Missing & Unexplained: When Scientists Disappear

People go missing every day. Most are found.

This episode isn’t about those cases.

In this installment of Fortean Winds, RamX and Bones examine a category of disappearances that defy conventional explanation — cases where individuals vanish near witnesses, leave no physical trace, and remain unresolved despite extensive search efforts.

At the center of this discussion is the case of a scientist who disappeared under conditions that meet a strict anomalous threshold:

•  Last seen within seconds 
•  No scent trail 
•  No body 
•  No evidence of movement 
•  Large-scale search with no result 

Fortean Winds Framework:
Follow the evidence.
Eliminate what doesn’t fit.
Name what remains.

Some Links:

The Missing Enigma and Missing 411: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmXU2Hq5mk

Fortean Winds: Abductions evidence - https://forteanwinds.com/2022/04/30/alien-abductions-pregnancies-who-would-believe-you/

Transcript

00;00;00;09 - 00;00;25;22
Unknown
We've looked at hundreds of missing persons cases over the years. That's not an exaggeration. When something unusual happens and it involves a real person, we research it. We've looked at cases where the circumstances were strange, where the timeline didn't line up, where the search results made no sense. Where witnesses describe things that didn't fit any normal explanation. And in the vast majority of those cases, we put it down and walked away.

00;00;25;24 - 00;00;46;05
Unknown
Not because the case wasn't interesting, because the standard wasn't it? Because a family is looking for someone, and the last thing they need is a podcast. Deciding they're missing a loved one is an anomaly before the investigation is even closed. That is the line we hold, and we hold it because we mean it. Monica Reza's case met the standard.

00;00;46;08 - 00;01;12;07
Unknown
It didn't meet it because she worked on classified propulsion materials. It didn't meet it because of who she knew. It met the standard because of what happened on that trail. She was 30ft behind a companion. Companion? Turned around. She was gone. No central, no body, no sound, no physical trace beyond a beanie and some lip balm. A search involving helicopters and fewer and dogs across multiple agencies for a week.

00;01;12;07 - 00;01;35;12
Unknown
And nothing that profile witness. Proximity, instantaneous disappearance. Zero physical trace zero. Recovery is the profile of a genuinely anomalous case. And tonight, for the first time, we're going to say that out loud. Name what we think happened. Name who we think did it. Based on the current evidence. And then we're going to back the government into a corner.

00;01;35;14 - 00;01;52;08
Unknown
Because if it wasn't them and we're going to show you why we don't think it was, then they have to explain why a phenomenon they've been hiding forever just made a rocket scientist disappear in front of witnesses.

00;01;52;10 - 00;02;14;00
Unknown
Welcome to the Fortean Wins podcast, where we talk about high strangeness and the war for perception. I'm bones, and with us, as always, is Ram X. Hey. Hey, everybody. Hey, rom. So I think we laid the case down pretty well last time. Yeah, we went through the groundwork last time of the missing scientists, and I know they've added another one.

00;02;14;01 - 00;02;50;06
Unknown
I think you were just asked me about that before the show, and that's Amy Eskridge. This is not new. So the UFO community got deep into this subject. She was actively talking to people in the UFO community back in 2022 when that case happened. So that case is not new. I do understand that there may be a federal investigation into it, so that might produce something, but it is not connected also in a solid way to the other scientists like Carl Grammaire, like he was an astrophysicist.

00;02;50;07 - 00;03;23;23
Unknown
What connection do these missing scientists have? We're going to get into this later in the show, but you're talking about 300,000 researchers and scientists working for DoD. So ten of them passing on earlier than expected in a span of five years is not exactly anomalous on the surface. Right. But you said something, you know, in the intro, and I think it's going to surprise people who've been listening to us for a while because, you know, we talk about UAP, we've talked about the hitchhiker effect.

00;03;23;25 - 00;03;44;08
Unknown
We talked about we just talk about dark territory. But in four years of doing a show, we have never directly named the phenomenon as a suspect in a missing person case. You know what I mean? So why not? Yeah, because I think this case meets the threshold. And I want to explain what that threshold actually is because I think it matters.

00;03;44;10 - 00;04;14;00
Unknown
Like I've researched a lot of anomalous missing persons cases and non-Mormon less missing person cases, and we have for years. And when a case comes up that looks strange, unusual circumstances, no explanation, something doesn't fit, we will pull the record. And if I think I can contribute to a missing person's case in another situation that has nothing to do with being anomalous, I will, like I have on the map side or, you know, on the ocean side.

