When we talk about the 10 reasons why ninja have become the ultimate puzzle of history, we’re really diving into a world of shadowy tactics, whispered legends, and deliberate secrecy. The Japanese shadow‑warriors of the 15th and 16th centuries were masters of stealth, combat, and infiltration—collectively known as ninjutsu—and they guarded their knowledge with a ferocity that still mystifies scholars today.

Understanding the 10 reasons why the ninja stay mysterious

10 People Got It Wrong Then, Too

Ninja were widely employed in the 15th and 16th centuries. A common misconception was that ninja were in direct opposition to samurai. Often, ninja and samurai would fight on the same side of the battlefield. Ninja were everywhere, hired in the household of any lord worth his salt.

As they became more important in national events, the rumors about them grew. They were said to be able to vanish into thin air. They moved as silently as ghosts. They could read an opponent’s mind. Some of the growing rumors were true. Many were not.

There was no time when ninja were accurately understood, outside of the ninja themselves. If anything, ninja were even more mired in superstition than they are now. People believed they possessed supernatural powers, almost akin to superheroes.

For such a large force of people, the lies about them in the 16th century were widely successful. It’s difficult to detail how much information has been lost due to the great superstition they inspired in people around them.

9 Ninja Encouraged The Rumors

Ninja did little to halt the rumors that were raising them to near legendary status. In fact, they encouraged the rumors. The elevated prowess of ninja did not begin in the 20th century, but at the time, the ninja were at their peak.

They used these tales as methods of intimidation and misdirection. Their dark reputation discouraged many enemies and would‑be invaders, making the ninja seem larger‑than‑life. Wildly inaccurate rumors helped them conceal their true practices.

Written documentation didn’t shed conclusive light on the ninja, either. Authors were given to adding ninja powers to biographies to liven up their writing. Tales of ninja exploits were often embellished and portrayed as historically accurate. It makes sifting fact from fiction difficult to this day.

8 They Were Raised In Isolation

This refers to the isolated province of Iga. Ninja were hard to measure in terms of numbers and location, but all agreed that the bulk of the Japanese ninja resided in Iga. It had a nigh perfect defense.

Iga was ringed by mountains, with narrow passageways as the only access. It was defensible by a smaller number of men. It gave ninja a way to live unrecognized before they went into the outside world. No information conclusively points to when Iga became the center of ninjutsu, but it could have been several centuries before the ninja’s downfall.

That downfall came about only with overwhelming force. Oda Nobunaga’s son Oda Nobukatsu ruled the Ise province, but he was enamored with the idea of adding Iga to his domain. He entered Iga, where he began to build a castle for the base of attack.

The ninja burned it down before it was completed. Humiliated, the young Nobukatsu tried to invade with a force 8,000 strong. The ninja used the terrain to ambush him, killing hundreds and possibly thousands with minimal losses to their side. Nobukatsu was forced to retreat and face his father’s wrath for his foolish venture.

When two Iga ninja approached Oda Nobunaga with inside intelligence, he took a force of over 40,000 and invaded Iga. He split his forces into six armies that invaded six passageways at once, crushing the Iga ninja with brute force. Their mass solitude was at an end, but they still carried their teachings.

7 The Art Of Ninjutsu Was Not Greatly Recorded

Ninjutsu teachings were passed down by teachers who demonstrated the ninjutsu rather than wrote it down. It was only during peacetime that some older ninja would write accounts of their ninjutsu. Many more held it in secrecy.

Today, several families claim that they are descendants of ninja who learned from earlier generations by practical teachings, not writing. There has yet to be evidence for this. But it remains a fact that learning ninjutsu through writing was often entirely omitted from the education of future ninja.

Samurai followed a strict code. However, ninja had a philosophy of totality. This belief encompasses the idea that the universe has a balance and people are part of that balance. There is good and bad, warm and cold, and an awareness of this was essential to the ninja.

Such a wider kind of morality called for the ninja to learn from his master formally but also train in what he found most useful. Anything useful could be used regardless of Bushido (“the way of the warrior”). So it freely changed from generation to generation, making it all the more difficult to track.

