The case of the missing scientists

Our capacity for seeing patterns is absolutely critical.

It's easy to see how survival in a risky world could hinge on noticing clues in the environment, then putting them together correctly.  The key, though, is the word correctly.  When you have a built-in mechanism for interpreting sensory cues and recognizing danger, it can easily go awry.  But -- and here's the most important point -- in general, the evolutionary cost of overreacting is almost always way less than that of underreacting.  To use the oft-quoted example, for your average proto-hominin on the African savanna, it's better to hear a rustle in the grass, take fright and bolt, and have it turn out to be a fluffy bunny, than to shrug it off and stay put when it's a hungry lion.  

Or, worse still, not to notice it at all.

This tendency remains with us, lo unto this very day, and it's astonishing how badly it can backfire.  We look around us, assemble the information we have, and all too often put the pieces together wrong -- especially when the pattern that emerges is scary.

And especially especially when we're encouraged to do so by sensationalist media who make their money from clicks, and politicians who benefit by keeping their constituents frightened and distracted.

Take, for example, the current kerfuffle over all the scientists who have allegedly disappeared (or died) recently.  They all, we are told, worked with classified secrets.  The words "mysterious circumstances" have been thrown about.  The implication -- sometimes, the explicit claim -- is that the scientists' fates are all linked, part of a massive conspiracy to silence "people who know too much," or (perhaps) who were about to blow the whistle on some even bigger conspiracy and implicate Important People.

The story hit the news when a retired United States Air Force general, Neil McCasland, left his house in Bernalillo County, New Mexico on foot in late February, and never returned.  A search was conducted, but no trace of him was ever found.  McCasland, they said, was "involved in UFO research," and this was somehow relevant to his disappearance.  Then there's Monica Jacinto Reza, who was director of materials processing at NASA/JPL, who vanished while hiking in the Angeles National Forest in June of 2025.  I'll admit her disappearance was odd; she was an experienced hiker and was accompanied by two other equally able friends, had been seen about ten meters back on the trail and had smiled and waved, but when her friends looked back shortly afterward, Reza was gone.

Once again, searchers came up empty-handed.

Carl Grillmair, an astronomer and exoplanet researcher at Caltech, was murdered in mid-February of this year.  Nuno Loureiro, a plasma physicist at MIT, was shot and killed in December of 2025.  Here are a few others that often get thrown into the mix:

• Amy Eskridge, died in June of 2022; Eskridge was an "anti-gravity researcher"
• Michel David Hicks, a planetary researcher at NASA/JPL, died in July of 2023
• Anthony Chavez, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, disappeared in May of 2025
• Jason Thomas, assistant director of chemical biology at Novartis, drowned in Lake Quannapowitt, Massachusetts in December of 2025

So the relevant question here is: does this make a pattern?

The answer is no.  Not even close.  Okay, McCasland and Reza are curious circumstances, to say the least; but McCasland had medical problems, and even his wife wrote a piece pleading with people to stop the "misinformation circulating about Neil and his disappearance."  As far as Reza... well, I'm an experienced back-country hiker myself, and the wilderness is a big, big place.  If you don't think it's possible someone -- even a dedicated backwoods-explorer -- could get inextricably lost and die out there, you haven't actually experienced what the back country is like.

How about the rest?  Well, the police actually arrested the perpetrator of Grillmair's murder, and it was pretty clearly a burglary that went badly wrong.  Loureiro's killer was almost certainly Cláudio Manuel Neves Valente, who knew Loureiro personally and seems to have had a grudge against him -- Valente had gone to college with Loureiro and graduated first in his class, but unlike Loureiro, his career never took off.  Valente was described as "often unhappy or even angry," and eventually snapped; the day after killing Loureiro, he went to Brown University, killed two students and wounded nine others, then turned the gun on himself.

As far as the others, Eskridge wasn't a government employee at all, just a fringe-y pseudoscience content creator; she'd been in chronic pain for years, and it's nearly certain she committed suicide.  Hicks died of natural causes from a chronic medical condition.  Chavez wasn't a scientist, but a construction foreman, and hadn't worked for Los Alamos for years.  Thomas, a medical researcher who had zero to do with space science, suffered from long-term depression, and his drowning death was ruled as an accident.

So what looked like a pattern turns out to be nothing much at all.  But of course that's not calming anyone down.  Karoline Leavitt, who hasn't been within hailing distance of reality for years and wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up and bit her on the ass, says there are "legitimate questions about these troubling cases" and that "no stone will remain unturned" in unmasking the conspiracy behind it all.  Especially if it turns out to have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.  Podcaster Walter Kirn goes further, saying "What is going on seems to be an enemy action...  [The missing individuals were involved] in the most advanced realms of space-rocket propulsion and, you know, Air Force–NASA–type endeavors."  House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said that "something sinister could be happening."  Then Missouri Representative Eric Burlison got involved -- you may recall that last year, Burlison made a name for himself by claiming that the Nephilim were real, and the Smithsonian Institute was covering it up, so his grasp on reality is even more tenuous than Karoline Leavitt's -- and said the whole thing had to do with the fact that all of the victims, alleged and otherwise, knew classified stuff about UFOs.

