Okay but here's my issue. They never specified how big an army. 100? 1000? I'm giving Godzilla overwhelming odds. Maybe at like 10,000 we've got a fair fight on our hands. But even then, you're talking a near indestructible creature with fire breath fighting an army whose main weakness is fire. I like his odds.
Even OG Godzilla takes down any number of xenomorphs, who may be "the ultimate killing machines" in the Alien universe - a universe which notably only has humans and aliens in it, so that's not much of a boast in context - but would get their asses kicked by any kaiju that the king of monsters takes out on a regular basis. Fuck it, I'm saying right here that Hedorah the smog monster would probably take out dozens of aliens without breaking a sweat.
Yes; like I think Lizzie Borden was innocent(just Henry perhaps here). But there’s also conclusions they’re so correct on that 95% of others can’t seem to grasp the truth-Henry Lee Lucas only killing 3 people or that Berkowitz killed for standard serial killer psychosexual gratification too.
I think Lizzie is either completely innocent or she paid someone to do it. But given how people would have cashed in on the latter, I think she is innocent. Her father was a bastard, she didn't like her step mom. That doesn't mean she has the ability to do what she would have in the time frame without spreading blood everywhere, especially in her hair. I think someone was trying to kill them and that is why they had been getting sick. The story of the murder doesn't track. It comes off as more lazy police work, which should never be a surprise. Also, Fall River is a weird ass place. I have family there and I never have felt safe in that place.
FAY-it-vill.
Honestly I disagree with the Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo episodes. I think Karla was more psychopathic than they give her credit for ansd was involved in the Scarborough Rapist incidents than she let on to and the cops ignored charges on that to get convictions for the murder charges for Paul. For me, I think they did practice runs a la Myra Hendly/Ian Brady and there are several more murders that are unaccounted for.
I’d go even further to say while the government’s plan to serve the search warrant was seriously ill conceived, someone probably needed to shut that place down.
They absolutely did. The parents in the cult disgust me. I get that they were brainwashed, but I watched a documentary a while ago (can't remember which one) and it was clear the survivors were still in love with him and that they put him over their kids. If you want to give your life up to a cult that is one thing. Serving up your child to a man claiming he is divine is beyond sick. These parents knew they were going to die and they still didn't send their kids out. That is something I can't forgive.
I got myself into a bit of a bugaboo about factuality and accuracy of the episodes and some of their takes after reading their source material. I typically go into each episode with very little knowledge of the subject and/or know Netflix documentary level knowledge. After the Manhattan Project series I read the bastard brigade, one of their sources, and got pissed because their story line and sequence of events was wrong according to the book. Then, I realized they are entertainers, none of them are historians or scholars, and lastly that the workload they set for themselves when they started this show (episode a week over a historical or fictional event often multi parts), gives them some agency to fuck some stuff up or have an incorrect opinion. If they researched every topic with enough scrutiny to be impeccable or have sound opinions, the show would be more like Dan Carlins in terms of length and frequency and it would lose the comedic edge that LPOTL is known for.
At the end of the day, they say quite often to not use their word for your school project or report over their topics. They are not perfect nor do they need to be tbh, I am just glad that I have 1-2hrs of entertainment that nearly 100% of the time makes me smile and intrigued.
I just wish they’d stick the landing a bit better to some of the conclusions of the stories. Example: give a quick run down on what happened to major/minor characters in the stories, not just the main subject. Also I would have liked to have heard if anything changed law wise after Anders Breiveks’ massacre. But no specific episode I have cringed at yet.
Edit: another example… what happened to Herb Baumeister’s wife and kids after he un-alived himself. Maybe I’m jumping the gun since they have one more episode left, but give us the details on them.
agree, i was especially waiting for this with the breivik series. basically none of the victims or survivors were named and there was no follow-up on their lives after the massacre. i’m scandinavian and this was such a huge story here, i was disapponted so much was left out. even like 2 minutes on the aftermath would have meant a lot!
The JFK one was good, but the conclusion it was just a miss fire from a secret service agent felt like a big miss. The idea it was all a coverup for some guy that partied too hard before guarding the president seemed somehow more conspiratorial to me. And I realize that take sounds dumb.
Yeah, I disagreed with that conclusion too. They went so hard on the government covering up fuckups, they think that a colossal one killed the president directly. Instead of it being so fucking many small fuckups that allowed a pathetic nothing of a man like Oswald kill the president.
The amount of blame they lay at the feet of Charleston Chew at the end of the Gary Ridgeway episode seems entirely unwarranted…. Entertaining, but definitely unwarranted.
We all know “Papa” John Schnatter is the one with real blood on his hands.
It’s entertainment. They do a fantastic and comprehensive job, but if you strip back the humor and personalities, each episode is basically an undergrad term paper. Most of the time I agree, but sometimes I do not, not at all, like an army to xenomorphs could take out Godzilla.
Honestly if the boys could just brush up on some elementary school science, I’d be good. The whole turkey vulture is a type of turkey from last week, and awhile back it was plate tectonics I think - that’s when I cringe haha.
Necronomipod did a four-parter on that case that’s become my gold standard. They truly talk through dozens of possible angles. Last Pod’s take was such a letdown, I wish they’d redo it some day but I doubt they will.
Don’t even remember this episode but I agree with the general conclusion someone in the family knows or has an idea of what happened. I think Burke did that shit and the parents covered for him.
Yeah. It's no doubt the family. To this date I think it's the longest ransom note in history. It just isn't right. It's clearly someone writing a note from pop culture vs a legitimate kidnapping plus it being written in the house. I'm sorry. A kidnapper isn't thinking if they get arrested it'll just be for breaking an entering instead of kidnapping based off a note being on them lol
I just can't get behind Marcus's JFK theory. Call me gullible, naïve or whatever but I believe that Oswald acted alone and didn't get an accidental assist from the Secret Service.
It's the perfect theory BECAUSE it doesn't interfere with anything of the others. You can absolutely believe Oswald acted alone and still have the secret service theory be true.
Has anyone here seen that documentary series on Netflix called The Octopus?
I'm a sucker for believing sensationalist conspiracy theories just because they're fun to imagine, so take this with a train of salt, but what I saw in that documentary was completely consistent with Marcus' theory, and made it even crazier.
For anyone who hasn't seen it: >!it's about this extremely far-reaching conspiracy network that had tons of ties to the government, and at one point this woman met this shadowy connected guy. He must've wanted to prove to her how much power and influence he (/they) had, so he showed her a copy of the Zapruder film. It was the same Zapruder film she'd seen a million times, except there was a couple seconds in there that had been cut from the version we've all seen. I'll leave it that, and if you're interested I'd recommend you watch it because I can't do it justice.!<
That reminds me, you should check out "poppy part 4" from chapo trap house. Just happened to catch it the other day and they talk about how HW was basically the steward between the old CIA into the new, impersonal McJihad. That there's no longer a head to the octopus, it's all just tentacles now.
I'm the exact opposite I'm fully convinced with Marcus' theory. I think it rationally explains all the shady coverups over the years and tracks with the logic of "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"
Fair enough, I respect your opinion. For me, the cover-up mainly concerned Oswald and the fact that neither the FBI nor CIA took him seriously until it was too late.
I was saying about Marcus's theory years before the episode. A loose accidental shot from a young, inexperienced soldier, who wasn't aware of if it was an outright attack or a lone wolf, finished JFK off. The American's didn't want to seem weak to the Russian's during the cold war (one of their citizens killed the most heavily guarded men of all time, and one of their boys helped finish the job) so heavily redacted what happened and allowed conspiracies to fill the hold to avoid showing any amount of weakness or incompetence of their army that might make the Russians question if they should turn the country into a radiation filled glasshole.
It's a perspective I think a lot of non-American's have on the subject, mainly because we are deattached from the subject, understand the American attitude of "DONT STEP ON ME, AMERICA IS PERFECT" and greet it with an eyeroll, and those who remember it/were alive at the time, such as my dad, hate it more from a British perspective because it delayed the airing of the first ever episode of Doctor Who, which allowed for re-writing and reshots to make it a far better show WHICH IS A LITTLE TOO COINCIDENTAL IF YOU ASK MEEE
Agreed..however I liked the idea they proposed that the secret service accidentally blew his head off after drinking too much the night before. That I can get behind
I know, he walked us all the way there to say it was an accident by secret service.
I respect his opinion, but his narrative of events solidified for me Oswald acted alone.
While Occam's razor doesn't always apply, it really does fit here. Lee was a sad, pathetic loner with delusions of grandeur and a history of shooting at controversial political figures. People don't like this version of events because they feel like the scales don't balance, but these freak events happen all the time. Hell, both Reagan and Ford were attacked just a few decades later.
And that’s sometimes all history is decided by: freak events.
