Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#51

Post by pclmulqdq »

delichon wrote: post #33

The NameUs US public database of around 26k longer term active missing person cases adds around 600 new names per month. It doesn't seem odd that a handful over years would share a narrow professional interest. 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.…

You aren't going to find the missing people with more surveillance if you weren't finding them already.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#52

Post by notahacker »

abcd_f wrote: post #36
zimpenfish wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Via [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." (there's more detail at the link, obvs.) [0] https://www.stevennovella.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the...

Show some rigor. > 25 deaths per million people per day That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.

But then if we're doing age ranges, the 10 people "tied to sensitive research" who have disappeared or died are 59, 61, 60, 68, 53, 60, 78, 47, 67, 39 (with the two youngest identified as homicide and suicide). How does a cohort with an average age in their 60s compare with the age range of actively practising researchers?

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#53

Post by b9apratus »

k12sosse wrote: post #44
b9apratus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

Go watch gangstalked people on YouTube. It is as close to 100% mental illness as you can get. They light holograms on fire. Find me one that doesn't look and act cuckoo and link it here.

[dead]

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#54

Post by b9apratus »

codechicago277 wrote: post #43
b9apratus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Conspiracy theories are a natural way to try to make sense of a chaotic and confusing world where the government has shown a pattern of lying to its citizens. Unfortunately, the theories oversimplify, find patterns where they don’t exist, and almost always melt away when looked at critically (see the Michael Hastings commentary above). The mistrust in the government is well founded, as Snowden, CIA secret operations…

[dead]

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#55

Post by derektank »

spacephysics wrote: post #50
delichon wrote: post #33

The NameUs US public database of around 26k longer term active missing person cases adds around 600 new names per month. It doesn't seem odd that a handful over years would share a narrow professional interest. 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.…

I’d slightly disagree, the profile of people who go missing is as important as a random chance there is a coincidence. Former military officers, high-level scientists. These individuals have training, money, and live in areas where this tends not to happen. 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 highe…

>Former military officers, high-level scientists. These individuals have training, money, and live in areas where this tends not to happen.

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.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#56

Post by gruez »

walletdrainer wrote: post #13
baq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pizzagate is still a (particularly nutty) conspiracy theory, if you genuinely believe otherwise you should seek urgent treatment.

Unfortunately the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files has added fuel to pizzagate and adjacent "pedophile elites" conspiracy theories.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#57

Post by GorbachevyChase »

walletdrainer wrote: post #17
hrldcpr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to CNN, this article is about an FBI investigation.

It’s sanewashing.

I suspect this is narrative shaping for future purposes. I think the military trying to frantically modernize and adapt is also a sign.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#59

Post by kube-system »

delichon wrote: post #33

The NameUs US public database of around 26k longer term active missing person cases adds around 600 new names per month. It doesn't seem odd that a handful over years would share a narrow professional interest. 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.…

The likelihood of becoming a missing person is very likely not evenly distributed.

Re: At least 10 people tied to sensitive US research have died or disappeared

#60

Post by [deleted] »

wat10000 wrote: post #37
jasonlotito wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 separate government agencies are putting time and effort into something. The headline is accurate. The reporting is accurate. Should CNN not report what the government is doing? Or are you confused and assume that the investigation has returned and finding? Or maybe, we should highlight the things the government is doing. Why do you find what the article is saying sane?

If the weather service starts an investigation into Tuesday’s rain shower, that should be reported. But if that rain shower was completely within the normal range of weather for that location and time of year, that should also be part of the reporting. This article takes everything from the government at face value.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN