A headline can do more than inform—it can frame reality. And few frames are more powerful than this one: “NASA says 74 of our scientists have disappeared.” It implies an official admission, a coordinated operation, and a hidden crisis inside one of the world’s best-known scientific agencies.
The problem is that when you trace this claim back to sources you can check, the framing collapses.
What you do find—reliably, in the public record—is something more familiar and more human: a handful of unrelated tragedies (accidents, murders, illness, and a wartime shootdown) that have been gathered into a single narrative. In several cases, the people involved were not NASA employees at all. In others, they were scientists, but not “missing.” And in the one case that clearly involved a NASA-linked scientist, NASA publicly mourned him, and the death was investigated as an aviation accident, not a disappearance.
This article doesn’t argue that governments never keep secrets. It doesn’t mock curiosity. It simply does what responsible writing should do: separate what is documented from what is alleged, and avoid turning grief into a template for conspiracy.
How the “74” story spreads (and why the wording matters)
The most viral versions of the story present the number 74 as if it were an official NASA statistic—something NASA “admitted,” “announced,” or “has no answers” about. That wording appears in several widely shared online articles.
But when you examine these pieces, two patterns show up:
- The sources are not NASA statements. They’re third-party articles repeating each other’s lists and phrasing.
- The lists mix unrelated people across countries, fields, and institutions, sometimes with only a loose “science” connection, and sometimes with no NASA employment connection at all.
So the first truth we can state confidently is this:
There is no publicly verifiable NASA announcement that “74 of our scientists have disappeared.” The “NASA says…” framing is part of the internet packaging, not a documented NASA release.
Now, let’s look at several of the named cases often used to “prove” the story.
Case 1: Alberto Behar — a real NASA-linked scientist, a documented plane crash
Alberto Behar was a robotics and exploration engineer affiliated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). NASA’s astrobiology site published an “In Memoriam” stating he died in the crash of a small plane on January 10, 2015, near Van Nuys Airport in the Los Angeles area.
JPL also published a memorial note confirming the same.
Mainstream reporting at the time described the crash and noted that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the cause—standard procedure for an aviation fatality.
What you can truthfully conclude:
- Behar’s death was not a disappearance.
- It was publicly acknowledged by NASA/JPL.
- It was treated as an aviation accident, with an official investigation typical for such events.
If someone wants to argue the crash was sabotage, that’s a separate claim—and it would require separate evidence. The public record, as it stands, documents a crash and an investigation, not a coordinated silencing.
Case 2: Melissa Ketunuti — a murder case with an identified perpetrator (not NASA)
Another name often included in “NASA death list” posts is Dr. Melissa Ketunuti. Public reporting and institutional memorials describe her as a physician and researcher associated with the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, not NASA.
In January 2013, she was found dead in her Philadelphia home; police described evidence of strangulation and fire. Local and national outlets later reported that a man named Jason Smith was arrested and charged in her killing.
A 2015 report stated a jury convicted Smith of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
The National Institutes of Health (Fogarty International Center) also published a memorial noting she was found murdered.
What you can truthfully conclude:
- This was a criminal homicide case with a publicly reported suspect and a later conviction.
- It is not documented as a NASA-linked death in the public sources above.
Using her death as “NASA scientists disappearing” is not supported by the evidence that’s publicly available.
Case 3: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 victims — a geopolitical tragedy, not a “death list”
In July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. Two names frequently pulled into the “74 scientists” narrative are:
- Joep Lange — a Dutch physician and internationally known HIV researcher.
- Glenn Thomas is a communications professional working for the World Health Organization.
The WHO published an official statement confirming Glenn Thomas died on MH17 and was traveling to the International AIDS Conference in Australia.
Nature wrote about the shock to the research community and Lange’s significance in HIV therapy and global access to treatment.
The Guardian published an obituary describing Lange as one of the world’s top clinical AIDS researchers and confirming he died in the MH17 crash.
What you can truthfully conclude:
- These were documented victims of an aircraft shootdown in a conflict context, not unexplained disappearances.
- Their inclusion in a “NASA death list” is a narrative choice, not a proven organizational link.
Case 4: Anne Szarewski — an inquest recorded natural causes
Anne Szarewski was a physician and researcher associated with cervical screening improvements and HPV-related research. A tribute from Cancer Research UK acknowledged her career and death as a profound shock to colleagues.
An inquest later concluded she died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis and recorded a verdict of natural causes.
Some coverage noted that a toxicologist found an unknown quantity of an anti-malarial drug in her system, but the inquest verdict remained natural causes.
What you can truthfully conclude:
- Her death was investigated through an inquest process with a publicly reported conclusion.
- Presenting her case as “scientists being silenced” is not supported by the inquest verdict in the sources above.
Case 5: Gelareh Bagherzadeh — a murder later tied to a convicted killer
Gelareh Bagherzadeh was an Iranian-American molecular genetics student and activist in Houston who was shot in 2012. Later reporting tied her death to a man named Ali Irsan (Ali Mahmood Awad Irsan), who was convicted in a case widely described as involving “honor killings.”