00;04;14;02 - 00;04;34;27
Unknown
Right, right. So we look at the timeline, we look at search data, the witness statements, geography, and what we find in the overwhelming majority of cases is that the strange maybe has a mundane explanation, like someone wandered off a trail in a different direction. Searchers didn't expect someone had a medical episode, someone left voluntarily and didn't want to be found.

00;04;35;04 - 00;04;56;07
Unknown
So we don't publish those cases, right? We don't put families through the additional chaos of having a podcast speculate about their loved one. Right, right. True. And I wish this standard was followed by more in the anomalous community. Like the most famous person that's associated with this case is like, let's get the elephant in the room out of the way.

00;04;56;12 - 00;05;26;11
Unknown
So Dave Polites is a researcher and author and personality in the anomalous community that has been on a number of shows. He's talked about the cases that he deems strange. And then other researchers have gone through those cases, and they pointed to a lot of inconsistencies in his research, which would make cases that he originally deemed anomalous seemed less anomalous, like cases where people went missing who had substance abuse problems and then were found later with substances on them, things like that.

00;05;26;12 - 00;05;55;01
Unknown
And I write for those who are curious about those gaps in Dave Polites research, there's a great YouTube documentary on the subject by a guy that goes by the name of the Missing Enigma, and I'll link to it down below for those who are more interested. But that that illustrates to me why this standard is so important, and why it's important not to share your speculations about someone's missing loved ones with the same blasé attitude.

00;05;55;01 - 00;06;22;17
Unknown
We would share speculations about the phenomenon. The standard we apply is specific for us to say a missing persons cases anomalous. We need a minimum witness proximity at the moment of disappearance, absence of physical traces proportional to what should exist in a completed professional search, with negative results and no competing explanations that account for the physical record. Monica Reza's case checks every box.

00;06;22;22 - 00;06;46;25
Unknown
She was in visual contact with her companions seconds before she vanished. The search was one of the most extensive run in that region in years. No body, no scent trail, no forensic evidence of movement in any direction. That's not a hard to find person. That's a person who, by the physical record, is simply not there anymore. Right. So you're saying she wasn't lost?

00;06;46;26 - 00;07;06;20
Unknown
She was a weekly hiker. She knew the trail. She was 30ft away from people who knew where she was. And she vanished in minutes. That was the window. The window for a normal explanation to explain that is extremely narrow. And that's the gap we're going to discuss today. And we're going to fill the gap. Yeah, it's definitely anomalous.

00;07;06;20 - 00;07;29;26
Unknown
And, you know, we don't want to jump to the conclusion that she's a shapeshifter and flew away into the mountains as a red tailed hawk. But before we get into the cases that look like hers, let's actually talk about the numbers, right? Because I think most people don't know how common missing people cases actually are and how rarely one looks like this.

00;07;29;26 - 00;07;57;12
Unknown
Because, I mean, like you said, the proximity to her group is is a huge factor. Yes. Let's talk about how exactly rare that is. And this is good information for all the conspiracy theories and ideas that float around, around missing people or enslavement rings or things like that. So how many people actually go missing in the United States every year, over 600,000 people are reported missing in the United States every year.

00;07;57;14 - 00;08;37;18
Unknown
That sounds terrifying, but it isn't. Yeah, mostly because 70% of those cases resolve within 48 to 72 hours. Someone gets lost. Someone left voluntarily. Someone had a medical episode and was found by the end of the year. Roughly 89% of cases in a given year are closed. The overall rate of people who stay permanently missing is close to 1% of reported cases, about 6000 people out of 600,000 annually, so roughly 93,000 active open cases exist in the NCIC database right now.

00;08;37;20 - 00;08;57;09
Unknown
So it's much smaller than what people think, right? Yeah, yeah. And it's really good to remember that when you're working on a missing person's case. So it's not normal. It's not normal for people to go missing and stay missing. And it's not normal for the government to ignore that because disappearing is somewhat common. But staying missing is not.

00;08;57;09 - 00;09;25;23
Unknown
And the vast majority of the people who stay missing their cases where the circumstances explain the outcome a hostile environment like an avalanche, a mental health crisis, a domestic situation like these things are tragedies, but they're not anomalies, right? In anomalous cases, what's left after you strip all that out and what you're looking for is a very specific profile vanishes near witnesses, no physical trace proportional to the circumstances.

