1. Many people intuitively assume that clumping/clustering of events implies non-randomness, and that random processes are smooth and low-variance. The opposite is true [1].
2. A consequence of 1. is that people often over-estimate their understanding of the likelihood of events and the degree to which they are conditional.
3. There was an intriguing comment on this site a few days ago [2], referencing Daniel Kahneman work on System 1 and System 2 thinking. From memory it said that reality is a lot less explicable than we tend to think - and that a lot of what we casually think we know about the everyday world is just our brains filling in the gaps using quick and cheap System 1.
As to why people are clutching at science-fictional interpretations: perhaps they're looking for some excitement or novelty? That would be very human.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
[2] Unfortunately I cant find the comment. I wish I'd favourited it.
But that number, 20 disappeared people per day, is gut wrenching. (US murders are at around 40 per day.) Surveillance sucks, but maybe at least it can be leveraged to find patterns when married to NameUs data. On the other hand I can sympathize with someone who just doesn't want to be found.
A disappearance of someone from the above background, vs someone who is say in midwest rural America or near areas where human trafficking crimes occur at a higher rate than normal, matters.
Further, their research/knowledge of sensitive government material also implies they likely have some form of overwatch or at least minimal monitoring for foreign agent threats from our government (or had in the past). Its not uncommon for high ranking military officials to have some form of training in counter surveillance tradecraft for this exact reason.
The odds these events are due to a foreign adversary given the multiple wars and geopolitical tensions are not negligible
From my personal experience, these are also the kinds of people that enjoy challenging and thrill seeking hobbies like mountain climbing, backpacking, etc that put them in a position where there’s some not insignificant chance of death in a remote location.
[0]: I don't like the word protest because words are meaningless. A mass gathering of people is a demonstration of force because manpower means firepower and firepower means simple power as all real world power comes from violence.
I've thought the same thing they expressed - perfect surveillance, if put into practice with omnipresent cameras tied to AI analysis for infinite government agents tracking each of us, would not be used to solve all crime but would be used to pre-emptively end any eventual needed revolution or mass uprising against the state.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
The second issue is surveillance does not affect all crime[0] equally. It works best against organized or planned action. It does little to prevent crimes of passion or spur of the moment decisions. States are more likely to be affected of the first kind, normal people are much more likely to be affected by the second.
[0]: It should go without saying, crime does not mean bad/harmful/evil but merely against the law. Slavery used to be legal, as was the holocaust.
No.
FBI looks into dead or missing scientists tied to NASA, Blue Origin, SpaceX (228 points, 170 comments)
Are we going to learn that physics no longer exists?
What is the current pattern in other industries?
Does the pattern exist elsewhere in the world?
Even in the article, it lumps everything together as “in recent years,” but over the span of several years, people across a large country can die for all sorts of unrelated reasons. That’s just how basic mortality statistics work.
Also, the category “scientists” is far too broad. Unless we’re talking about the same organization, the same field of research, and the same timeframe, it’s hard to justify treating these cases as connected. The scope is too wide and the professions too varied. It feels like people are constructing conspiracy theories out of weak patterns because those narratives are more stimulating.
If we applied the same logic, we could take annual industrial accident deaths in the U.S. and claim they’re part of some coordinated assassination plan by capitalists. That obviously doesn’t make sense. (Although, to be fair, one could argue that industrial accidents reflect structural issues tied to capital, but that’s a different kind of argument entirely.)
What I’m really trying to say is that this kind of article feels like a product of the internet’s incentive structure — framing loosely related events as something suspicious in order to attract clicks and attention.
Also ~10 in a year, modal age of established scientists + collaboration with us gov, the background rate is basically that... Basically a conspiracy theory at that point, and not even a good one.
> The speculation, she says, is "denigrating to their memories".
> Other loved ones reached by the BBC called the speculation "terrible" and "disgusting," compounding families' grief - but chose not to speak on the record because they didn't want to give the stories any more airtime.
this shit is harmful to people.
Typical example: “In the years since, several others connected to JPL have also died or disappeared: Frank Maiwald, a specialist in space research, died in Los Angeles in 2024 at 61.”
Or stupider: At least 10 people flipped a coin and it ended up on Heads!
The fact that it reached CNN levels of stupid means journalism is part of the overall USA's intentional brain drain.
“Anthony Chavez, 79, worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory until he retired in 2017. He reportedly disappeared on May 8, 2025.”
An disappearance of a retired major general without his personal possessions and someone committing suicide whilst due to testify in court, sure those things warrant an investigation even though those things happen as the result of mundane crime or mental breakdowns as well as conspiracy. But another thing entirely for the "nothing much to see in those Epstein files" FBI to spin the grand narrative that connecting all these dots is a legitimate question because UFOlogists on YouTube.
CNN was one of the biggest pushers of this hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_drone_sight...
> Separately, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee announced Monday it will investigate ...
So, do we not want the news reporting what the government is doing? That's the FBI, DoE, DoD, and the House Oversight Committee putting effort into this.
Like, no, i want this reported, not because there is anything that will come from it, but because we should report one what the government is doing.
Why do you think CNN should NOT report one what the government does?
Here's a more substantial take on the whole thing that doesn't just blindly repeat everything without question: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/missing-scientis... You know, what journalism is actually supposed to be like.
This BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyw9rpdl4po also has this tidbit:
> "The US Top Secret-cleared aerospace and nuclear workforce is ~700,000 people," science writer, investigator and pseudoscience debunker Mick West wrote on 16 April on his Substack.
> "Ordinary mortality over 22 months predicts ~4,000 deaths, ~70 homicides, and ~180 suicides. The list has 10 … The deaths are real. The families' grief is real. The pattern is not."
(there's more detail at the link, obvs.)
[0] https://www.stevennovella.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the...
> 25 deaths per million people per day
That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.
Yes, perhaps by reading the link.
"I should point out I am using numbers for the general population, which may not match the rate for scientists. [...] I also looked at CDC data – about 800,000 people in the US between 25 and 65 die each year [...] About 6% of the population work in the science field, which would be 192,000, or half that if you use a narrow definition of 3%, so close to the 73,000 figure I calculated the other way."
He also looks at how that compares with the individual institutions.
But yes, "show some rigor" indeed!