6 There Were Countless Versions Of Ninjutsu

The teachings differed among the various schools of ninjutsu, which emphasized different aspects of the ninja. There is a story about a governor named Bakkansai Jotei who assaulted a rebel holed up in the castle of Sawayama.

When the mountainous terrain foiled his assaults, he called for a ninja named Dojun to find a way to breach the castle. Dojun responded by gathering 48 men. He infiltrated the castle and set fire to it.

While they burned and killed from the inside, Jotei led an assault from the outside and the castle fell. The 48 ninja split off into 48 schools of ninjutsu, almost all of them centered in Iga.

Countless schools of ninjutsu were located in Iga. Some emphasized the art of combat, while others emphasized the art of stealth. These different schools have made it difficult for even honest ninja biographers to give an authoritative account on ninja.

They are often biased by their ideals and skills and project them onto other schools. Historians have often tried to find the true overarching beliefs among ninja rather than ones specific to a select few.

5 They Were Secretive Toward Each Other

Ninja kept their teachings secret from outsiders. They even hid their teachings from other schools. Secrecy was not considered an insult. It was a way of life for the people who practiced the art of deception, espionage, and infiltration.

They had a system of rank that would support this anonymity. There were three ranks in the household: Genin, Chunin, and Jonin. The Jonin were the masters, relaying orders to the others. Chunin were proxies. They carried out the order of their Jonin and also protected their identity. Not even Genin were aware.

Genin were the normal ninja, the ones who went out to do the work. While this is a simplified way of putting it, the ranking system certainly supported anonymity even within the same group of ninja.

4 They Kept Their Skills Within The Family

Enemies would try to infiltrate ninja schools to learn their teachings. For this reason, many ninja passed down their skills through the family. Only family members were eligible. Therefore, children were born into the trade.

They were taught at a young age, comparable to the early training of the samurai. The children would train in such things as flips, kicks, and stealthy movements. It would be disguised as a game. If he was deemed worthy, the child would go on to train as a ninja. By passing it through the family, secrecy and loyalty were assured.

3 Ninja Did Not Seem Like Ninja

Ninja are portrayed as warriors dressed in black with masks over their faces. There has been no historical account, though, mentioning the use of masks. And the black outfits that look so conspicuous in modern times were normal garb in that era.

Still, many thought that ninja had some standard attire, just as samurai did. However, that was a warrior’s outfit. Ninja spent most of their time in normal civilian clothing.

To live among the people, they would blend in. They would pretend to be samurai, masterless samurai, or hermits. It was a ninja art to learn several skills outside of ninjutsu to convincingly fit a role. Knowing the culture, the hairstyles, and the mannerisms was as much—and more—a part of their infiltration techniques.

Tokugawa Ieyasu employed ninja as bodyguards. Instead of having them wear the attire of ninja, he had them masquerade as gardeners. It gave them a reason to stay close, moving through the palace grounds.

Their status also helped them remain obscure. Ninja could be anyone, such as nobility. Yet they could also be peasants. The sickle and chain was a tool partially inspired from their practice to convert farm implements into weaponry.

They did unheard of things such as make women warriors (kunoichi). They would sometimes use agents such as the young, the weak, or the dumb. Using such low tactics was unheard of by the samurai, and many cases of ninja went undetected during that era.

2 Modern Records Are Inaccurate

During the early 20th century, the ninja craze was rekindled. It would eventually move to Western lore. Authors penned historical accounts of ninja. Unfortunately, many were enthusiasts or hacks given over to dramatizing the ninja. Therefore, many inaccurate accounts of the history and skills of ninja exist.

The ninja hype of the 1950s and ’60s has also obscured the truth about ninja. Some “misconceptions” about ninja are blatantly impossible, but a few widely held misconceptions have even fooled authors.

In the past few years, new efforts have been put into trying to separate the lies from the truth. Part of this renewal of interest is because texts written by Japanese ninja have been translated into English.