00;09;25;27 - 00;09;52;15
Unknown
Search effort completed in negative, no competing explanations. That profile is extremely rare, and we just went through the numbers to prove it. In any given year. Genuine cases that fit it without a recoverable explanation, or maybe a handful. Not hundreds, not dozens, a handful. And the numbers should be kept in mind when evaluating conspiracy stories like QAnon or stories of mass abductions, etc., right?

00;09;52;15 - 00;10;12;29
Unknown
Yeah, yeah, that makes sense because statistically this is already almost impossible to explain. Yeah, the search covered hundreds of acres. Fear from the air, dogs on the ground, drones in a terrain. The weekly hiker new. Really? Well, you want to tell me someone vanished without a trace 30ft away in that environment on their own. That's. That's not an explanation.

00;10;12;29 - 00;10;41;02
Unknown
It's an absence of one. Right? Right. All right, so we established that it's anomalous. Now, now, tell me why it's not the first time. Yeah. This is where precedent matters. So we've discussed Travis Walton in the past. Travis Walton November 5th, 1975 Apache site. Greaves National Forest, Arizona A logging crew of seven is driving home at dusk when they see a bright light through the trees.

00;10;41;02 - 00;11;09;03
Unknown
They stop the truck. Walton gets out and walks toward it. The crew watches a beam of light blue green, described consistently by multiple witnesses, strike him in the chest, lift him off the ground, and throw him backward. The crew panics and drives away. They come back 15 minutes later and Walton is gone. So what follows is very similar to the rest case a search covering 300mi², helicopters, tracking dogs, ground teams five days, nothing.

00;11;09;05 - 00;11;36;29
Unknown
Then Walton calls his sister from a phone booth 30 miles away, disoriented, in pain, convinced only hours had passed. Five of the six witnesses passed polygraph examinations on this, and the sixth was inconclusive. Law enforcement's initial theory was that the crew killed Walton and fabricated the story. That all collapsed because no body was found in the search of 300mi² produced nothing.

00;11;37;01 - 00;12;01;20
Unknown
Walton has been entertained his account for 50 years, consistently and reliably. The witnesses have maintained theirs. The case has never been conclusively debunked and never been conclusively explained. The point is that a man vanished near six witnesses in open terrain. No trace was found in a massive search, and he reappeared five days later. That is the shape of the event, and that shape vanishes near witnesses.

00;12;01;20 - 00;12;26;10
Unknown
No trace is the same shape as the rest case. The difference is Walton came back, right? Right. And I believe in this case, you know, it's one of those where skeptics just generally call it a hoax. Yeah. The hoax theory would require six people to maintain a lie perfectly for 50 years with nothing to gain. Right? Everything to lose, including criminal jeopardy.

00;12;26;11 - 00;12;58;26
Unknown
Like, that's a hard thing to believe than the alternative. I understand that impulse, but it's wrong. Yeah, because Walton's case wasn't the first, either. The Hills. I mean, we abduction cases go on and on and on. So in speaking of, let's go somewhere that makes Walton look routine. September 1st, 1969 Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Labor Day weekend. So on that night, multiple families in and around the towns of Sheffield, Great Barrington and Stockbridge reported encounters with a large silent craft.

00;12;58;27 - 00;13;23;13
Unknown
Not one family, not one location. Multiple families unconnected to each other spread across the county, all on the same night. Here's what makes the Berkshire case different from almost every other case in the record. It is not primarily a sighting case. It is a transportation case. People were moved. Let me give you the specific accounts because accuracy is the point.

00;13;23;14 - 00;13;45;28
Unknown
Thomas Reed was nine years old. He was in the family car with his mother, Nancy, his grandmother, and his younger brother driving home across Sheffield Bridge over the Housatonic River. A bright light came from the direction of the river. The car stopped. Reed describes being taken aboard, what he calls a tarnished circular vessel. His mother cannot account for the lost time.

00;13;46;02 - 00;14;19;17
Unknown
Reed took a polygraph examination. The result came back 99.1% truthful. The Great Barrington Historical Society reviewed his account along with contemporaneous records, witness statements, and polygraph results, and in 2015 formally inducted his case into their archives as significant and true. That is the first UFO case in U.S. history to receive formal official historical acknowledgment. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a citation recognizing the event as factually true.

