Official Lone Nut Thread

[Galileo]

Official Lone Nut Thread

Hello out there. I'm an avid reader of history. Among what I read, I don't neglect ancient history or the Middle Ages. Things like Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire and stuff like that.

OK, I need a little help.

In modern times, since 1800, here are several major political leaders who were killed, or attempted to be killed according to offical or standard histories, via a "lone nut":

Spencer Perceval (1812)
Andrew Jackson (1835)

[note that Lincoln is not included. His killer was a nut, but not a lone nut]

James Garfield (1881)
William McKinley (1901)
Ted Roosevelt (1912)
Huey Long (1935)
JFK (1963)
MLK (1968)
RFK (1968)
George Wallace (1972)
Ronald Reagan (1981)
Anthrax Attacks (2001)

There may be more that I have overlooked.

Now here is what I am getting to. Among the annals of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Royal Courts of Europe, and the Popes, I can't recall a single "lone nut" assassination among the hundreds that have taken place prior to 1800.

QUESTION:

Can anyone find a "lone nut" assassination prior to 1800?

The only possible one that comes to mind is the assassination of Philip of Macedon (Alexander the Great's father), but I'm not sure that standard histories call this a lone nut, or a plot involving others including Alexander's mom.

:downspin:

[DarrinS]

JFK was killed by a lone nut.

[LnGrrrR]

Are we counting Brutus stabbing Ceasar?

[DarrinS]

Ironically, lone nuts tend to be paranoid, delusional, and believe in conspiracies.

[Galileo]

Are we counting Brutus stabbing Ceasar?

Brutus was part of a plot, he wasn't a lone nut.

[Galileo]

JFK was killed by a lone nut.

He is already on the list. Do you have any examplesa prior to 1800?

[Galileo]

Ironically, lone nuts tend to be paranoid, delusional, and believe in conspiracies.

That's great. Can you name any lone nuts that pulled off an assassination prior to 1800?

[Stump]

Is there some point you're trying to make?

[Stringer_Bell]

Is there some point you're trying to make?

Shhhhhhh. That comes at the "twist ending" when he reveals that there's a conspiracy behind the lack of conspiracy regarding these "modern" lone-nut assassins.

*SPOILER* I assume the twist is that in "modern" times it's easier to cover up plots and blame it on one dude, whereas people couldn't do that back in the day (pre-1800s).

[Galileo]

Is there some point you're trying to make?

You figure it out, you're the expert.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

You figure it out, you're the expert.

:lmaoIt's your thread. Why are you parrying requests for clarification? I think I see where your rhetorical questions are leading, but maybe somebody else wants you to supply the inference for them. It's afair enough request, don't you think?

Give your own take, on your own thread, in your own words?

[Galileo]

It's your thread. Why are you parrying requests for clarification? I think I see where your rhetorical questions are leading, but maybe somebody else wants you to supply the inference for them. It's afair enough request, don't you think?

Give your own take, on your own thread, in your own words?

The so-called "lone nuts" after 1800 aren't really lone nuts.

[Winehole23]

What about before?

[Galileo]

What about before?

None have been found. Thousands of political assassinations prior to 1800, and not one by a "lone nut".

[Winehole23]

Seems like you were getting all stompy about that for a minute.

[Winehole23]

None have been found. Thousands of political assassinations prior to 1800, and not one by a "lone nut".Surely the annals of history make note of the unanimity about this somewhere. DO tell, profe. Quit holding back on us.

[Galileo]

Surely the annals of history make note of the unanimity about this somewhere. DO tell, profe. Quit holding back on us.

That's what we are checking here. Can anyone find a lone nut prior to 1800?

[Winehole23]

Why is that my job? I'm not a student of antique "true crime." Aren't you the supposed expert on that? Again, there are gaps in the narrative....it's your job to fill them, not mine.

I'm aware that you assume a universal negative, but you didn't show us your sums. Instead you taunted us all to defy the *truth* of what you say.

Bravo, profe.

[Winehole23]

(clink)

[bigzak25]

Judas Iscariot

[baseline bum]

If there was only something that became accessible to people in the 1800s that made assassinations easy...

[Def Rowe]

Ironically, lone nuts tend to be paranoid, delusional, and believe in conspiracies.

I admit, that's pretty funny.


If there was only something that became accessible to people in the 1800s that made assassinations easy...

That's a pretty good one too.
:lol

[Galileo]

You debunkers are lame. You can't find a single assassination attempt, or actual assassination prior to 1750 committed by a "lone nut".

Pathetic!

Securty wasn't as good in the Middle Ages as it is now, either. Find one or shut up!!

[Galileo]

Judas Iscariot

Iscariot wasn't a loner. He was working with the Romans. He didn't kill anybody either. Nor was he a nut, he got paid 30 pieces of silver.

[bigzak25]

Iscariot wasn't a loner. He was working with the Romans. He didn't kill anybody either. Nor was he a nut, he got paid 30 pieces of silver.

Whether he was a loner is a matter of perspective.

He was the lone wolf among the apostles.

He sold his soul for those 30 pieces of silver, and he did kill someone directly...himself.

What is your definition of a 'nut'?

[Galileo]

Whether he was a loner is a matter of perspective.

He was the lone wolf among the apostles.

He sold his soul for those 30 pieces of silver, and he did kill someone directly...himself.

What is your definition of a 'nut'?

Definition of "lone nut" for purposes of this thread:

* the assassin must be acting alone

* the assassin must be a crazy person whose attack is irrational and doesn't advance his or her supposed big picture political goals

* the assassin must not be an insider

* the target of the assassin must be a significant political leader

* the version of the assassin's story must be the standard or official history of the event. In other words, if the authority figures of the time believe the assassin was part of a conspiracy, then the assassin is not a "lone nut".

[Winehole23]

You debunkers are lame. You can't find a single assassination attempt, or actual assassination prior to 1750 committed by a "lone nut".This thread is lame. I blame you.



Securty wasn't as good in the Middle Ages as it is now, either. Find one or shut up!!Nobody wanted the prize. I'm not surprised.

:wakeup

[LnGrrrR]

None have been found. Thousands of political assassinations prior to 1800, and not one by a "lone nut".

One point to bring up is that, in order to assassinate someone before 1800, it would require getting relatively close to that person. Once guns became more prevalent, it greatly reduced the need to get close enough to assassinate someone. (Who knows though, maybe there were some bow-and-arrow assassinations :lol)

[Wild Cobra]

QUESTION:

Can anyone find a "lone nut" assassination prior to 1800?

You have to remember. There was no media or communications like today. I think it would be safe to assume such lone nuts existed and acted back then also.