Yet both old and new accounts differ. Some will claim that all ninja had a strong moral code, while others will claim that they had none. One will speak of throwing stars (which the ninja didn’t use) or how ninja didn’t use explosives (which they did). But there is a reason that the future of ninja lore will never be solved.

1 We Enjoy The Fictional Ninja More

This is the greatest reason why ninja will always remain history. Do people truly want to unravel the mystery of the ninja? Thousands of more accurate accounts exist, but they’re largely contradictory due to misconceptions that exist even within nonfiction.

The public at large is far more interested in the version of ninja they widely acknowledge as myth. They’re the ninja Bruce Lee is chopping down. They’re the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

A multitude of fictional renditions of ninja exist, and the truth is that people would much sooner watch a ninja movie than watch a historical film about ninja. We’ve accepted being lied to, but would the ninja of the past mind it?

They would likely consider it a greater tragedy if their mystique was conclusively unraveled.

Kellie is a list enthusiast who works as a freelancer. Follow her on Twitter.

Everyone has dreamed of fame at some point, and the top 10 people in this roundup prove that stardom can arrive from the most ordinary corners of life. From sharing a name with a superstar to vanishing without a trace, these individuals illustrate that you don’t need a Hollywood contract to become a household name.

While a tiny sliver of humanity scales the glittering peaks of celebrity, the majority of us wander the middle ground, living everyday lives. Yet, occasionally, an unremarkable moment or a simple quirk catapults an ordinary person into the global spotlight. Below, we explore ten such stories, each a testament to how the mundane can become magnificent.

Why These Top 10 People Captivate Us

10 People Who Share Names With Celebrities

Imagine the sheer ordinariness of simply being given a name at birth, only to discover that the same moniker belongs to a global superstar. No talent, training, or tireless hustle required—just a birth certificate. Many high‑profile personalities tweak their names for catchier branding, but every now and then a celebrity’s name is so commonplace that it inadvertently drags ordinary folks into the limelight.

Take Taylor Swift, the chart‑topping pop icon, as an example. There’s also a male photographer from Seattle named Taylor Swift who fields an avalanche of misdirected emails—including unsolicited nude photos—believing they’re reaching the singer. He’s far from alone; individuals named Taylor Swift, Matthew Broderick, or even Donald Trump have all been bombarded with well‑meaning but misguided remarks. Those sharing these famous names are often asked to tolerate jokes that feel stale, because, in truth, they’re not as original as the jokesters think.

9 People Who Became Memes

To err is human, and the digital age has turned that simple truth into a fast‑track to fame. A single, quirky snapshot can explode across the internet, turning an average person into a viral sensation overnight. Some memes celebrate an astonishingly photogenic stranger, while others lampoon an everyday suburban mom caught in an awkward moment.

The internet’s endless scroll provides a stage for accidental stardom. Whether the image is flattering or cringe‑worthy, the jokes typically target the picture, not the person behind it. The key takeaway? Keep a sense of humor, mute those push notifications, and remember that fame via memes is as fleeting as the next trending hashtag.

8 John Doe

John or Jane Doe isn’t a real individual but a collective placeholder for an unidentified person. Its origins trace back to medieval legal loopholes, where landowners needed a generic name to evict tenants or squatters without entangling themselves in prolonged court battles. The earliest recorded use of “John Doe” dates to the 13th century.

In legal dramas, John Doe often appears as the plaintiff, with “Richard Roe” as the opposing defendant. The names themselves are steeped in symbolism: a “doe” is a female deer, while a “roe” is a species of deer common to Britain. Over time, “John Doe” has become synonymous with anonymity, representing anyone whose identity is concealed or unknown, such as in the landmark case Roe v. Wade.

7 Jimmy Hoffa

One of America’s most enduring mysteries revolves around the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, the charismatic leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters from 1958 to 1971. Known for his gritty tactics and alleged mob connections, Hoffa vanished in 1975 after an alleged rendezvous with two Mafia bosses.

