3 ms·

They have a distinct commonality of nuclear research. As such, is the limitation in pattern recognition not yours? If you are overlooking it, you are suppressin

They have a distinct commonality of nuclear research. As such, is the limitation in pattern recognition not yours? If you are overlooking it, you are suppressing it, and are a a part of the conspiracy.

jdw64 6mo ago
From what I’ve looked up, the range is actually quite broad from astrophysics to aerospace to administrative roles. Here are the individuals mentioned: * Michael David Hicks (JPL, comets/asteroids research) * Frank Maiwald (space research / JPL) * Monica Reza (aerospace engineer, JPL) * Nuno F.G. Loureiro (MIT, nuclear science and fusion) * Carl Grillmair (Caltech astrophysicist) * William Neil McCasland (Air Force, aerospace research) * Melissa Casias (Los Alamos National Laboratory, administrative role) * Anthony Chavez (Los Alamos, construction foreman) I’m not sure what standard is being used to claim a meaningful connection here. The category seems extremely broad. And the idea that “if you question it, you’re part of the conspiracy” is pretty convenient reasoning. Honestly, I’d love to be part of some shadow organization secretly running the United States from behind the scenes — do you think they’re accepting applications?
- OutOfHere 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jdw64 6mo ago
    First, sorry for the earlier sarcasm. I agree that people in administrative or support roles can still have access to sensitive information and could, in theory, be targets. But that still defines a very large group. If we include anyone with potential access across different institutions, roles, and locations, then it becomes easy to see patterns in what could simply be unrelated cases. The key question is whether there is any concrete overlap — same organization, same project, same timeframe, or any shared operational detail. Without that, it feels more like a pattern being inferred after the fact than evidence of a coordinated connection. More broadly, if we make the category of “possible targets” to wide, it stops meaning much. The default assumption should be that these are unrelated events, unless there’s clear evidence tying them together. Simply saying they could be targets does't really change that.
    - odyssey7 6mo ago
      I think this is an interesting pattern, but I see your point. The network effects of ~people a degree removed from direct nuclear research~ gets big.
      - notahacker 6mo ago
        People a degree removed from direct nuclear research or something vaguely linked to aerospace or studying faraway planets like these guys is about 90% of the people I've encountered in a work capacity. And I can assure you my knowledge is absolutely worthless to spies or other nefarious entities, and the same applies to most of the others :)
- b9apratus 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - codechicago277 6mo ago
    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 in the Cold War, Abu Gharib, etc. have shown. But conspiracy theories fully embrace the nihilistic view that truth is unknowable, everything is evil, and other people have far more power than is actually realistic. At some point it becomes a literal mental disease, and if you truly believe what you’ve written you should seek help. QAnon and pizzagate are creations of internet trolls on 8chan who lie to the vulnerable to gain their own little power.
    - b9apratus 6mo ago
      [dead]

jdw64 6mo ago

From what I’ve looked up, the range is actually quite broad from astrophysics to aerospace to administrative roles. Here are the individuals mentioned: * Michael David Hicks (JPL, comets/asteroids research) * Frank Maiwald (space research / JPL) * Monica Reza (aerospace engineer, JPL) * Nuno F.G. Loureiro (MIT, nuclear science and fusion) * Carl Grillmair (Caltech astrophysicist) * William Neil McCasland (Air Force, aerospace research) * Melissa Casias (Los Alamos National Laboratory, administrative role) * Anthony Chavez (Los Alamos, construction foreman) I’m not sure what standard is being used to claim a meaningful connection here. The category seems extremely broad. And the idea that “if you question it, you’re part of the conspiracy” is pretty convenient reasoning. Honestly, I’d love to be part of some shadow organization secretly running the United States from behind the scenes — do you think they’re accepting applications?

OutOfHere 6mo ago
[flagged]
- jdw64 6mo ago
  First, sorry for the earlier sarcasm. I agree that people in administrative or support roles can still have access to sensitive information and could, in theory, be targets. But that still defines a very large group. If we include anyone with potential access across different institutions, roles, and locations, then it becomes easy to see patterns in what could simply be unrelated cases. The key question is whether there is any concrete overlap — same organization, same project, same timeframe, or any shared operational detail. Without that, it feels more like a pattern being inferred after the fact than evidence of a coordinated connection. More broadly, if we make the category of “possible targets” to wide, it stops meaning much. The default assumption should be that these are unrelated events, unless there’s clear evidence tying them together. Simply saying they could be targets does't really change that.
  - odyssey7 6mo ago
    I think this is an interesting pattern, but I see your point. The network effects of ~people a degree removed from direct nuclear research~ gets big.
    - notahacker 6mo ago
      People a degree removed from direct nuclear research or something vaguely linked to aerospace or studying faraway planets like these guys is about 90% of the people I've encountered in a work capacity. And I can assure you my knowledge is absolutely worthless to spies or other nefarious entities, and the same applies to most of the others :)
b9apratus 6mo ago
[flagged]
- codechicago277 6mo ago
  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 in the Cold War, Abu Gharib, etc. have shown. But conspiracy theories fully embrace the nihilistic view that truth is unknowable, everything is evil, and other people have far more power than is actually realistic. At some point it becomes a literal mental disease, and if you truly believe what you’ve written you should seek help. QAnon and pizzagate are creations of internet trolls on 8chan who lie to the vulnerable to gain their own little power.
  - b9apratus 6mo ago
    [dead]