I don't have the link but someone estimated the number of scientists working in the defense field (it's a lot) and the number of deaths per year you'd expect (over 100). There's probably nothing here. It probably doesn't hurt to have the FBI take a second look at any death of somebody who has a security clearance or is working on export-controlled tech, but OTOH that might be a lot of work.

▲

xbar 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Deaths and mysterious deaths are not at all the same. Mysterious deaths and vanishings become increasingly rare the higher up the socio-economic curve you climb.

It is not surprising that the FBI did not detect an actual pattern before now, considering the various ways that the entirety of it spent the entirety of 2025.

▲

platinumrad 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Dying while experiencing nature is "mysterious" but also not uncommon among upper-middle class people. I would bet that the average victim of a backpacking or cross-country skiing mishap is wealthier than average.

▲

tarsinge 4 days ago | parent [-]

But that's not how "mysterious" is used here. These scientists did not meet their end during an obvious outdoor activity.

▲

platinumrad 4 days ago | parent [-]

One of them disappeared while hiking with friends. Another two were last seen walking away from home.

▲

ineedasername 4 days ago | parent [-]

Roughly half the people you'd see walking are "walking away from home". It's not a known risk factor. In fact unless they live near "nature" then being seen walking anywhere at all near their home is pretty reasonable evidence that their disappearance, whatever the cause, is less likely to be "Got lost hiking" or similar.

	▲	platinumrad 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Okay but one of them literally got lost hiking. Two, if you count the cancer researcher that a lot of people online seem to be bundling in for some reason.

▲

cucumber3732842 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Mysterious deaths and vanishings become increasingly rare the higher up the socio-economic curve you climb.

Is it? Or is there just more scrutiny when more important people die?

When someone who ain't worth shit OD's nobody takes allegations that they were murdered seriously. When someone who's worth a lot of money ODs, the "they only bought fine cocaine, their dealer never would have cut that shit" allegations get looked into because "more equal animals" is more of a scale than a binary when it comes to this particular issue.

▲

deathlight 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So are you saying that each of these "experts" is not an actual top of field expert but merely one of hundreds of expert cogs (per field!) in a giant machine so vast that of course some of them will crashout, be kidnapped, blackmailed, die outright, agree to a global government psyop, etc? But that's so much less fun, especially when you consider the espionage angle.

	▲	bulbar 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I believe the probability to die or get missing for a middle aged person is extremely low. So no, it's not expected that "some of a group of 5.000 Persons" would die or go missing.
	▲	poulpy123 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not even expert cogs, only 6 of the 11 are scientists or engineers

▲

zimpenfish 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Steven Novella did one[0] - "Well, there are about 2 million researchers in the US. There are about 25 deaths per million people per day in the US, that’s 50 scientists dying each day, or 73,000 scientists over a four year period. Finding 11 that have some vague connection does not seem unusual to me."

He goes into greater detail further down to assuage the "BUT BUT that's genpop not JPL!" whatabouters and does some "how TF are these people connected?" musing.

[0] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the-dead-or-m...

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]