The case quickly spiraled into a labyrinth of speculation, with investigators even resorting to hypnosis on suspects and witnesses in a desperate bid to locate the missing union boss. The timing of his disappearance coincided with the cultural surge of “The Godfather” franchise, which amplified public fascination and turned Hoffa’s vanishing act into a pop‑culture punchline.

Comedy shows like SNL seized on the mystery, using Hoffa as a shorthand for anything “missing” or “hard to find.” Over the decades, countless urban legends have surfaced, each claiming insider knowledge of Hoffa’s fate. The endless stream of theories underscores a simple truth: sometimes, the most straightforward way to become famous is simply to disappear.

6 Elizabeth Swaney

The Olympic Games have long been a showcase for elite athletes, where mediocrity rarely earns a spot on the podium. Yet, in the 2018 Winter Olympics, Elizabeth Swaney turned the notion of “average” on its head with a surprisingly modest performance in women’s half‑pipe skiing.

Initially, commentators struggled to understand how someone with such an unremarkable skill set could qualify for the Games. Swaney’s answer was a clever exploitation of the qualification system: unable to compete for the United States, she opted to represent Hungary—her grandparents’ birthplace—thereby widening her pathway to the Olympics.

Her strategy required merely staying upright and avoiding crashes, accumulating enough points to secure a berth. CBS Sports’ Pete Blackburn summed it up perfectly: Swaney “scammed the system to achieve her life goals while doing the absolute bare minimum.” The International Olympic Committee is now reviewing the loophole, but Swaney’s story proves that even the most average aspirations can land on the world’s biggest stage.

5 Joe The Plumber

Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber,” shot to national prominence during the heated 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. After asking then‑candidate Barack Obama about his proposed tax plan, Republican frontrunner John McCain seized on the moment, casting Joe as the archetypal hardworking American who would supposedly suffer under Obama’s policies.

Joe quickly became the emblem of conservative America, though the spotlight also revealed a less glamorous reality: he worked as an unlicensed plumber. Uncomfortable with the sudden fame, he later secured a union position with Chrysler Group LLC. The political spotlight faded, and Joe eventually distanced himself from McCain, labeling the former senator’s use of his image as a “ploy.” His journey underscores how the average citizen can become a symbol—whether willingly or not—of broader political narratives.

4 William Hung

Most people love to sing—whether in the shower, on a karaoke night, or just humming along to a favorite tune. Yet, despite lacking the vocal chops to become a professional crooner, William Hung’s unforgettable audition for American Idol catapulted him into the pop‑culture stratosphere.

When Hung belted Ricky Martin’s “She Bangs,” his earnest, off‑key performance drew both bewilderment and admiration. Judge Simon Cowell famously remarked that Hung couldn’t sing or dance, to which Hung replied, “I already gave my best, and I have no regrets at all.” The other judges, sensing his genuine spirit, applauded his candor, and the audience embraced him as a lovable underdog.

Critics argued that Hung’s fame hinged on mockery and stereotypical portrayals of Asian Americans, but Hung himself embraced the attention, insisting it wasn’t malicious. Today, he works as a statistical analyst for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, looking back fondly on his brief, bright flash of fame and the quirky legacy he left behind.

3 Colin Holmes

Colin Holmes isn’t a household name, but his brain certainly is. Back in his graduate‑student days at age 28, Colin volunteered to lie perfectly still for twenty‑seven ten‑minute MRI scans, creating a high‑resolution composite image of his own brain—a feat that was far from routine when MRI technology was still a premium resource.

This composite, dubbed “Colin 27” or “Average Colin,” quickly became a gold standard in neuroimaging research. Over 800 scholarly articles have featured his brain image, providing a reliable reference for countless studies. Despite the widespread use of his brain scan, Colin receives no royalties and remains largely unknown outside academic circles.

When he turned 52, Colin underwent another MRI to compare his current brain with the legendary “Colin 27.” Relieved to find his brain still in good shape, he quipped, “I think I’ve got some time left.” So the next time you peruse a brain scan in a journal, you might just be looking at Colin’s contribution to science.