00;14;19;19 - 00;15;05;21
Unknown
The state archived it, and that's all on the record.

00;15;05;23 - 00;15;09;04
Unknown
So.

00;15;09;06 - 00;15;29;12
Unknown
Tom Warner was ten years old. He was at a neighbor's house, babysitter, Debbie's house. He was coloring. He reported hearing what he described as a voice telling him to go outside. He ran out. His babysitter, Debbie, followed him. She and a neighbor, Jane Shore, both watched what happened next. From the outside, a beam of light came down and caught Warner.

00;15;29;14 - 00;15;56;04
Unknown
His babysitter described him as running but going nowhere, physically moving but not translating through space. Then he was gone. Both witnesses confirmed this, not Warner describing it later, two independent ground level witnesses watched a ten year old boy disappear under a beam of light in real time. Seven minutes later, the beam returned. Debbie found Warner lying flat on the ground outside, unable to move until the beam retracted.

00;15;56;05 - 00;16;19;19
Unknown
He had been somewhere else Warner. When he described what he experienced during those seven minutes. He reported seeing a 14 year old girl named Melanie Kirchdorf already there to his right, with what he described as total fear on her face. Melanie Kirchdorf, for that same night at Lake Mansfield in Great Barrington, had been with her family when a bright light engulfed their car.

00;16;19;23 - 00;16;41;26
Unknown
She reported levitating, being aboard a ship, being in a room with multiple other children, and she reported the children disappearing one by one. Then she was back at the lake. Warner and Kirchdorf did not compare notes. In 1969, Kurt Stauffer described being in a room with other children. She knew their accounts are not identical, which is what actually matters.

00;16;41;26 - 00;17;06;03
Unknown
Identical accounts suggest coaching independent accounts that overlap at specific verifiable points suggests something is very real here, right? Right. So what did the record look like on the ground? Jane Greene, a business owner from one of Great Barrington's most prominent families, was driving that night and saw the object blocking the road. She stopped. She described it as larger than she could see, the edge of completely silent, hovering.

00;17;06;03 - 00;17;27;29
Unknown
She was not a child with an imagination. She's an adult community figure with deep roots. The police chief's son, Eddie Galati, confirmed that people came to report sightings to his father that night. The military confirmed two witnesses that their radar had picked up anomalous activity in the area that weekend, and confirmed none of their aircraft were operating in the vicinity.

00;17;28;01 - 00;17;54;29
Unknown
Skeptics would say the witnesses didn't come forward publicly until the documentary. So let's look at what's documented. Two ground level witnesses, not the subject. Watch Tom Warner disappear under a beam of light and reappear seven minutes later. That happened. Whether anyone talked about it in 1969 or not. Warner and Kirchdorf are independently reported being in the same location during that window, with partially overlapping details.

00;17;55;06 - 00;18;21;06
Unknown
The state of Massachusetts formally acknowledged the event as historically significant and true. The Historical Society reviewed the evidence and voted on it. The witnesses themselves said that there was an agreement that was tacit and explicit not to talk about it in a small rural town in 1969, after something like this. That is not a surprising decision. Is an expected one, right?

00;18;21;08 - 00;18;44;29
Unknown
So what's the Berkshire argument? The argument is this happened to a ten year old boy who was physically witnessed disappearing by two people. He came back. Melanie Kirchdorf was physically present with her family when it happened. She came back. The family support this account. Monica was 30ft behind two experienced hikers when it happened to her. She has not come back.

00;18;45;05 - 00;19;09;00
Unknown
The profiling of the event is the same, the outcome is different and that's the difference. The not coming back is what makes this a missing person's case rather than an encounter case. But the mechanism, the mechanism has a record. There is precedent for someone disappearing literally in front of someone. It is a great episode of Unsolved Mysteries on I think it's Netflix.

00;19;09;02 - 00;19;43;13
Unknown
Let's see. Season one, episode six if anyone's interested. The exact case. So there's one more data point in the precedent argument, and it is recent and it's kind of strange. And, you know, we flag it clearly as a witness testimony with no independent cooperation. And he's the he's a senior FEMA official and his name is Greg Phillips. And he says that he was able to transport from one location to another.

00;19;43;13 - 00;20;05;10
Unknown
And that location was a waffle House. And it's kind of it's pretty easy to laugh about that, because I think a lot of people have, you know, kind of teleported to Waffle Houses in the middle of the night, not knowing how they not knowing how they got there. But we can't we can't just brush it off because he's a he's a federal official.