And we're off to the races.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons SkepticalScience, Conspiracy Theories Fallacy Icon, CC BY-SA 4.0]

It's pretty clear that what we have here is a consortium of the usual kooks and conspiracy theorists teaming up with a bunch of politicians who are desperate to distract everyone from the fact that their policies have directly led to an economic disaster, and that the upper leadership was involved in a vicious sex trafficking ring, so they're putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 54.

Like I said... as usual.

In any case, if you see anyone posting this nonsense as serious evidence of a huge conspiracy, I'd be much obliged if you'd set them straight.  You can even send 'em a link to this post, if you think it'll help.

After all, we have enough real stuff to worry about at the moment.  There's no need to make shit up.

****************************************

Crying wolf

There's a bias that's a bit like an inverted appeal to authority: anyone who repeatedly and stridently makes claims that prove to be unsubstantiated, far-fetched, or outright false eventually finds that people simply stop listening.  At that point, even if they did come up with something reasonable and insightful, it's doubtful that anyone would pay attention.

We've seen a number of people who've exhausted their credibility in that fashion here at Skeptophilia.  Some notable examples:

• Geneticist Melba Ketchum, who has claimed several times to have hard evidence of the existence of Bigfoot (including its DNA).  She wrote a paper about her findings that she finally was able to get published -- but only in a "scientific journal" she herself started for the purpose.  Worse still, it turned out that most of the citations in the paper were bogus, including one that says in the cited paper itself that it was written as an April Fool's joke.
• Author Richard C. Hoagland, who despite having (direct quote from the Wikipedia article about him) "no education beyond high school level... no advanced training, schooling, or degrees in any scientific field" has become famous for a variety of loony pseudoscientific ideas, my favorite one being that the hexagonal cloud patterns on Saturn are "produced by the same phenomenon that causes crop circles."
• Journalist Jaime Maussan, who says he has conclusive proof that some mummies found in Mexico aren't human -- i.e., are aliens.  Surprising absolutely no one -- well, no one rational, at least -- the mummies that have been DNA tested are one hundred percent Homo sapiens, and the ones Maussan is the most convinced are aliens show signs of recent tampering to make them look less human.
• Mark Taylor, a prominent evangelical inspirational speaker, who claims that having orchestral instruments tuned to A = 440 Hertz is a secret plot by the Freemasons to alter your DNA so that you will hate Donald Trump.  I'd like to be able to say that this is the most insane thing that Taylor has said, but that unfortunately would be a lie.

All four of these people have found that restoring your credibility once it's shot is about as easy as getting toothpaste back into the tube.  Although in the case of Taylor, I suspect he doesn't care -- part of his shtick is that he's a Lone Voice Crying In The Wilderness, so he probably falls back on the impeccable logic of "Many brilliant truth-tellers have been considered crazy -- people consider me crazy, so I must be a brilliant truth-teller!"

In any case, the latest in this Parade of Shame is Luis "Lue" Elizondo, who was a U. S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and worked for the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and now is a prominent member of the UFO/UAP Truthers community.  Lately we've seen lots of claims that the U. S. government has concrete proof of extraterrestrial intelligence; a year ago there was a big hearing in Congress where people like alleged whistleblower David Grusch said they'd not only seen, but participated in the recovery and testing of, "non-human biologicals" and the spacecraft that allowed them to get here.  My point then, as now, was: fine, you want us to believe you?  Let's see the goods.  Turn at least some of it over to independent unbiased scientists for study, under peer review, and then we can talk.  But of course instead we have additional claims of an X Files-style coverup because of issues of national security, and so far what we've seen is bupkis.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons MjolnirPants, Grey Aliens Drawing, CC BY-SA 4.0]

Now, Elizondo is publishing his memoirs, and you can bet they'll be replete with claims of UFO shenanigans.  The problem is, skeptic Jason Colavito got a hold of some advance excerpts, and besides the usual Cigarette Smoking Man antics you'd expect, Elizondo is making a whole bunch of other clams that make his UFO stuff look like Nobel Prize material.

One of the weirdest is that Elizondo says he's been haunted for decades by "glowing ghost bubbles."  There are green ones, clear ones, and blue ones -- the green and clear ones are harmless, he says, but the blue ones are "malevolent."  Then he launches into a bizarre passage about the veracity of the Book of Enoch -- one of the biblical Apocrypha, about which I wrote last year, and which (to put not too fine a point on it) is really fucking bizarre -- and in these excerpts he has a lot to say about our old friends the Nephilim:

Enoch's journey is filled with heavenly accounts, including descriptions of angelic and demonic hierarchy, God's throne, God's inner circle of guards, and even the language of the supernatural.  On paper, Enoch's travels don't sound that dissimilar to reported nonhuman encounters.  We also looked at the sixth chapter of Genesis.  That's the chapter that contains the story of Noah's ark.  Before we get to Noah, verses 1 through 4 of that chapter quickly share that otherworldly beings came to earth and mated with human women. Some translations call these offspring giants, while others refer to the visitors by the original Hebrew word, Nephilim, which some scholars say means something like fallen angels, or beings that cause others to fall.