2 Mario Mendoza

If you’ve ever tuned into a baseball broadcast, you’ve probably heard the phrase “below the Mendoza Line,” a shorthand for sub‑par performance. The term honors former Seattle Mariners shortstop Mario Mendoza, whose career batting average settled neatly at .200—a benchmark that has since become synonymous with mediocrity.

The nickname originated in the clubhouse, where teammates jokingly coined the expression to describe Mendoza’s struggles at the plate. It gained mainstream traction after baseball legend George Brett referenced it in a post‑game interview, asking reporters to check the paper for players hovering around the “Mendoza Line.”

Today, the phrase transcends baseball, entering everyday language to denote any borderline performance. Mario Mendoza’s modest statistics have, paradoxically, earned him a permanent place in sports lexicon, forever marking the line between competence and mediocrity.

1 Adolphe Quetelet

Understanding what “average” truly means would be impossible without the pioneering work of Adolphe Quetelet. A 19th‑century astronomer turned statistician, Quetelet was the first to apply the concept of the statistical average to human populations, laying the groundwork for modern social science.

During the Belgian Revolution, Quetelet’s observatory was seized, prompting him to redirect his analytical mind toward human data. He amassed a massive collection of measurements—height, weight, age at marriage—from government records across Europe, then calculated the mean values to describe the “average” human.

One of his most enduring legacies is the creation of the body‑mass index (BMI), a tool still used worldwide to assess health. Yet Quetelet’s notion of “average” differed from today’s casual use; for him, the average represented the closest approximation to an ideal, a near‑perfect value derived from rigorous calculation.

In a whimsical aside, George Wilson, a Florida resident, often sits beneath his orange tree contemplating the ordinary wonders of life. As he prepares for fatherhood with his partner and tends to his two pampered cats, Wilson embodies the very spirit of Quetelet’s “average”—everyday, yet profoundly significant.

10 reasons real: Ever since the revelation that Tyrannosaurus rex (T-rex) may have had feathers, most people seem to have built up a knee‑jerk reaction to phrases like “scientifically accurate,” as though learning any more about the tyrant lizard king would ruin their childhood memories of big, scaly, tail‑dragging monsters. A more accurate vision of T‑rex, the logic goes, could only be less interesting—less “cool”—than its fictional counterparts.

10 reasons real: The terrifying facts you didn’t see on screen

10 There Were No Booming Footfalls To Warn Of Its Approach

As dramatic as that scene in Jurassic Park is, a real T‑rex wouldn’t make an Earth‑shaking boom noise with every footfall. To the contrary, as famed paleontologist Robert Bakker (aka that awesome bearded guy from every dinosaur documentary ever) explained, dinosaurs’ feet were mostly soft on the underside.

They didn’t stomp down; they stepped lightly with cushioned feet. Bakker compares this with the modern experience of African elephants walking through someone’s camp at night. If not for the footprints, no one would ever have known they were there.

Plus, it just makes sense: T‑rex was a carnivore, after all. If it wanted to catch its prey, it wouldn’t do much good for it to stomp around sounding like a car with the bass cranked too high. It had to be sneaky if it wanted its supper, which dovetails nicely into our next point.

9 They Could Be Eerily Quiet When They Wanted To

The echoing roar of the movies is pretty unlikely, as a study by paleontologist Julia Clarke revealed. Crocodiles, the closest living relatives of dinosaurs after birds, produce sound either through their larynx or not at all. The effect is more like a demonic burp than a lion’s roar. It’s possible the same could have been true with T‑rex.

In her study, Clarke suggests most dinosaurs probably cooed, hissed, or bellowed with low‑frequency noises. This noisemaking would likely have been limited to threat displays or mating calls, not hunting.

The last thing a predator stalking prey wants to do is scare it away with excess noise. If a carnivore wants to eat, it has to know when to shut up, and T‑rex would have been no different. The common “roar and then charge” scene in many a dinosaur documentary is thus debunked.

8 They Had Keen Eyesight

Contrary to what many of us heard growing up, the oft‑repeated line from Jurassic Park about tyrannosaur vision being based on movement is complete fiction. Not only could T‑rex see prey regardless of whether its quarry was holding still, but according to some scientists, T‑rex could have had vision superior to many modern animals—humans included.