00;20;05;11 - 00;20;32;13
Unknown
Right. And the timing, you know, definitely is strange. Like he's bringing up the idea of being transported, you know, through space with no intervening space like days. Right. And he's bringing this up at a time when we're all wondering this about, you know, Monica disappearance. So it's strange. Notable. Right. And the waffle notable jokes do write themselves. Soon as you mention a waffle House.

00;20;32;13 - 00;20;53;21
Unknown
Everyone has an opinion. But he did say it on the record, too, so that, you know, it puts a lot of weight behind it. You have to take it for what it is, even though, you know, it's easy to kind of have a chuckle about. Yeah, we're not saying it's verified. We're just saying a federal government made that claim on record and no one's responding to it.

00;20;53;22 - 00;21;16;28
Unknown
And that's just a notable data point. And but the through line in all these cases, Walton in 75, Berkshire in 69. And the more recent accounts is that the phenomenon has a documented history of physically moving people, taking them from where they are, and sometimes returning them, like the Berkshire case is the strongest in the record because it has the most independent ground level.

00;21;16;28 - 00;21;42;15
Unknown
Corroboration to witnesses. Did not go anywhere. Watch someone disappear. Right, right. And we should say, you know, when it comes to Monica, I mean, we're not just to be clear, we're not saying that she was abducted in the little green men sense, right? Yeah. We're saying Monica Reza's companions did not watch her disappear. They turned around and she was gone.

00;21;42;22 - 00;22;12;04
Unknown
That is the difference between a witness account and a physical event on the record. But the profile, proximity, instantaneous absence, zero physical trace. It's the same profile. It's not a theory. And the pattern is on the record. And Reza's case fits a pattern. Then that ends up pointing to one possible explanation. Right? Right. Yeah, that makes sense. So it meets the criteria to be anomalous, and the precedent exists.

00;22;12;09 - 00;22;34;15
Unknown
Now we have to name suspects like who would do this? Yeah. Let's take it further than we did last time, because I think everyone wanted us to name a suspect and we didn't. But you know how we work, and this is how an investigation works, right? We got to take time. We got to look at all the different areas and see if there's any competing explanations, competing evidence, and look at all the skeptics and counterarguments are all of that.

00;22;34;15 - 00;22;53;21
Unknown
And we can narrow it down to four suspects, and we're going to rule out two immediately. We're going to rank the other two. And the ranking is going to make some people uncomfortable. All right. Suspect one. And this is the best prosaic reason I could come up with one that matched the other missing persons cases I've looked at.

00;22;53;22 - 00;23;23;14
Unknown
She became disoriented medically or mentally, and maybe bumped her head and wandered. And this is the search teams working assumption for missing hikers cases. In normal times, someone gets confused. They get the wrong direction. They've fallen terrain. They can't recover. It happens. Except she was a weekly hiker on a trail. She knew. And I've been hiking around those mountains and the trails are well marked and people can go on them who are not really in good shape.

00;23;23;15 - 00;23;48;08
Unknown
They're not like the most rustic in the world. Right? Right. She was 30ft behind an experience companion. The companion had just given her a verbal direction. So the companion says she acknowledged it with a wave. So there was interaction in between them. Right. And the window from that wave to her being gone is under two minutes. Oh, wow.

00;23;48;12 - 00;24;19;11
Unknown
And then the search finds nothing. No body, no central dogs operate on scent, and a central terminates where a person stops moving. Hers terminated at the point she was last seen. You cannot hike off a trail and leave no scent trail, so we have to rule out that she hiked off the trail. Makes sense. Suspect two criminal violence or a foreign intelligence unit like a snatch team.

00;24;19;11 - 00;24;46;03
Unknown
That, and this could be random. It could be targeted. We got a lot of problems with either of those explanations. Number one, there's no sound of struggle. We just establish the whole interaction and the proximity to the other witness. The companion heard nothing. No forensic evidence of conflict. There was no signs of blood, no disturbance on the trail surface, nothing for targeted violence, or even a predator like a mountain lion.

00;24;46;05 - 00;25;11;03
Unknown
You'd also have to explain how they removed her without a trace. That's not a crime. That's the same problem we started out with. So we can rule it out, right? Someone physical or something physical, coming in, struggling with her, forcing her to go away. We can literally rule it out based on proximity, right? I mean, there would be if there was a scuffle, there would be evidence of that too.