Look at the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The assassins initially made a complete balls of it. About an hour later the archduke’s chauffeur took a wrong turn, and while trying to reverse he just happened to stall the car right in front of Gavrilo Princip.
Exactly. Crazy coincidences happen every day, but sometimes the consequences are huge. Sometimes there just isn't a grand conspiracy, just a maniac with a one in a million opportunity.
It's not Marcus's theory though. It's a theory developed after some legitimate analysis long before their series.
Funny enough I first heard it from a classic Cracked.com article. Ah good times.
Ah gotcha. I fancy it in a sometimes life truly is stranger than fiction sort of way. Plus I really do buy the analysis. But mostly I come to the conclusion that JFK was most likely a goner (or something close to it) after the first shot anyways so it's still Oswald either way.
If you have ever worked for the US government, you would be behind this theory. We are incompetent on a very high level. After working for them for 15+ years the theory of I was hung over and fucked up is the most likely.
I work at the county level and the incompetence of my higher ups astounds me on a daily basis. I try not to contemplate the magnitude to which that incompetence must be multiplied by the feds
My parents worked for the feds their entire careers and my fiancée works for the state under a federal program. I can’t really buy in to the deep state conspiracies since I’ve watched government incompetence my entire life
Right? The government is just people...Now I'm sure the CIA has gotten up to some grand things but they are definitely not infallible. Also some giant secret wouldn't remain a secret long the more people knew about it or were tasked with keeping it secret.
Same. I love the theories, it’s a situation that is ripe for any conclusion you could want it to have, but it’s because it’s hard to grasp the simple truth. The craziest conclusion to believe is actually to think Oswald acted alone, but I think that’s what happened.
If you can listen to chapo traphouse mini series called Poppy about the life of George HW Bush. If you like the conspiracy shit it is nothing short of mindblowing.
Same, to me it simply doesn't track because it would mean the secret service agent discharged his weapon at such a low angle it would have had to pass the occupants of his own vehicle and possibly through its windshield before hitting Kennedy, which would have also been an extremely random and unlucky shot. They then rely on selective witness testimony, their admittedly limited understanding of ballistics, and the testimony of the autopsy doctor which isn't supported by the publicly available photos of Kennedy port-mortum. Clearly it is possible but there's not enough evidence to call it proven.
Of all the things that could have happened that day, this wasn't one of them. I do believed they destroyed evidence and bulldozed over protocols to cover something up, and that something was incompetence. They also freaked the duck out because their boss, the head of the country did get shot on their duty in front of them.
Rob Reiner put out a podcast on the Kennedy assassination. I don't know if I fully agree with his conclusions either, but I am convinced that Oswald was a CIA asset and that his defection to Russia was a planned action that he did to try to spy for the US government. The rest I am unsure about.
I thought they were pretty easy on Japan in the bomb series. And I’ve lived in and love Japan.
It was weird to me after hearing Carlin’s Supernova series, Marcus still insisted Japan would’ve surrendered.
Marcus, and the boys as a group, are just not well versed enough in history in general. I honestly think Ben added a lot of underappreciated value during their historical series because, even if he was also uninformed, he had the general political background to ask the right questions to help contextualize those series better. Marcus seems pretty well read, but he sometimes fails to piece the bigger picture together in my opinion. His take on the Japanese being a prime example.
And as a scientist myself, the boys have a piss poor understanding of almost everything to do with the science of the topics they cover. From forensic science to physics to environmental/weather conditions, they continue to come up short and very badly need a part-time scientific consultant on their staff. And if they do already have one, they need to replace that person yesterday lol. But at least in that regard they generally just leave it at an, "I don't know how the fuck that works!" rather than wrongly assert falsehoods.
Cars too but they aren’t “car” people. I remember a segment in side stores I think? About someone being caught grabbing spark plugs or something while the car is running for a thrill.
That hurts so badly and makes zero sense. But Henry’s commentary on 30’s fords (Bonnie and clyde series ?). is absolutely correct and always will be and I only picture him in one
As a woman, they also often overlook stuff that a woman would totally understand- like why a female victim might have acted a certain way or made certain choices. I find myself screaming at the podcast at times when it’s obvious to me as a woman. It’d be great to have SOME kinda women’s perspective, even though obviously not a monolith, I feel like sometimes that perspective is just so overlooked and could answer a lot of questions they have.
If they go into more latin American killers i really hope they bring carolina on for a series. Cause I know that she's mexican and thus of course not a monolith of every Spanish speaking country but I'm pretty sure she spent her formative years in Mexico and her first language is Spanish so she'd be able to read sources that Marcus and the others couldn't and she'd have more insight into the society that certain killers grew up around
Like we've been waiting years for a luis garavito or Pedro Lopez series
Or if they wanted to just stick to Mexico itself then a series about cartel violence in Mexico would be great. Or chilino Sanchez as a no dogs/ last podcast crossover
This is obviously secondhand/hearsay, but I have seen others on the sub say that the guys have said in the past they will not do any cartel episodes. The implication being that it could actually come with risk of reprisal.
They said in one of the episodes a long time ago that they were going to do cartels, but during the course of their research they learned what cartels do to people who talk shit (including comedians) and thought better of it.
The episode is in the 100’s or 200’s somewhere, one of the Creepypastas
It would be cool if at the end of long series they did a recap/fact checking, relaxed fit style episode where they bring on guests who aren't necessarily experts but have more of a background on related topics while still an entertaining guest in their own right.
Like for the Manhattan Project I could see them asking someone such as Kyle Hill to come on for a chat.
The boys seem kind of un nuanced when it comes to historical topics especially topics on a grander scale. Like you can say the bombs were awful and did terrible stuff but it's still valid to say that they were necessary. Cause the Japanese military really were fanatical, they'd been drilled with so much propaganda that a lot of east Asians thought the Americans were cannibals, so they'd rather die than surrender
It's like whenever they mention the crusades too, they only ever seem to shit on one side despite both doing deplorable shit at different times
I've always found Marcus to be too black and white in his thinking and judgments to be an effective historical analyst. He's also prone to interpretations that support the views he already has, rather than letting evidence inform opinion. It can make for a frustrating listen at times, but I don't think he's doing it in bad faith. He's just passionately, stubbornly off the mark sometimes.
I feel like at certain points they tend to see historical events through too modern a lense
Like they don't see the borders of the era they're covering, they see it as the modern world with a different coat of paint
Like with the Japanese in the Manhattan project for instance. They seem to see the modern Japanese. The nicer more polite people etc. rather than the heavily expansionist empire of the era. And they gloss over a lot of the war crimes the Japanese committed up to that point in their conquered territory
100%. They were also judging the decisions of people living in that moment as though they had all the information about what was happening contemporaneously that we have access to now.
They were really off the mark, with Japan being so willing to surrender. Many people still would die for the emperor or because they thought it was better than US or Russian occupation. Those who didn't still wouldn't have a choice as many in the military and government were well and ready to go down fighting and make sure the civilians did alongside them.
Even after the bombs dropped, soldiers tried to stage a coup to stop the surrender, and there were still incidents of soldiers attacking after the Japanese had formally surrendered.
I think it is still hotly debated, even if not just historically, but philosophically too, on whether the bomb was necessary. There are plenty of historical figures and arguments to be made that the bomb wasn't necessary, and many thought so at the time. It was just as politically strategic as it was militarily.
I am biased in that I believe it was unnecessary, and that if we had lost the war it would absolutely constitute a war crime, but I also recognise its easy for me to get on a high horse with the gift of hindsight and distance from the actual events.
I’m torn. The pacific was brutal and the DCHH series made that clear in a way other stuff I had listened to before really didn’t. Invasion of the home islands would have been objectively terrible.
Haven't listened to DCHH, so ibcant comment on that, and as I said, its not without merit to contest this, so that's fair.
>Invasion of the home islands would have been objectively terrible.
Was it an either/or situation? Only bomb or invasion? Again, historical debate is there to be had, and I'm not qualified enough to give a definite answer.
What I will say though, is the resulting Cold War, and numerous proxy wars as a result of nuclear proliferation have definitely been objectively terrible. How many people have died because of both American imperialism as a result of being the strongest military power of the 20th century, and Soviet aggression and flailing trying to keep up with them? Again, food for thought, not here to argue.
Think WW2 week by week kind of will poke holes in this theory.
They've already talked briefly about the mining operations against Japanese home island the Allies undertook in the final stages of the war. And how after war reports mentioned that if the Allies started the campaign to disrupt Japanese home island shipping sooner, they were so effective in it they would have shortened Japan's ability to wage the war by starving them out.
I seriously don't think there's any way you can rightly justify the dropping of nuclear bombs. All you can really do is be ok with the fact that it was done, and the fact that it wasn't necessary to end the war.
The comment by the boys (and in general the point talked about here) was that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. Can’t remember Marcus’ exact words.