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported on charges connected to her murder.
NBC DFW reported that Irsan was sentenced to death for the killings (including Bagherzadeh).
(Additional summaries of the case appear in public reference material as well.)
What you can truthfully conclude:
- This was a criminal murder case with prosecution and conviction, not a disappearance.
- Like Ketunuti, it is often pulled into “scientist death list” narratives despite not being NASA employment–linked in these sources.
Case 6: Shane Todd — a disputed death with a formal inquest and an official verdict
Shane Todd was an American engineer working in Singapore. His death became controversial because his family believed he was murdered in connection with his work, while Singapore authorities stated it was suicide.
Reuters reported on the dispute and on the family withdrawing from an inquiry at one point, while local authorities maintained that Todd probably committed suicide.
The Guardian reported on the inquiry and the family’s concerns.
A key point for truthfulness: Singapore held a coroner’s inquiry, and public documentation of the inquiry exists in PDF form through official Singapore government channels.
Public summaries also describe the coroner’s verdict as asphyxia due to hanging, with the coroner satisfied there was no foul play.
What you can truthfully conclude:
- The case is disputed in the public narrative (family vs. authorities).
- There was a formal legal/medical process and an official verdict.
- Claims that he was killed to protect U.S. national security are allegations, not established facts in the cited public record.
Case 7: Andrew Moulden — a real death, but the “about to reveal secrets” claim isn’t publicly evidenced.
Andrew Moulden is often discussed online in connection with vaccine-related conspiracy claims. The specific allegation that he died “two weeks before breaking his silence” is the kind of detail that spreads fast and verifies poorly.
What can be verified more conservatively:
- Public genealogy-style records list a Dr. Andrew Moulden born in 1963 and dying in November 2013 in North Carolina.
- Political-party material indicates someone named Dr. Andrew Moulden was involved in Canadian political activity (this supports that such a person existed in public life).
What we cannot truthfully claim from reputable public sources (based on what’s surfaced here):
- That he had verifiable “confidential information” he was about to release
- That his “research disappeared” due to suppression
- That his death was officially suspicious or linked to a coordinated effort
So the honest way to write this part is: his death is real; the dramatic motive story is not established by strong, publicly verifiable evidence in reputable sources.
The bigger reality: “74” is a narrative number, not a demonstrated pattern
When you line these cases up, the connective tissue starts to look like this:
- One NASA/JPL scientist died in a plane crash that NASA publicly acknowledged.
- Others were doctors, researchers, students, or communications staff linked to different institutions and different countries.
- Several deaths have documented causes: murder convictions, inquest verdicts, or a wartime shootdown.
So what exactly does “74 NASA scientists” mean?
In practice, many viral “74” posts treat “NASA” as a kind of prestige keyword—something to make the list feel unified and high-stakes. Articles that push the claim tend to cite one or two NASA-adjacent names (like Behar) and then blend in unrelated tragedies.
That doesn’t prove a plot. It proves something else: how easily humans build a single story out of unrelated grief—especially when the people involved are talented, the deaths are emotionally shocking, and the details are easy to present without full context.
A quick statistical sanity check (without minimizing loss)
It’s also worth remembering the scale. NASA’s civil-servant workforce alone has been reported at around the 17,000–18,000 range in the mid-2010s.
In any large organization, deaths unfortunately occur every year due to illness, accidents, and age. That reality is not a cover-up; it’s demographics. And when online lists expand beyond NASA employees to include scientists worldwide, the “pattern” becomes even easier to manufacture.
This isn’t meant to be cold. It’s meant to be careful: a number is not evidence unless it’s defined, sourced, and measured correctly.
What remains legitimately mysterious (and what doesn’t)
Some cases in public life are genuinely murky. Investigations can be imperfect. Records can be incomplete. Families can remain unconvinced.
But that is very different from the strong claim that there is a coordinated “death list” targeting NASA-linked scientists.
From the best publicly accessible documentation:
- Behar’s death is documented as a plane crash, publicly mourned by NASA/JPL.
- Ketunuti’s murder led to charges and a conviction.
- MH17 victims died in a widely reported shootdown.
- Szarewski’s inquest recorded natural causes.
- Bagherzadeh’s case led to prosecution and sentencing in Texas.
- Todd’s death was disputed, but an inquiry produced an official verdict.
That collection of facts supports tragedy, not coordination.
Final thoughts
If you want to be rigorous—and you should—then you have to hold two ideas at once:
- It’s reasonable to ask questions when stories circulate about secrecy and power.
- It’s irresponsible to treat a stitched-together list as proof—especially when the list blends unrelated people, misstates affiliations, and ignores documented outcomes like convictions and inquest verdicts.
The deaths and losses mentioned here deserve accuracy, not mythology. Conspiracy framing often feels like “respect” for victims—because it implies they mattered enough to be targeted. But it can also distort their lives, overwrite real investigations, and turn public grief into internet currency.
The truth is both less cinematic and more grounded: these were real people, caught in real-world causes of death—crime, disease, accidents, and conflict—then swept into a single storyline by repetition.
Written by Titan007
Comments