00;25;11;04 - 00;25;30;06
Unknown
Exactly. And if you had to drag her body away, if you drug turf with a blow dart. Yeah. Right, right, right. I go right to blow dart because it's fun. But they've got all sorts of ways of doing that, right. It brings us to suspect three, which would be the government, everyone's favorite suspect using some form of advanced technology.

00;25;30;13 - 00;25;53;24
Unknown
And this is the candidate most people want to land on because of who Reza was. She co-invented a classified grade propulsion material. Her name connects to McCaslin. She moved to JPL. The motive argument here writes itself. Except I don't think it does because she's working for them. Why do they want to kill her or snatch her when she is giving them everything that they want?

00;25;53;27 - 00;26;15;18
Unknown
Right, right. And then you have to think about the operational logic. You have a person you want removed quietly, without investigation and no paper trail, and you have access to the full resources of the US intelligence apparatus, the whole toolkit. You can make a murder look like a car accident. You can make a homicide look like a medical event, a heart attack.

00;26;15;19 - 00;26;54;06
Unknown
You can do any number of things that don't generate a homicide bureau case, but they don't cause local cops and journalists to crawl up your butt, or a congressional inquiry or a sustained public search that runs for weeks with helicopters and drones. You don't want that. You don't want that kind of heat. Right? Right. So the government theory requires you to believe they deployed advanced teleportation or cloaking technology in daylight, near witnesses on a public hiking trail to remove one rocket engineer that was already working for them when a dozen cleaner options would exist.

00;26;54;09 - 00;27;25;21
Unknown
That's not how any intelligence service on Earth operates. There's no precedent for it, and it would be mind bogglingly stupid. Yep. Good point. That brings us to suspect for the phenomenon. The phenomenon has the demonstrated capability, as we just discussed, with precedent, Walton, etc. and there's many more. The phenomenon has a demonstrated capability. We can look back on the abduction material, we can look back on the history of objections, we can look back.

00;27;25;21 - 00;27;50;29
Unknown
And as we have, you can look at our alien abductions articles going way back where we tried to go find cases of physical evidence that say, yes, something is really happening here at John Max work. There's precedent for it there. And that precedent spans well over 50 years. You go back to the case of Jacob Jacobson. You know, the objection fairy abduction case.

00;27;50;29 - 00;28;14;10
Unknown
There's precedent there disappears, returns. And we're going to discuss that next time. I think the near missing, because in these cases where someone disappears around companions and then never comes back, we don't get any further explanation. But in some of those cases, like in Massachusetts, when they come back, we can hear what happened from their point of view.

00;28;14;13 - 00;28;38;26
Unknown
Right. But this method, the instantaneous physical displacement near witnesses, no trace is precisely what is documented in those cases. And it critically, the phenomenon doesn't operate by intelligence service logic. It doesn't worry about operational security, like the drones that are flying above Fort McNair. It's not really concerned about containment the way a human actor is. It doesn't choose the quiet method.

00;28;38;26 - 00;29;08;21
Unknown
Always. The record shows what it does sometimes in front of people happens to be there, and it leaves nothing behind. It doesn't really care by elimination. And we can apply the Sherlock Holmes rule here, not vibes. Once you rule out the story, criminal violence and the government, you're left with a phenomenon. Are the Sherlock rule. Yeah. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, right?

00;29;08;24 - 00;29;33;24
Unknown
We haven't eliminated the government entirely. We're ranking it last. But the operational logic doesn't hold. The phenomenon is the lead suspect. And saying that out loud with receipts has consequences. What are those consequences? So we're going to pull the Havana syndrome move. Remember on our third episode when I said, hey, bones, are you ready to get censored? Yeah.

00;29;33;26 - 00;29;54;08
Unknown
Right. Yeah, yeah. So we've done this before. And so we kind of knew we were going to end up where we did because this backs them into a corner. You and I have both worked in this system. So we know the one thing they fear. Like let's go back to our psyop episodes for a second. There's two things we have to identify in our opponent.

00;29;54;08 - 00;30;21;16
Unknown
We have to identify their vulnerability and their susceptibility. We have an edge here because we know there are vulnerable. It's accountability. It's the one thing they fear the most. Yeah, right. Am I right or am I right? Right. You weren't there. You know that. That is the one thing they fear the most. So what makes them susceptible is the degree to which they are afraid of being held accountable, meaning they've done something really bad.