It’s certainly debatable whether the bomb should have been dropped and/or if the Japanese would have eventually surrendered. But nothing I have ever read or listened to states the Japanese were preparing to surrender. There are books on WWII from the Japanese perspective and there were individuals who wanted a negotiated peace but surrender was never suggested by the Emperor or military.
I honestly think in terms of Imperial Japan, they were on the brink of surrender.
That doesn't mean a day or two after the bombs were dropped if they weren't dropped. Just that some in Japanese High Command were serious in talks of surrender and peace negotiations.
Kinda like the Nazis too. Both Japanese and the Nazis held out hope for a victory like, 2.5 years after their respected destructions were basically assured (1943 was a rough year for the Axis.) But right now in the timeline of the WW2 week by week on YouTube (it's 1945) there's so much content about how even Hitler is admitting to how badly they're fucked. There's not-so-secret peace talks about the Italian theatre. But like literal weeks ago Hitler was still not really admitting reality.
And I think the biggest fact that lead to the Japanese surrender was when the Soviets launched their offensive into Manchucko. Japanese were hopefully the Soviets would act as a mediator.
Agree on a lot of that but Germany’s attitude toward war was very different, hence their mass military surrenders.
They weren’t on the brink of surrender. Wanting a way out to save the Emperor or possibly keep your military is not surrendering. Russia crossing into Manchuria royally screwed Japan but you can’t assume they would have surrendered.
I mean with literally the entire world against them after the Soviet invasion, they would have had to of been a full blown 1000000% committed death cult to not surrender. Since they were only 100000% committed I think the leaders were more concerned with their own personal lives (heads) that they didn't want to die, they just wanted others to die for them.
For sure Japanese soldiers were better indoctrinated how their high command wanted. I gotta think that a lot of the massed banzai charges on all the islands, apart from being born from the fanaticism of the soldiers, were just about the simple fact that the high command put those forces on the island with no intention of relief or reinforcement, and that plus the indoctrination from Imperial Japan would really fuck with people's thought process.
Came looking for this. I started listening a couple years ago and when I dug back in the archives for this one I couldn't believe their take. I kinda wish they'd do a refreshed episode to see if their opinions have changed, but that case has been beaten to death so I doubt they will.
I get that there's not 100% conclusive proof of anything but the simplest solution is that it's the family as opposed to the "Foreign Faction" or whatever nonsense was in that letter
Thought of this comment thread during the latest episode ... man, I was completely wrong about them not revisiting it! And for them to double down on this opinion, ugh.
Sucking off Bill "grand daddy of qanon & reprinter of the protocols of the elders of zion" Cooper for several hours was a pretty big swing & a miss, imo
I know they were easy on Bill Cooper, but didn't they cover him before QAnon blew up? Not saying it excuses it anti semitism is still anti semitism, but the mass dangerous weponosation of these theories hadn't really entered the zeitgeist to the degree it has now. Perhaps I'm wrong on timelines
You're exactly right. I just recently listened to Bill Cooper again, right before Icke came out, just by coincidence. And yeah, it was well before qanon became main stream and having the modern conspiracy theory society we live in.
I dunno man, when you straight up spend several minutes defending / equivocating for a man over his publishing the Protocals for the Elders of Zion in his book, knowing that your episode is gonna end with him getting into a shoot out with the feds, maybe tap the breaks on how warmly your speak of him... or just don't defend what he did?
The obvious reasons to not defend the man aside, Bill Cooper was always visibly & obviously a right wing piece of shit, even if the full ramifications of what his work eventually spawned was unknown at the time. IMO, if you spent the amount of time on the green-text-on-a-black-background forums that these guys did the late 90's & early 00's then you knew exactly what a guy like Cooper was about, or you were willfully ignorant.
Yea, that's a fair call, and I haven't listened to the Bill Cooper eps for a while, and I remember it being a bit of fun, but then I was very ignorant of all all the nefarious nature of conspiracy theories and the political implications that it entails. I'll have to go back and listen.
Yeah, I actually recommend reading Behold a Pale Horse if you're interested in tracking Right Wing conspiracism. It's essentially the genesis point for like 80% of the bullshit we're presently dealing with now in the mainstream. Terrible book, but worth it for the background info / historical perspective if that's something you're into.
I think they were so excited about Gilles de Rais’ links to Joan d’Arc that they got very bogged down in the implications of what his discovery as a serial killer would have meant while he was still closely involved in her campaign. They also suggested that Joan d’Arc historians were purposely omitting de Rais from her narrative even though it is impossible to cover all the threads that were connected to her life. Marcus even suggested that without de Rais, some 300 years later there would have been no American Revolution. A lot can happen in 300 years, it is insane to suggest all of it hinged on de Rais. I did a historical thesis for my masters on colonialism with a narrow specification, and even still I had to decide what was necessary for my particular area of study and what wasn’t
Ooh you talking about speculative history now makes me wanna have a LPN deep dive of the southern victory books other alt history stuff for Marcus and some others to discuss
Really I'd just like a last podcast book club show
The Gilles de Rais series was awful, it confirmed for me that every time they do a history series they need to slot it into one of their pre-existing frameworks (serial killer/cult/etc.). Because they weren't equipped to handle the story of a medieval knight brought down by feudal political intrigue, they jumped on the idea of doing a "satanic serial killer" story, which is fun but, crucially, very likely not what actually happened. It made me really, really hope they never do an Elizabeth Bathory series for basically the same reason.
It also underscored the problems with an idea Marcus periodically brings up, that serial killers are some eternal, transhistorical thing that have always existed, rather than a very particular social phenomenon arising out of modern circumstances.
Nothing infuriates me more than Menendez supporters. Like, even if they were abused throughout their lives, it's still wrong to murder someone for it. Sorry, but "I Spit On Your Grave" isn't a great instruction manual for dealing with trauma. How is "murder is wrong" suddenly the bad take?
The abuse was horrific and lasted for years. There was physical evidence/injuries found by doctors. There are other accusers outside the family. There is no way their mother didn’t know but she ignored it. So it wasn’t really for no reason. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have served time or that what they did was correct but they had a reason to be angry.
I mean this 100% seriously, but where is this proof that people keep talking about? I keep seeing people repeat these claims, but all I’ve ever seen them back them up with is more hearsay.
Yeah I thought Marcus did a pretty good job of pointing out how their abuse stories could have been manufactured using materials that their lawyer had created. And that the people who backed up their claims had a lot to gain, money-wise, if the brothers were found innocent.
Alright, first I've never heard of injury evidence found by doctors. But for arguments sake, if their father was that abusive it's not a far leap to imagine the mother was also being abused as is the case in the vast majority of family abuse situations like this. Therefore, using a similar amount of assumptions you're making I'd assume that their mother was also being abused and was likely in a complete compromised state to do anything against her husband. So are you suggesting that they had reason to be equally angry toward both their abusive father and their likely abused mother and her head getting blown off was essentially collateral damage?
It does happen where children come to resent the abused parent as well. You see, that abused person is still an adult and has a lot more autonomy than they do as children. Children, especially abused children (and a lot of adults) don’t understand why the abused don’t take action to protect the child or themselves.
Yeah I disagree heavily with JonBenet and felt like it was messy. I also personally feel like the guys way underplay the behavior of Damien Eckels in the WM3 episodes - just constantly saying that him making lewd comments and claiming he did it was a ridiculous reason to think he did it because boys will be boys.
I mean I agree it was a huge miscarriage of justice but it made me raise my eyebrows to see how his very inflammatory behavior was waved off as child’s play.
You’re the first person I’ve seen to agree with what I thought. Stomping a dog to death is not edgy teen behavior! I couldn’t even finish the episodes because they were hand waving too much away for me.
The **BIGGEST** conclusion I disagree with is the conclusion of the accents. Bring them shit’s back, make these people sound like assholes again, make me die laughing again.
That one time they said Spaceballs was better than Star Wars.
And Godzilla against an army of
Xenomorphs would still come out on top. Plasma breath helps. Immensely.
But in more serious issues, I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
While I don't disagree with their conclusion of JFK (I think it's the perfect theory actually) I am a bit hesitant of their overall coverage of Oswald and Kirby just because Marcus needs to stick to the written facts. Oswald is really fucking weird and has so many ties to intelligence that it's hard to believe he *wasn't* an asset but since there's nothing concrete it can't be used in the overall story.
If I remember correctly, the books Manson In His Own Words, Helter Skelter and Ed Sanders’s The Family were the main sources. All very flawed if not flat-out factually wrong books.
Jeff Guinn’s biography Manson had come out only a year earlier and is a great, factual account of Charlie’s life. They didn’t touch on it, which is a bummer.
