e9d358941f2f577a2091b7

70. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6BoDxsKz6c

71. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSs-GI75nF8

72. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d–WxTUkXE

73. Source: youtube.com
Title: FBI investigation: death of Alabama scientist
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qw0rjzdKHk

74. Source: ibtimes.co.uk
Link:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amy-eskridge-death-investigation-1794631

75. Source: youtube.com
Title: THE DISTURBING Case of the 11 NASA Scientists (Missing)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FHlqeqJkaw

76. Source: shinysideout.com.au
Link:https://www.shinysideout.com.au/00-amy-eskridge.html

77. Source: dailymotion.com
Link:https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa6g5fm

78. Source: bollywoodshaadis.com
Link:https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/amp-articles/amy-eskridge-old-texts-question-her-and-david-wilcock-cause-of-death-78111