00;30;21;18 - 00;30;41;13
Unknown
Or maybe they're just a scared person. You look for that, you know, as an investigator, as an interrogator. That's what you're looking for. These are the types of things that you can use to make this investigation go further. And I was hoping people picked up on it in our Havana Syndrome article, but I don't know that they necessarily did like the strategy.

00;30;41;13 - 00;31;11;13
Unknown
So let's make it very clear and specific here. With Havana, we made a very specific argument. The symptoms were real neurological damage that was documented in peer reviewed literature and confirmed by multiple government medical examinations, that the cause was either a directed energy weapon deployed by a foreign adversary, or it was the phenomenon. We said, pick one. If it's a foreign adversary, tell us who and hold them accountable.

00;31;11;13 - 00;31;41;11
Unknown
If it's not a foreign adversary, if you're ruling that out, then you're saying the phenomenon is causing neurological damage to U.S. government personnel, which means the phenomenon is real and it's a threat. Pick one. Right, right. I was hoping journos and Congress picked up on that, but, you know, instead we just got censored, right? So the government eventually and very quietly shifted its position toward a foreign adversary explanation.

00;31;41;15 - 00;32;02;09
Unknown
But for a long time, they were stuck because we had backed them into a corner. Either you're being attacked by a known actor, in which case you have to do something about it, or you're being affected by something you've been hiding forever, right? We can do the same thing with Reza. Monica Reza disappeared near witnesses. No trace, no body, no explanation.

00;32;02;09 - 00;32;26;24
Unknown
We've eliminated disorientation and random crime from the physical record. The remaining candidates are the government and the phenomenon. The government. If you took her using whatever classified technology you have, then you need to explain that to Congress, to her family, the American public. Because you used it on a US citizen on a public hiking trail. Explain the technology.

00;32;26;26 - 00;32;54;00
Unknown
Explain the authorization. Explain why you haven't told her family what happened to her if you didn't take her. And we're not saying it was you, then you're saying the phenomenon. Tucker. You're saying something with demonstrated ability to physically remove people from proximity to witnesses. Leaving no trace has been operating in Angeles National Forests. And if that's true, then it's a public safety issue.

00;32;54;02 - 00;33;15;09
Unknown
Yeah, it's a national security issue. It's the exact kind of threat you're supposed to disclose. Either way, they got to answer. Either they did it and that's a crime and a scandal or they didn't do it. And the phenomenon is real and dangerous, and they've known about it for a long time. Yeah. So we're not as dumb as we look.

00;33;15;10 - 00;33;37;27
Unknown
That's right. But yeah, this is what you mean by backing them into a corner, though. I mean, yeah, they can't stay silent. The silence itself is a statement. If you don't deny one, you're implicating the other. There is no third option that makes Monica Reza's case go away. The L.A. County Sheriff's Homicide Bureau has an open case. Congress has a classified briefing on the broader cluster.

00;33;37;29 - 00;34;00;17
Unknown
At some point, someone with subpoena authority has to ask what happened on the trail, because guess what? They already know. It's a great pro tip for you youngsters out there getting into the game. Always assume the government knows what you do. That'll tell you where to look that they haven't, right? They know. They know what happened to Monica Raza.

00;34;00;20 - 00;34;26;02
Unknown
Do you really think someone with that level of science, engineering that, as we discussed in the last episode, enables the scale of hypersonic arsenal, right. Do you think that they would let someone with those capabilities just go without any explanation and not ever follow up and be worried about it? There's acting like the FBI's now just getting involved in the case.

00;34;26;02 - 00;34;46;05
Unknown
But you have to remember this. Officials have said this, officials that have been in the program. I think you can see this in James Fox's The Phenomenon movie. There was an Air Force, former Air Force official who said something along these lines. He said, the reason it looks like they're not looking into UFOs is because they already looked into it, and they have drawn their conclusions and they have this stuff.

00;34;46;05 - 00;35;13;10
Unknown
So there's not a big public investigation. And so when you notice the absence of an investigation over something that is clearly important to them, that means the investigation is not absent. They know what happened to Reza or they know the most likely explanation, which we just explained here today. Right. So at this very moment, she's still missing. So I mean, what happens next?