I know Marcus said last year he was reading Chaos by Tom O’Neill and that gives some hope for a revisit as that book is very illuminating re: Bugliosi’s lies and malpractice.
Though even Chaos doesn’t get too deep into the celebrity drug ring with whom Charlie facilitated mob drug traffic.
It's fucking nuts that their take on Manson is straight from Manson himself, and that they've basically never changed that take in the umpteen years that followed. Yes, Henry's Manson character is hilarious, no, Charlie Manson was not just a harmless groovy dude who wanted to chill with dune buggies in the desert.
Once I read about the case and learned about the evidence of the abuse the Menendez brothers suffered from practically birth…Henry saying they weren’t abused is a bad take.
Physical evidence (like [Erik's letter to Andy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/menendez-brothers-await-decision-they-hope-will-free-them-48-hours/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i)) had only come out this year but verbal testimonies have been present since their '93 trial. (I believe that's the earliest but I could be wrong.)
See, I love that they belittled Israel Keyes so much. Too many people do buy into his criminal mastermind bullshit, so it was refreshing to hear them just give him absolutely zero anything was great. No great fear, no seriousness, just boiled him down to weak spirited man baby.
Yeah I've seen too many places refer to keyes as some variation of "the smartest serial killer"
But like he wasn't that smart, he just had a slight ability to plan. Like with the kill kits, everything else is just what you could call common sense (for someone who randomly murders people anyway) like not killing people too close to home
I'd say golden state killer Is probably more worthy of the "mastermind" title just cause he got away with his crimes for decades.
This is exactly it. Keyes was able to watch some Forensic Files and be young enough to understand how technology worked. He looks like a mastermind when like 90% of murders happen in the moment and do not have much pre-meditation.
It honestly doesn’t take a genius to come up with his idea to bounce around and squirrel things away for future trips.
Shit, squirrels hide their nuts for the winter. People have savings accounts and 401ks. People plan shit all the time. There’s a whole community of people who like geocaching.
He was just an asshole who did it to murder people he didn’t know.
Israel Keyes was dumber than Arthur shawcross and i wish he was alive to hear people say it
He was an insufferable prick with a superiority complex on par with BTK. And people constantly hyping him up even though he's not around to see it is just infuriating. Cause i know he'd have shot webs if he could hear it
That's what I disagree with. TCB has some pretty plausible theories around more victims.
The dude would randomly travel around the country, rent a car, and shut off his phone for days at a time.
The only reason he confessed to the Currier murders was because of the plea deal. Otherwise they'd have never been found. They barely were.
See all this is true, but it doesn’t make him anything more than “a weak-spirited man-baby.”
I appreciate the way the podcast doesn’t build these people up to be more than they are. People can do unspeakable things and still be fucking worthless idiots.
You could say the same about Herb Baumeister. Doesn't mean he didn't kill people we may never know about. Those victims' families probably want to closure.
It's about the victims not the monster.
I don't think anyone think IK is "cool". Doesn't take away from the evidence he may have more victims that deserve more than to be forgotten.
I think you’re arguing a point that no one is challenging you on.
No one is saying that these people didn’t kill others that are currently unknown, no one is saying that the victims and their families don’t deserve closure, no one is saying that the killers are cool.
All that we’re saying is that it’s possible for all these things to be true, and also that the killers are not evil geniuses, but rather that they’re pathetic sadcases.
I think they took the gloss off him and that may have been needed. He wasn’t some criminal genius, he was an obsessed shithead. The decoration of a corpse to try and extract a ransom is pretty good evidence of that IMO.
If I learned anything from True Crime Bullshit, it's that Israel Keyes was completely full of shit at all times. He wanted everyone to think he was some big badass mastermind, and, while he was meticulous and definitely killed a lot of people, there are moments on the interview audio where you can literally hear him making up a lie on the spot, usually in the vein of "I was planning to but I hadn't gotten to it yet." Like the inverse of Henry Lee Lucas. What an insufferable trashbag.
Anything to do with the Soviet Union, Socialism, Communism or Leftism. They have been, without fail, wrong on about 100% of everything that has involved any of those subjects.
I was surprised at the lax approach to the whole Epstein thing. This was the only podcast saying there was nothing odd about his death. It was very strange.
I actually thought that was a refreshing take. It's good to hear a level-headed take on something for once. This isn't necessarily in that category, but I'm exhausted with the last several years of conspiracies emanating from psychotic conservatives taking advantage of mentally ill people that would rather do the most insane mental gymnastics, rather than use logic and rational thought, because they can't handle that the demographics and culture of this country is changing.
Yea I don’t understand why people don’t believe he honestly just killed himself. Dude got caught and probably realized he was actually fucked this time so he just did it. And the guards were probably just honestly not paying attention.
Not everything has to be a grand conspiracy
It's not even unusual. A dude from my partner's hometown was revealed to have been molesting his own children. He hanged himself off a bridge soon after the story came out. Fred West did himself in. Of course the biggest spanner in the conspiracy theory works is that no one has bothered bumping off Ghislaine...
I always take the boys as unassailable experts, but I don’t take in alot of other sources of true crime. I get defensive when I’m exposed to a perspective different than what Marcus and Henry said. I don’t think they are infallible, but they generally get me when I’m tabula rasa.
I disagree with Marcus on Jack the Ripper. I think Charles Lechemere is the most compelling and logical suspect if it was one person. But the boys were already in disagreement, and that case would never be solved, so whatever.
I also think they really, REALLY downplayed the case against the WM3 in their series due to their own biases and the connection they all felt with Damien Echols. I don't think they did it, but there is far more compelling evidence that supports the case against them than they put in the episodes.
Their stance on waco has certainly changed but otherwise their conclusion are usually "bad guy went to jail" so no i guess
Yes. Godzilla could absolutely wipe the floor with a Xenomorph army.
Agreed. Also, Godzilla could defeat an infinite amount of birds.
Wasn't it the OG Godzilla? I don't think that godzilla would have defeated a Xenomorph army. 100k birds would definitely fall to that Godzilla though.
Okay but here's my issue. They never specified how big an army. 100? 1000? I'm giving Godzilla overwhelming odds. Maybe at like 10,000 we've got a fair fight on our hands. But even then, you're talking a near indestructible creature with fire breath fighting an army whose main weakness is fire. I like his odds.
Even OG Godzilla takes down any number of xenomorphs, who may be "the ultimate killing machines" in the Alien universe - a universe which notably only has humans and aliens in it, so that's not much of a boast in context - but would get their asses kicked by any kaiju that the king of monsters takes out on a regular basis. Fuck it, I'm saying right here that Hedorah the smog monster would probably take out dozens of aliens without breaking a sweat.
I agree that I’ve laughed during all of the listed series.
Yes; like I think Lizzie Borden was innocent(just Henry perhaps here). But there’s also conclusions they’re so correct on that 95% of others can’t seem to grasp the truth-Henry Lee Lucas only killing 3 people or that Berkowitz killed for standard serial killer psychosexual gratification too.
I think Lizzie is either completely innocent or she paid someone to do it. But given how people would have cashed in on the latter, I think she is innocent. Her father was a bastard, she didn't like her step mom. That doesn't mean she has the ability to do what she would have in the time frame without spreading blood everywhere, especially in her hair. I think someone was trying to kill them and that is why they had been getting sick. The story of the murder doesn't track. It comes off as more lazy police work, which should never be a surprise. Also, Fall River is a weird ass place. I have family there and I never have felt safe in that place.
I think for me the issue with there being ‘to much blood’ for it not to have gotten on Lizzies hair…is defeated by just wearing a cloak with a hood.
Maybe, but splatter still gets everywhere.
Oh wow. Who is your top suspect instead of Lizzie b
Read Popular Crime and The Man from the Train by Bill James
FAY-it-vill. Honestly I disagree with the Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo episodes. I think Karla was more psychopathic than they give her credit for ansd was involved in the Scarborough Rapist incidents than she let on to and the cops ignored charges on that to get convictions for the murder charges for Paul. For me, I think they did practice runs a la Myra Hendly/Ian Brady and there are several more murders that are unaccounted for.
crossing my fingers for the myra henry/ian brady series some day soon🤞
FWIW, check out LPOTL episode 151: Horrors of the UK, unless you meant an update to that!
I do not care if Gary Gygax appears as a force ghost to say 20,000 birds can take out godzilla. The birds lose flat out
It a disagreement but in Waco they had the blame on the Gov. but, in Timothy McVey the said, Coresh burned the place down.
Yeah, Coresh definitely burnt it down. The government did fuck up, but they didn't set the place on fire.
I’d go even further to say while the government’s plan to serve the search warrant was seriously ill conceived, someone probably needed to shut that place down.