At this point he seems to be aware that he's doing a synchronized skating routine with Erich von Däniken on very thin ice, because he goes on to say, "To be clear, I'm not advocating the ancient astronaut hypothesis that many today believe.  I'm simply drawing some interesting parallels."  Which is the woo-woo equivalent of making some loony claim and then excusing it by saying you're "just asking questions" (which a friend of mine calls "JAQing off").

The problem, of course, is that if Elizondo wanted anyone to take him seriously other than people who think Ancient Aliens is a scientific documentary, this kind of nonsense is not doing him any favors.  Admittedly, I haven't read the memoirs -- they're not available yet -- only the excerpts Colavito provided.  But honestly, given their respective track records, I'm much more likely to trust Colavito's perspective than Elizondo's.

And that's coming from someone who would dearly love to see hard evidence of extraterrestrial life.

So there you have it.  One more example of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Like any other bias, it can lead you astray; the whole point of the fable is that eventually there was a wolf, no one believed the boy, and the boy got turned into a lupine hors-d'oeuvre.  But even if it's a bias, it's an understandable bias.  If Elizondo really does have good evidence of aliens but has blown his own credibility to the point that no one is listening any more, he has only himself to blame.

****************************************

We have nothing to fear but...

It's become increasingly apparent to me, over the seven years I've written here at Skeptophilia, that most of the time people think with their guts and not with their brains.

Even the most cerebral folks can find themselves swayed by their emotions.  I like to think of myself as logical and rational, but many's the time I've had to stop, and turn slowly and deliberately away from my instinctive, knee-jerk reaction, and say, "Okay, wait.  Think about this for a minute."

Which is why I found the results of a survey done by Chapman University, released last month, so simultaneously fascinating and alarming.  The survey asked the question "what are you most afraid of?", and asked respondents to elaborate on that fear -- the specifics, causes, and any subcategories that might be applicable.  It also asked what things they believed in for which they had no concrete evidence.

Here are a few of the most interesting results:

46.6% believe places can be haunted by spirits
39.6% believe that Atlantis, or something like it, once existed
27% believe that extraterrestrials have visited Earth in our ancient past
24.7% say aliens have come to Earth in modern times
13.5% believe that Bigfoot is real

But it's when you get to the conspiracy theories that things get really strange. Here are the percentages of people who believe the government is covering up information about...

9/11 (54.3%)
the assassination of JFK (49.6%)
aliens (42.6%)
global warming (42.1%)
plans for a one-world government (32.9%)
President Obama's birth certificate (30.2%)
the origin of HIV (30.2%)
Antonin Scalia's death (27.8%)
the moon landing (24.2%)

I suppose I should find it heartening that at least 4 in 10 Americans think the government is covering up the evidence for global warming, because at the moment, they kind of are.  But that optimism is tempered by the fact that 5 in 10 still have their knickers in a twist about JFK, and 3 in 10 think that HIV is some kind of government plot.

For fuck's sake.

Of course, it's clear where at least some of this comes from; the This Is No Longer Even Remotely Connected to History Channel is probably responsible for the majority of the Atlantis and extraterrestrial visitation bullshit, and belief in ghosts and spirit survival have been with us for as long as humanity has considered such things.  President Trump certainly bears most of the responsibility for the Obama birth certificate nonsense, and Breitbart is the origin of the claim that there was anything more to Scalia's death than an overweight 79-year-old dying of a heart attack.

Oh, but I forgot to mention: 19.1% of respondents believe in telekinesis, and 14.1% think that astrology and other types of fortune telling are accurate and scientifically supported.  Although now that I come to think about it, if someone had asked me to estimate the last one, I'd probably have guessed that it was higher, so I suppose that's something to be glad about.

The scary part of all of this goes back to what I started with; that people are much more likely to be swayed, even on important topics, by their emotions and not by their brains.  Some of the beliefs that the survey investigated are harmless enough; I doubt anyone ever came to grief by believing in Bigfoot, for example.  But freaking out over a one-world government -- a major concern of a third of the respondents -- could certainly affect the way people vote.

But on a deeper level, it's troubling that so many people admit to deep-seated beliefs that fly in the face of the evidence.  Believing in Atlantis may not be a big deal, in the grand scheme of things.  But the fact that someone -- in fact, 4 out of every 10 someones -- is willing to accept a counterfactual proposal in the complete absence of evidence indicates their susceptibility to falling for other, more insidious ideas.

So we're back to where we often land; it's imperative that we teach children how to evaluate evidence and think critically.  It's also important to ask, "Why do you believe that?"  It's not easy to pry people away from loony claims to which they have subscribed based on emotion and gut reaction -- but it's pretty important, especially considering how many loony claims are out there and how important it is for people to base their conclusions on the facts.