00;35;13;12 - 00;35;35;02
Unknown
Well, we have to hope that law enforcement continues to surface evidence and actually follow up. And the thing is, if this is actually a UAP case, the investigation would have to go much differently. You'd have to measure the area. There have been times when people have found residual electromagnetic anomalies in places where people have gone missing. That would have to happen.

00;35;35;02 - 00;35;59;07
Unknown
And then, you know, as crazy as it sounds. I'll bet you a Wendy spicy chicken sandwich that they're using their psionic assets. We've had experience. We've had experiencers on this show, right, that have said that the government has reached out to them. And wouldn't you like. I've been curious. I'm interested in talking to some mediums about what they're seeing and hearing.

00;35;59;07 - 00;36;22;07
Unknown
But I also know that that world becomes interpretive. So. But I'm sure they're doing it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. For sure. You know they are. So if the answer is that they did not take her, then the phenomenon did. You don't have a third option. Like what happened to Monica Reza on June 22nd, 2025? That is a yes or no question at this point.

00;36;22;11 - 00;36;44;02
Unknown
And the answer would create a record. The silence creates a record, and they're both useful. We've been researching anomalous missing person cases for years. We held this standard because it mattered and we held it with Reza. She met it. That means the investigation is not over. It means the phenomenon is a named suspect on the record with receipts.

00;36;44;02 - 00;37;06;04
Unknown
And it means the government has a choice to make. Yeah. The reason we've been cautious with these, with this for years, is the same reason we're being precise about it right now. I mean, the families of missing people deserve more than speculation. I mean, they deserve someone doing the work. And we're doing the work. And the work says this case is anomalous.

00;37;06;07 - 00;37;28;06
Unknown
The phenomenon is the most probable explanation by elimination. And the government. Either answers for it or it confirms it. That's right. And we'll keep watching and working in the background. And speaking of, we're going to get this episode out right on the backs in the heels of another. So, you know, we're catching up a little bit. And we did take a few weeks off.

00;37;28;06 - 00;37;49;16
Unknown
Some of it was because I assumed people were more interested in what was happening in the Middle East. And also it took the time to revamp the website. So it's been a mess for years now because these posts, you know, and this show is meant to be listened to from start to finish, unfortunately. But that was how the investigation worked.

00;37;49;17 - 00;38;16;13
Unknown
We started with our UFOs real and here we are. So if you want to know why or how or what the deeper parts of the UFO phenomenon are, they are in the previous episodes and then the posts were just kind of all over the place as we were going. So now that we have a sort of a more refined point of view on the phenomenon, and I think we can give people more information, but we have to make it accessible to them.

00;38;16;13 - 00;38;36;22
Unknown
So I reorganized the whole website, rewrote a bunch of stuff to make it all sort of make sense with the larger working hypothesis that we're in. So please check out the website. I see the stats are going up and that's great. I think there's a lot of information. Most importantly, there are sources on all that stuff too, right?

00;38;36;23 - 00;38;59;03
Unknown
Yeah. And you know, you go to the website and you can see the Mandalay Chain Companion article too. It's up there in forteanwinds.com That's right. And so folks, you know your likes, your shares, your ratings. You know the drill. They matter more than we can explain. But, you know, stay with the evidence. Even when the evidence is a person who should be there and isn't.

00;38;59;05 - 00;39;20;26
Unknown
Yeah, it's the absence of evidence. The notes they don't play seems to be the theme of this season. Right. But thanks for listening, y'all. And in the next one, I think we'll discuss those near missing because they came back and maybe they can tell us something about what happens when someone disappears. Right. Good stuff. All right. Thanks, everyone.

00;39;20;27 - 00;39;26;11
Unknown
Thanks, Ron. Take care of y'all.

00;39;26;14 - 00;39;50;24
Unknown
When the dam. Did. I miss the power of blackmail networks. And the incomplete 48 wins. Passing what the mainstream won't see. Government controller. Just strangers in the VIP. Let's get dark. 48 was blowing through the server. Racks. Files. Redacted secrets in the zipper packs. Epstein anomaly compromised a pyramid scheme. Dam data. Other Island floating in the mainstream. We don't believe we measure what the digits say.

00;39;50;24 - 00;40;06;24
Unknown
From paranormal skies to the Black Sea. The rules are being by the ones who write the law. 40 and data base. Got the bars. You never saw a frog. Now we're tracking private planes. Little Saint James anomalies compromise the range. Damn, we gotta love the elite.