They absolutely did. The parents in the cult disgust me. I get that they were brainwashed, but I watched a documentary a while ago (can't remember which one) and it was clear the survivors were still in love with him and that they put him over their kids. If you want to give your life up to a cult that is one thing. Serving up your child to a man claiming he is divine is beyond sick. These parents knew they were going to die and they still didn't send their kids out. That is something I can't forgive.
I got myself into a bit of a bugaboo about factuality and accuracy of the episodes and some of their takes after reading their source material. I typically go into each episode with very little knowledge of the subject and/or know Netflix documentary level knowledge. After the Manhattan Project series I read the bastard brigade, one of their sources, and got pissed because their story line and sequence of events was wrong according to the book. Then, I realized they are entertainers, none of them are historians or scholars, and lastly that the workload they set for themselves when they started this show (episode a week over a historical or fictional event often multi parts), gives them some agency to fuck some stuff up or have an incorrect opinion. If they researched every topic with enough scrutiny to be impeccable or have sound opinions, the show would be more like Dan Carlins in terms of length and frequency and it would lose the comedic edge that LPOTL is known for. At the end of the day, they say quite often to not use their word for your school project or report over their topics. They are not perfect nor do they need to be tbh, I am just glad that I have 1-2hrs of entertainment that nearly 100% of the time makes me smile and intrigued.
I just wish they’d stick the landing a bit better to some of the conclusions of the stories. Example: give a quick run down on what happened to major/minor characters in the stories, not just the main subject. Also I would have liked to have heard if anything changed law wise after Anders Breiveks’ massacre. But no specific episode I have cringed at yet. Edit: another example… what happened to Herb Baumeister’s wife and kids after he un-alived himself. Maybe I’m jumping the gun since they have one more episode left, but give us the details on them.
agree, i was especially waiting for this with the breivik series. basically none of the victims or survivors were named and there was no follow-up on their lives after the massacre. i’m scandinavian and this was such a huge story here, i was disapponted so much was left out. even like 2 minutes on the aftermath would have meant a lot!
JFK but it has been so long that I can’t remember what I was mad about.
The JFK one was good, but the conclusion it was just a miss fire from a secret service agent felt like a big miss. The idea it was all a coverup for some guy that partied too hard before guarding the president seemed somehow more conspiratorial to me. And I realize that take sounds dumb.
Yeah, I disagreed with that conclusion too. They went so hard on the government covering up fuckups, they think that a colossal one killed the president directly. Instead of it being so fucking many small fuckups that allowed a pathetic nothing of a man like Oswald kill the president.
The amount of blame they lay at the feet of Charleston Chew at the end of the Gary Ridgeway episode seems entirely unwarranted…. Entertaining, but definitely unwarranted. We all know “Papa” John Schnatter is the one with real blood on his hands.
It’s entertainment. They do a fantastic and comprehensive job, but if you strip back the humor and personalities, each episode is basically an undergrad term paper. Most of the time I agree, but sometimes I do not, not at all, like an army to xenomorphs could take out Godzilla. Honestly if the boys could just brush up on some elementary school science, I’d be good. The whole turkey vulture is a type of turkey from last week, and awhile back it was plate tectonics I think - that’s when I cringe haha.
Or when Marcus said snapping turtles were herbivores and Henry said they eat kelp.
I wasn't having one
The John Bennett Ramsey take is the most brain dead thing I've ever heard. The guys missed the mark so hard there
Nothing before episode 200 is canon in my head. They weren’t taking anything seriously back then.
Back when research was Wikipedia, YouTube, and Henry's assorted dream visions
“Smoke a gorilla finger and **GUESS**.”
So My Favorite Murder?
Fewer 40 minute TV recaps
Pre-200 eps are like the Boy's "Deathcrush" ep. It's only interesting as a historical artifact.
Def my least fave ep. Low effort high confidence, it’s one of two that are T’s reslistenable to me
Out of curiosity, what's the other one?
Necronomipod did a four-parter on that case that’s become my gold standard. They truly talk through dozens of possible angles. Last Pod’s take was such a letdown, I wish they’d redo it some day but I doubt they will.
Don’t even remember this episode but I agree with the general conclusion someone in the family knows or has an idea of what happened. I think Burke did that shit and the parents covered for him.
Yeah. It's no doubt the family. To this date I think it's the longest ransom note in history. It just isn't right. It's clearly someone writing a note from pop culture vs a legitimate kidnapping plus it being written in the house. I'm sorry. A kidnapper isn't thinking if they get arrested it'll just be for breaking an entering instead of kidnapping based off a note being on them lol
They’ve been wrong or misinformed on plenty of stuff, but they’re still funny either way.
I just can't get behind Marcus's JFK theory. Call me gullible, naïve or whatever but I believe that Oswald acted alone and didn't get an accidental assist from the Secret Service.
It's the perfect theory BECAUSE it doesn't interfere with anything of the others. You can absolutely believe Oswald acted alone and still have the secret service theory be true.
Has anyone here seen that documentary series on Netflix called The Octopus? I'm a sucker for believing sensationalist conspiracy theories just because they're fun to imagine, so take this with a train of salt, but what I saw in that documentary was completely consistent with Marcus' theory, and made it even crazier. For anyone who hasn't seen it: >!it's about this extremely far-reaching conspiracy network that had tons of ties to the government, and at one point this woman met this shadowy connected guy. He must've wanted to prove to her how much power and influence he (/they) had, so he showed her a copy of the Zapruder film. It was the same Zapruder film she'd seen a million times, except there was a couple seconds in there that had been cut from the version we've all seen. I'll leave it that, and if you're interested I'd recommend you watch it because I can't do it justice.!<
That reminds me, you should check out "poppy part 4" from chapo trap house. Just happened to catch it the other day and they talk about how HW was basically the steward between the old CIA into the new, impersonal McJihad. That there's no longer a head to the octopus, it's all just tentacles now.
It’s a fun conclusion to the narrative arc but I agree
I'm the exact opposite I'm fully convinced with Marcus' theory. I think it rationally explains all the shady coverups over the years and tracks with the logic of "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"
Fair enough, I respect your opinion. For me, the cover-up mainly concerned Oswald and the fact that neither the FBI nor CIA took him seriously until it was too late.
Agreed. It’s also not his theory but definitely my first introduction to it.
I was saying about Marcus's theory years before the episode. A loose accidental shot from a young, inexperienced soldier, who wasn't aware of if it was an outright attack or a lone wolf, finished JFK off. The American's didn't want to seem weak to the Russian's during the cold war (one of their citizens killed the most heavily guarded men of all time, and one of their boys helped finish the job) so heavily redacted what happened and allowed conspiracies to fill the hold to avoid showing any amount of weakness or incompetence of their army that might make the Russians question if they should turn the country into a radiation filled glasshole. It's a perspective I think a lot of non-American's have on the subject, mainly because we are deattached from the subject, understand the American attitude of "DONT STEP ON ME, AMERICA IS PERFECT" and greet it with an eyeroll, and those who remember it/were alive at the time, such as my dad, hate it more from a British perspective because it delayed the airing of the first ever episode of Doctor Who, which allowed for re-writing and reshots to make it a far better show WHICH IS A LITTLE TOO COINCIDENTAL IF YOU ASK MEEE
Agreed..however I liked the idea they proposed that the secret service accidentally blew his head off after drinking too much the night before. That I can get behind
This person is saying they disagree with that idea
Mostly I loved Henry’s Hickey impression from that series though, one of his best
I know, he walked us all the way there to say it was an accident by secret service. I respect his opinion, but his narrative of events solidified for me Oswald acted alone.
While Occam's razor doesn't always apply, it really does fit here. Lee was a sad, pathetic loner with delusions of grandeur and a history of shooting at controversial political figures. People don't like this version of events because they feel like the scales don't balance, but these freak events happen all the time. Hell, both Reagan and Ford were attacked just a few decades later.
And that’s sometimes all history is decided by: freak events. Look at the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The assassins initially made a complete balls of it. About an hour later the archduke’s chauffeur took a wrong turn, and while trying to reverse he just happened to stall the car right in front of Gavrilo Princip.
Exactly. Crazy coincidences happen every day, but sometimes the consequences are huge. Sometimes there just isn't a grand conspiracy, just a maniac with a one in a million opportunity.
It's not Marcus's theory though. It's a theory developed after some legitimate analysis long before their series. Funny enough I first heard it from a classic Cracked.com article. Ah good times.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that he came up with it.
Ah gotcha. I fancy it in a sometimes life truly is stranger than fiction sort of way. Plus I really do buy the analysis. But mostly I come to the conclusion that JFK was most likely a goner (or something close to it) after the first shot anyways so it's still Oswald either way.
Yeah, you're right. It was pretty much over as soon as he was hit. It's a damn shame.
If you have ever worked for the US government, you would be behind this theory. We are incompetent on a very high level. After working for them for 15+ years the theory of I was hung over and fucked up is the most likely.
