FBI probes cases of missing or dead scientists, including four from the L.A. area61%

By Ben Wieder88%

4/21/2026, 2:15:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 490 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.7% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,591 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.80% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON — Amid growing national security concerns, the FBI said Tuesday that it has launched a broad investigation in the deaths or disappearances of at least 10 scientists and staff connected to highly sensitive research, including four from the Los Angeles area.

“The FBI is spearheading the effort to look for connections into the missing and deceased scientists. We are working with the Department of Energy, Department of War, and with our state and state and local law enforcement partners to find answers,” the agency said in a statement.

The FBI’s announcement comes after the House Oversight Committee announced that it would investigate reports of the disappearance and deaths of the scientists, sending letters seeking information from the agencies involved in the federal inquiry as well as NASA, which owns the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, where three of the missing or dead scientists worked.

“If the reports are accurate, these deaths and disappearances may represent a grave threat to U.S. national security and to U.S. personnel with access to scientific secrets,” Reps. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) wrote in the letters.

President Trump told reporters last week that he had been briefed on the missing and dead scientists, which he described as “pretty serious stuff.” He said at the time that he expected answers on whether the deaths were connected “in the next week and a half.”

Michael David Hicks, who studied comets and asteroids at JPL, was the first of the scientists who disappeared or died. He died on July 30, 2023, at the age of 59. No cause of death was disclosed.

A year later, JPL physicist Frank Maiwald died at 61, with no cause of death disclosed.

Two other Los Angeles scientists are part of the string of deaths and disappearances.

On June 22, 2025, Monica Jacinto Reza, a materials scientist at JPL, disappeared while on a hike near Mt. Waterman in the San Gabriel Mountains.

On Feb. 16, Caltech astrophysicist Carl Grillmair was fatally shot on the porch of his Llano home. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department arrested Freddy Snyder, 29, in connection with the shooting. Snyder had been arrested in December on suspicion of trespassing on Grillmair’s property.

Snyder has been charged with murder.

There is no evidence at this point that the deaths and disappearances, which occurred over a span of four years, are connected.

A spokesperson for NASA, which owns JPL, said in a statement on X that the agency is “coordinating and cooperating with the relevant agencies in relation to the missing scientists.

“At this time, nothing related to NASA indicates a national security threat,” agency spokesperson Bethany Stevens wrote. “The agency is committed to transparency and will provide more information as able.”

Representatives from Caltech, which manages JPL, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.7%Ben Wieder: 13.3%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias14.7%This article: 4.5%Ben Wieder: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 13.1%Ben Wieder: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 2.9%Ben Wieder: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Ben Wieder: 8.7%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Ben Wieder: 10.3%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Wieder: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 4.1%Ben Wieder: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.9%Ben Wieder: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.6%Ben Wieder: 9.9%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Ben Wieder: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 6.7%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.0%Ben Wieder: 4.1%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection9.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 6.6%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Wieder: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

490 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers28%attributed speech355writer words
Selected voice

James Comer

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words21% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Comer: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.