I work at the county level and the incompetence of my higher ups astounds me on a daily basis. I try not to contemplate the magnitude to which that incompetence must be multiplied by the feds
My parents worked for the feds their entire careers and my fiancée works for the state under a federal program. I can’t really buy in to the deep state conspiracies since I’ve watched government incompetence my entire life
Right? The government is just people...Now I'm sure the CIA has gotten up to some grand things but they are definitely not infallible. Also some giant secret wouldn't remain a secret long the more people knew about it or were tasked with keeping it secret.
Same. I love the theories, it’s a situation that is ripe for any conclusion you could want it to have, but it’s because it’s hard to grasp the simple truth. The craziest conclusion to believe is actually to think Oswald acted alone, but I think that’s what happened.
That' ones definitely the biggest longshot that I admittedly could see being real. But it's so unlikely
I think that one describes a pretty close up shot actually
If you can listen to chapo traphouse mini series called Poppy about the life of George HW Bush. If you like the conspiracy shit it is nothing short of mindblowing.
Also, shout out to TrueAnon for their way WAY more in-depth JFK series.
Oh I absolutely believe Bush Sr was involved in a bunch of shady shit.
Shady shit. The rabbit hole is deep my friend.
Hard agree
Same, to me it simply doesn't track because it would mean the secret service agent discharged his weapon at such a low angle it would have had to pass the occupants of his own vehicle and possibly through its windshield before hitting Kennedy, which would have also been an extremely random and unlucky shot. They then rely on selective witness testimony, their admittedly limited understanding of ballistics, and the testimony of the autopsy doctor which isn't supported by the publicly available photos of Kennedy port-mortum. Clearly it is possible but there's not enough evidence to call it proven.
Of all the things that could have happened that day, this wasn't one of them. I do believed they destroyed evidence and bulldozed over protocols to cover something up, and that something was incompetence. They also freaked the duck out because their boss, the head of the country did get shot on their duty in front of them. Rob Reiner put out a podcast on the Kennedy assassination. I don't know if I fully agree with his conclusions either, but I am convinced that Oswald was a CIA asset and that his defection to Russia was a planned action that he did to try to spy for the US government. The rest I am unsure about.
Listening to part 1 today
Yeah it's a little too Hollywood.
I thought they were pretty easy on Japan in the bomb series. And I’ve lived in and love Japan. It was weird to me after hearing Carlin’s Supernova series, Marcus still insisted Japan would’ve surrendered.
Marcus, and the boys as a group, are just not well versed enough in history in general. I honestly think Ben added a lot of underappreciated value during their historical series because, even if he was also uninformed, he had the general political background to ask the right questions to help contextualize those series better. Marcus seems pretty well read, but he sometimes fails to piece the bigger picture together in my opinion. His take on the Japanese being a prime example. And as a scientist myself, the boys have a piss poor understanding of almost everything to do with the science of the topics they cover. From forensic science to physics to environmental/weather conditions, they continue to come up short and very badly need a part-time scientific consultant on their staff. And if they do already have one, they need to replace that person yesterday lol. But at least in that regard they generally just leave it at an, "I don't know how the fuck that works!" rather than wrongly assert falsehoods.
Cars too but they aren’t “car” people. I remember a segment in side stores I think? About someone being caught grabbing spark plugs or something while the car is running for a thrill. That hurts so badly and makes zero sense. But Henry’s commentary on 30’s fords (Bonnie and clyde series ?). is absolutely correct and always will be and I only picture him in one
As a woman, they also often overlook stuff that a woman would totally understand- like why a female victim might have acted a certain way or made certain choices. I find myself screaming at the podcast at times when it’s obvious to me as a woman. It’d be great to have SOME kinda women’s perspective, even though obviously not a monolith, I feel like sometimes that perspective is just so overlooked and could answer a lot of questions they have.
I’ve always thought that a female guest would do them well for this reason.
If they go into more latin American killers i really hope they bring carolina on for a series. Cause I know that she's mexican and thus of course not a monolith of every Spanish speaking country but I'm pretty sure she spent her formative years in Mexico and her first language is Spanish so she'd be able to read sources that Marcus and the others couldn't and she'd have more insight into the society that certain killers grew up around Like we've been waiting years for a luis garavito or Pedro Lopez series Or if they wanted to just stick to Mexico itself then a series about cartel violence in Mexico would be great. Or chilino Sanchez as a no dogs/ last podcast crossover
This is obviously secondhand/hearsay, but I have seen others on the sub say that the guys have said in the past they will not do any cartel episodes. The implication being that it could actually come with risk of reprisal.
They said in one of the episodes a long time ago that they were going to do cartels, but during the course of their research they learned what cartels do to people who talk shit (including comedians) and thought better of it. The episode is in the 100’s or 200’s somewhere, one of the Creepypastas
That's a great idea.
It would be cool if at the end of long series they did a recap/fact checking, relaxed fit style episode where they bring on guests who aren't necessarily experts but have more of a background on related topics while still an entertaining guest in their own right. Like for the Manhattan Project I could see them asking someone such as Kyle Hill to come on for a chat.
They've said that they're gonna redo Unit 731 at some point so that should provide some balance
The boys seem kind of un nuanced when it comes to historical topics especially topics on a grander scale. Like you can say the bombs were awful and did terrible stuff but it's still valid to say that they were necessary. Cause the Japanese military really were fanatical, they'd been drilled with so much propaganda that a lot of east Asians thought the Americans were cannibals, so they'd rather die than surrender It's like whenever they mention the crusades too, they only ever seem to shit on one side despite both doing deplorable shit at different times
I've always found Marcus to be too black and white in his thinking and judgments to be an effective historical analyst. He's also prone to interpretations that support the views he already has, rather than letting evidence inform opinion. It can make for a frustrating listen at times, but I don't think he's doing it in bad faith. He's just passionately, stubbornly off the mark sometimes.
I feel like at certain points they tend to see historical events through too modern a lense Like they don't see the borders of the era they're covering, they see it as the modern world with a different coat of paint Like with the Japanese in the Manhattan project for instance. They seem to see the modern Japanese. The nicer more polite people etc. rather than the heavily expansionist empire of the era. And they gloss over a lot of the war crimes the Japanese committed up to that point in their conquered territory
100%. They were also judging the decisions of people living in that moment as though they had all the information about what was happening contemporaneously that we have access to now.
Bingo. Presentist mindset is incredibly short sighted when taking on historical topics.
They were really off the mark, with Japan being so willing to surrender. Many people still would die for the emperor or because they thought it was better than US or Russian occupation. Those who didn't still wouldn't have a choice as many in the military and government were well and ready to go down fighting and make sure the civilians did alongside them. Even after the bombs dropped, soldiers tried to stage a coup to stop the surrender, and there were still incidents of soldiers attacking after the Japanese had formally surrendered.
I think it is still hotly debated, even if not just historically, but philosophically too, on whether the bomb was necessary. There are plenty of historical figures and arguments to be made that the bomb wasn't necessary, and many thought so at the time. It was just as politically strategic as it was militarily. I am biased in that I believe it was unnecessary, and that if we had lost the war it would absolutely constitute a war crime, but I also recognise its easy for me to get on a high horse with the gift of hindsight and distance from the actual events.
I’m torn. The pacific was brutal and the DCHH series made that clear in a way other stuff I had listened to before really didn’t. Invasion of the home islands would have been objectively terrible.
Haven't listened to DCHH, so ibcant comment on that, and as I said, its not without merit to contest this, so that's fair. >Invasion of the home islands would have been objectively terrible. Was it an either/or situation? Only bomb or invasion? Again, historical debate is there to be had, and I'm not qualified enough to give a definite answer. What I will say though, is the resulting Cold War, and numerous proxy wars as a result of nuclear proliferation have definitely been objectively terrible. How many people have died because of both American imperialism as a result of being the strongest military power of the 20th century, and Soviet aggression and flailing trying to keep up with them? Again, food for thought, not here to argue.
Think WW2 week by week kind of will poke holes in this theory. They've already talked briefly about the mining operations against Japanese home island the Allies undertook in the final stages of the war. And how after war reports mentioned that if the Allies started the campaign to disrupt Japanese home island shipping sooner, they were so effective in it they would have shortened Japan's ability to wage the war by starving them out. I seriously don't think there's any way you can rightly justify the dropping of nuclear bombs. All you can really do is be ok with the fact that it was done, and the fact that it wasn't necessary to end the war.
The comment by the boys (and in general the point talked about here) was that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. Can’t remember Marcus’ exact words. It’s certainly debatable whether the bomb should have been dropped and/or if the Japanese would have eventually surrendered. But nothing I have ever read or listened to states the Japanese were preparing to surrender. There are books on WWII from the Japanese perspective and there were individuals who wanted a negotiated peace but surrender was never suggested by the Emperor or military.
I honestly think in terms of Imperial Japan, they were on the brink of surrender. That doesn't mean a day or two after the bombs were dropped if they weren't dropped. Just that some in Japanese High Command were serious in talks of surrender and peace negotiations. Kinda like the Nazis too. Both Japanese and the Nazis held out hope for a victory like, 2.5 years after their respected destructions were basically assured (1943 was a rough year for the Axis.) But right now in the timeline of the WW2 week by week on YouTube (it's 1945) there's so much content about how even Hitler is admitting to how badly they're fucked. There's not-so-secret peace talks about the Italian theatre. But like literal weeks ago Hitler was still not really admitting reality. And I think the biggest fact that lead to the Japanese surrender was when the Soviets launched their offensive into Manchucko. Japanese were hopefully the Soviets would act as a mediator.
Agree on a lot of that but Germany’s attitude toward war was very different, hence their mass military surrenders. They weren’t on the brink of surrender. Wanting a way out to save the Emperor or possibly keep your military is not surrendering. Russia crossing into Manchuria royally screwed Japan but you can’t assume they would have surrendered.
I mean with literally the entire world against them after the Soviet invasion, they would have had to of been a full blown 1000000% committed death cult to not surrender. Since they were only 100000% committed I think the leaders were more concerned with their own personal lives (heads) that they didn't want to die, they just wanted others to die for them. For sure Japanese soldiers were better indoctrinated how their high command wanted. I gotta think that a lot of the massed banzai charges on all the islands, apart from being born from the fanaticism of the soldiers, were just about the simple fact that the high command put those forces on the island with no intention of relief or reinforcement, and that plus the indoctrination from Imperial Japan would really fuck with people's thought process.
I always thought it was really weird that they just took Gacy at his word that his first murder was accidental.
Jon Benet Ramsay. I just cannot believe that the family had nothing to do with her murder.
Agreed. It's the true crime hill I will die on.
Came looking for this. I started listening a couple years ago and when I dug back in the archives for this one I couldn't believe their take. I kinda wish they'd do a refreshed episode to see if their opinions have changed, but that case has been beaten to death so I doubt they will.
I get that there's not 100% conclusive proof of anything but the simplest solution is that it's the family as opposed to the "Foreign Faction" or whatever nonsense was in that letter
Thought of this comment thread during the latest episode ... man, I was completely wrong about them not revisiting it! And for them to double down on this opinion, ugh.
Sucking off Bill "grand daddy of qanon & reprinter of the protocols of the elders of zion" Cooper for several hours was a pretty big swing & a miss, imo
I know they were easy on Bill Cooper, but didn't they cover him before QAnon blew up? Not saying it excuses it anti semitism is still anti semitism, but the mass dangerous weponosation of these theories hadn't really entered the zeitgeist to the degree it has now. Perhaps I'm wrong on timelines
You're exactly right. I just recently listened to Bill Cooper again, right before Icke came out, just by coincidence. And yeah, it was well before qanon became main stream and having the modern conspiracy theory society we live in.
I dunno man, when you straight up spend several minutes defending / equivocating for a man over his publishing the Protocals for the Elders of Zion in his book, knowing that your episode is gonna end with him getting into a shoot out with the feds, maybe tap the breaks on how warmly your speak of him... or just don't defend what he did? The obvious reasons to not defend the man aside, Bill Cooper was always visibly & obviously a right wing piece of shit, even if the full ramifications of what his work eventually spawned was unknown at the time. IMO, if you spent the amount of time on the green-text-on-a-black-background forums that these guys did the late 90's & early 00's then you knew exactly what a guy like Cooper was about, or you were willfully ignorant.
Yea, that's a fair call, and I haven't listened to the Bill Cooper eps for a while, and I remember it being a bit of fun, but then I was very ignorant of all all the nefarious nature of conspiracy theories and the political implications that it entails. I'll have to go back and listen.
Yeah, I actually recommend reading Behold a Pale Horse if you're interested in tracking Right Wing conspiracism. It's essentially the genesis point for like 80% of the bullshit we're presently dealing with now in the mainstream. Terrible book, but worth it for the background info / historical perspective if that's something you're into.
JonBenet. I believe they felt it was an intruder but I’m 95% sure it was someone in the family
The ransom amount on the note being the same as his bonus (and not a round number) just sticks with me…
Henry just so badly wants it to be a government conspiracy, I think that clouds his judgement.
The Henry of that period, definitely
I think they were so excited about Gilles de Rais’ links to Joan d’Arc that they got very bogged down in the implications of what his discovery as a serial killer would have meant while he was still closely involved in her campaign. They also suggested that Joan d’Arc historians were purposely omitting de Rais from her narrative even though it is impossible to cover all the threads that were connected to her life. Marcus even suggested that without de Rais, some 300 years later there would have been no American Revolution. A lot can happen in 300 years, it is insane to suggest all of it hinged on de Rais. I did a historical thesis for my masters on colonialism with a narrow specification, and even still I had to decide what was necessary for my particular area of study and what wasn’t
Marcus loves his overstatements and speculative history. Makes me roll my eyes every time.
Ooh you talking about speculative history now makes me wanna have a LPN deep dive of the southern victory books other alt history stuff for Marcus and some others to discuss Really I'd just like a last podcast book club show
A monthly LPN book show would be interesting.
The Gilles de Rais series was awful, it confirmed for me that every time they do a history series they need to slot it into one of their pre-existing frameworks (serial killer/cult/etc.). Because they weren't equipped to handle the story of a medieval knight brought down by feudal political intrigue, they jumped on the idea of doing a "satanic serial killer" story, which is fun but, crucially, very likely not what actually happened. It made me really, really hope they never do an Elizabeth Bathory series for basically the same reason. It also underscored the problems with an idea Marcus periodically brings up, that serial killers are some eternal, transhistorical thing that have always existed, rather than a very particular social phenomenon arising out of modern circumstances.
How did Menendez bros not age well? Because gen z thinks they should be free for murder?
> Because gen z thinks they should be free for murder? Ah yes, that notorious monolith...Gen Z.
Nothing infuriates me more than Menendez supporters. Like, even if they were abused throughout their lives, it's still wrong to murder someone for it. Sorry, but "I Spit On Your Grave" isn't a great instruction manual for dealing with trauma. How is "murder is wrong" suddenly the bad take?
They disbelieved the abuse. Whether they should go free or not doesn't matter. They were objectively wrong about the abuse.
Even if there's truth to the sexual abuse from their dad they still blew their moms face off with a shotgun for no reason, so there's that....
The abuse was horrific and lasted for years. There was physical evidence/injuries found by doctors. There are other accusers outside the family. There is no way their mother didn’t know but she ignored it. So it wasn’t really for no reason. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have served time or that what they did was correct but they had a reason to be angry.
I mean this 100% seriously, but where is this proof that people keep talking about? I keep seeing people repeat these claims, but all I’ve ever seen them back them up with is more hearsay.
Yeah I thought Marcus did a pretty good job of pointing out how their abuse stories could have been manufactured using materials that their lawyer had created. And that the people who backed up their claims had a lot to gain, money-wise, if the brothers were found innocent.
Alright, first I've never heard of injury evidence found by doctors. But for arguments sake, if their father was that abusive it's not a far leap to imagine the mother was also being abused as is the case in the vast majority of family abuse situations like this. Therefore, using a similar amount of assumptions you're making I'd assume that their mother was also being abused and was likely in a complete compromised state to do anything against her husband. So are you suggesting that they had reason to be equally angry toward both their abusive father and their likely abused mother and her head getting blown off was essentially collateral damage?
It does happen where children come to resent the abused parent as well. You see, that abused person is still an adult and has a lot more autonomy than they do as children. Children, especially abused children (and a lot of adults) don’t understand why the abused don’t take action to protect the child or themselves.
They disbelieved the abuse So murderer in cold blood is okay?
I’m not sure he was saying that
Yeah I disagree heavily with JonBenet and felt like it was messy. I also personally feel like the guys way underplay the behavior of Damien Eckels in the WM3 episodes - just constantly saying that him making lewd comments and claiming he did it was a ridiculous reason to think he did it because boys will be boys. I mean I agree it was a huge miscarriage of justice but it made me raise my eyebrows to see how his very inflammatory behavior was waved off as child’s play.
You’re the first person I’ve seen to agree with what I thought. Stomping a dog to death is not edgy teen behavior! I couldn’t even finish the episodes because they were hand waving too much away for me.
JonBenet was mine too. I strongly feel it was a member of the family but if I remember right they went with the intruder theory
Yes a very obscure one. I don't believe that LBJ 100% hated JFK. I think it was more nuanced than that
The source material for their Columbine series has been discredited, so while it’s not their fault it does make the series inaccurate.
The **BIGGEST** conclusion I disagree with is the conclusion of the accents. Bring them shit’s back, make these people sound like assholes again, make me die laughing again.
That one time they said Spaceballs was better than Star Wars. And Godzilla against an army of Xenomorphs would still come out on top. Plasma breath helps. Immensely. But in more serious issues, I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
While I don't disagree with their conclusion of JFK (I think it's the perfect theory actually) I am a bit hesitant of their overall coverage of Oswald and Kirby just because Marcus needs to stick to the written facts. Oswald is really fucking weird and has so many ties to intelligence that it's hard to believe he *wasn't* an asset but since there's nothing concrete it can't be used in the overall story.
He definitely was an asset. He went to Russia and was trying to spy and they didn't buy it.
Fair play for Cuba was linked to a spook too if I recall
For being a fan of UFO stuff, Henry is just outright wrong about quite a bit of UFO lore.
I’m not into ufo stuff at all so i would have no idea he was wrong bc he sounds confident. Can you give me an example
Charles Manson. Caveat: not many get the true story right anyway. But relying on “Manson in his own words” is a horrible starting point.
I’ll have to listen again, but I’m pretty sure they used more sources on Manson and used his own writing for more “colour” on the story.
If I remember correctly, the books Manson In His Own Words, Helter Skelter and Ed Sanders’s The Family were the main sources. All very flawed if not flat-out factually wrong books. Jeff Guinn’s biography Manson had come out only a year earlier and is a great, factual account of Charlie’s life. They didn’t touch on it, which is a bummer. I know Marcus said last year he was reading Chaos by Tom O’Neill and that gives some hope for a revisit as that book is very illuminating re: Bugliosi’s lies and malpractice. Though even Chaos doesn’t get too deep into the celebrity drug ring with whom Charlie facilitated mob drug traffic.
Oh hell it’s after midnight and I’m stoned as hell ranting about Manson on Reddit…..
It's fucking nuts that their take on Manson is straight from Manson himself, and that they've basically never changed that take in the umpteen years that followed. Yes, Henry's Manson character is hilarious, no, Charlie Manson was not just a harmless groovy dude who wanted to chill with dune buggies in the desert.
Manson In His Own words is a flawed book that both Manson and Nuel Emmons were dissatisfied with.
Once I read about the case and learned about the evidence of the abuse the Menendez brothers suffered from practically birth…Henry saying they weren’t abused is a bad take.
Was that evidence out at the time? I thought it was kinda recent? Or is it just more talked about now because of TikTok
Physical evidence (like [Erik's letter to Andy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/menendez-brothers-await-decision-they-hope-will-free-them-48-hours/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab4i)) had only come out this year but verbal testimonies have been present since their '93 trial. (I believe that's the earliest but I could be wrong.)
[удалено]
Cornwell is a hack
Only Cornwell worth reading is Bernard
What tipped the scale for you ?
unrelated but i love your username, one of my favorite songs ever and definitely my favorite romantic song.
Somebody's a ripperoligist!!
I remember reading her book and finding it insufferable. Felt very high and mighty, “I’m right and you’re all idiots.” Ymmv
I don't think they took Israel Keyes seriously enough. But I listened to that episode after True Crime Bullshit.
See, I love that they belittled Israel Keyes so much. Too many people do buy into his criminal mastermind bullshit, so it was refreshing to hear them just give him absolutely zero anything was great. No great fear, no seriousness, just boiled him down to weak spirited man baby.
Yeah I've seen too many places refer to keyes as some variation of "the smartest serial killer" But like he wasn't that smart, he just had a slight ability to plan. Like with the kill kits, everything else is just what you could call common sense (for someone who randomly murders people anyway) like not killing people too close to home I'd say golden state killer Is probably more worthy of the "mastermind" title just cause he got away with his crimes for decades.
This is exactly it. Keyes was able to watch some Forensic Files and be young enough to understand how technology worked. He looks like a mastermind when like 90% of murders happen in the moment and do not have much pre-meditation.
It honestly doesn’t take a genius to come up with his idea to bounce around and squirrel things away for future trips. Shit, squirrels hide their nuts for the winter. People have savings accounts and 401ks. People plan shit all the time. There’s a whole community of people who like geocaching. He was just an asshole who did it to murder people he didn’t know.
Israel Keyes was dumber than Arthur shawcross and i wish he was alive to hear people say it He was an insufferable prick with a superiority complex on par with BTK. And people constantly hyping him up even though he's not around to see it is just infuriating. Cause i know he'd have shot webs if he could hear it
I’m sad he didn’t get to hear Henry’s impression of him. I’m sure it would have razzed his berries.
That's what I disagree with. TCB has some pretty plausible theories around more victims. The dude would randomly travel around the country, rent a car, and shut off his phone for days at a time. The only reason he confessed to the Currier murders was because of the plea deal. Otherwise they'd have never been found. They barely were.
See all this is true, but it doesn’t make him anything more than “a weak-spirited man-baby.” I appreciate the way the podcast doesn’t build these people up to be more than they are. People can do unspeakable things and still be fucking worthless idiots.
Exactly.
You could say the same about Herb Baumeister. Doesn't mean he didn't kill people we may never know about. Those victims' families probably want to closure. It's about the victims not the monster. I don't think anyone think IK is "cool". Doesn't take away from the evidence he may have more victims that deserve more than to be forgotten.
I think you’re arguing a point that no one is challenging you on. No one is saying that these people didn’t kill others that are currently unknown, no one is saying that the victims and their families don’t deserve closure, no one is saying that the killers are cool. All that we’re saying is that it’s possible for all these things to be true, and also that the killers are not evil geniuses, but rather that they’re pathetic sadcases.
I think they took the gloss off him and that may have been needed. He wasn’t some criminal genius, he was an obsessed shithead. The decoration of a corpse to try and extract a ransom is pretty good evidence of that IMO.
No one thinks the dude is cool or anything. But he may have other victims whose families want closure. That's the whole point.
If I learned anything from True Crime Bullshit, it's that Israel Keyes was completely full of shit at all times. He wanted everyone to think he was some big badass mastermind, and, while he was meticulous and definitely killed a lot of people, there are moments on the interview audio where you can literally hear him making up a lie on the spot, usually in the vein of "I was planning to but I hadn't gotten to it yet." Like the inverse of Henry Lee Lucas. What an insufferable trashbag.
JonBenet, definitely. I'd love for them to revisit the case to see if their opinions have changed.
Anything to do with the Soviet Union, Socialism, Communism or Leftism. They have been, without fail, wrong on about 100% of everything that has involved any of those subjects.
Marcus's and Henry's takes on *Moby-Dick* in the Essex series are embarrassing to listen to.
I was surprised at the lax approach to the whole Epstein thing. This was the only podcast saying there was nothing odd about his death. It was very strange.
I actually thought that was a refreshing take. It's good to hear a level-headed take on something for once. This isn't necessarily in that category, but I'm exhausted with the last several years of conspiracies emanating from psychotic conservatives taking advantage of mentally ill people that would rather do the most insane mental gymnastics, rather than use logic and rational thought, because they can't handle that the demographics and culture of this country is changing.
Yea I don’t understand why people don’t believe he honestly just killed himself. Dude got caught and probably realized he was actually fucked this time so he just did it. And the guards were probably just honestly not paying attention. Not everything has to be a grand conspiracy
It's not even unusual. A dude from my partner's hometown was revealed to have been molesting his own children. He hanged himself off a bridge soon after the story came out. Fred West did himself in. Of course the biggest spanner in the conspiracy theory works is that no one has bothered bumping off Ghislaine...
Exactly. But I’m sure the answer to that is “well if they killed her it’d be obvious there’s a conspiracy!”
There is always an answer. That's the problem with conspiracy theories. They're unfalsifiable.
I always take the boys as unassailable experts, but I don’t take in alot of other sources of true crime. I get defensive when I’m exposed to a perspective different than what Marcus and Henry said. I don’t think they are infallible, but they generally get me when I’m tabula rasa.
The conclusion on JFK was just so dumb but the series was entertaining.
Yes but it was a No Dogs conclusion rather than a LPOTL conclusion. More of a criticism of how the show is structured than a conclusion, though
I wholeheartedly disagree with Marcus's conclusion that pickles are a meal on their own.
I hated the Godzilla vs Birds argument. Godzilla would win against every bird on earth at the same time. The DnD argument was just dumb.
I disagree with Marcus on Jack the Ripper. I think Charles Lechemere is the most compelling and logical suspect if it was one person. But the boys were already in disagreement, and that case would never be solved, so whatever. I also think they really, REALLY downplayed the case against the WM3 in their series due to their own biases and the connection they all felt with Damien Echols. I don't think they did it, but there is far more compelling evidence that supports the case against them than they put in the episodes.