The DinoMorph project, headed by Research Professor Kent Stevens, used computer visualizations of dinosaur heads to reveal information about the brains—and sensory perceptions—of different species.

Based on this information, Stevens estimates the T‑rex had visual acuity similar to a hawk’s. It could make out objects from up 6 kilometers (3.7 mi) away (much farther than a human can), had better‑than‑average depth perception, and could most likely see in color. In other words, T‑rex could see you before you saw it.

Its vision was far from the only sensory weapon in its arsenal, however.

7 They Had An Excellent Sense Of Smell

T‑rex’s status as an opportunistic predator (meaning it ate pretty much any meat it could find, dead or alive) meant it had to rely on more than sight to find food. Luckily, its olfactory bulbs were grapefruit‑sized, giving it a powerful sense of smell to help it track down carrion or prey animals, particularly at night.

It’s not hard to see why fiction has to cheat here. Jurassic Park would have been a much shorter movie if the T‑rex’s sniffer was at full power. Even taking for granted the already debunked movement‑based vision, the second the rex’s nose brushed up against Sam Neil’s hat, it would have been game over.

6 Speed Wasn’t As Much Of A Factor As You Might Think

This is where we might be tempted to rest easy. Even if T‑rex was as perceptive as the latest research suggests, surely an animal that size couldn’t move as quickly as pop culture would have us believe?

Admittedly, T‑rex probably wasn’t the fastest dinosaur. Scientists have suggested a creature that size (the largest skeleton found thus far is 12 meters [40 ft] from head to tail) most likely couldn’t sprint at 51 kilometers per hour (32 mph) as it does in Jurassic Park. Conservative estimates suggest a max speed around 19 kilometers per hour (12 mph).

This doesn’t seem like much, but remember: It didn’t need to be the fastest; it only needed to be faster than whatever it was chasing. Most humans can only get up to 24 or so kilometers per hour (15 mph), and since we’ve already established that this thing can sneak up on you . . .

5 Its Bite Force Was Unreal

This animal’s bite force was so insanely, stupidly strong that it’s actually hard to put into words how powerful it was. It was so strong, in fact, that it turns out that scientists have been underselling it. As revealed when researchers used computer models to recalculate the probable biomechanics of its bite, T‑rex’s jaws packed a monster of a punch.

It’s believed the animal could snap its jaws (filled with banana‑sized serrated teeth, let’s remember) shut with about 5,800 kilograms (12,800 lb) of force. That gives it the most powerful bite force of any land animal ever.

Again, it’s understandable why this isn’t portrayed accurately in most movies. With a single bite obliterating anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the T‑rex’s mouth, the bit from Jurassic Park where the T‑rex eats the lawyer would have earned the film an R rating. No need to swing him around like a dog with a chew toy, either; a single chomp would more than do the job.

4 They Might Have Occasionally Hunted In Groups

Fossilized footprints resembling T‑rex have been found in groups of three, all going in the same direction. According to a paper published by paleontologists on PLOS One, this suggests the animals might have occasionally hunted in groups of up to three individuals.

It’s unknown exactly why this behavior would have occurred, since T‑rex has generally been considered a solitary animal, but one thing is clear: Even if a prey animal managed to escape a single T‑rex, sometimes there could have been two more waiting to pounce just over the next hill.

3 Even Its Arms Were Nothing To Sneeze At

The tiny‑armed T‑rex is a joke told so often that even repeating it is tiresome, but the question remains: if T‑rex was so fearsome, why did it have such wimpy arms? As it turns out, it didn’t.

Paleontologist Jack Conrad’s study of the muscle connection points on the often‑mocked puny arms revealed that they packed a major punch for their size. How much? Conrad estimates the bicep alone could curl something to the tune of 195 kilograms (430 lb).

2 They Might Have Hunted Via Triceratops‑Tipping

This one seems like it must be a joke; the very term “triceratops‑tipping” conjures images of a group of drunken teenage tyrannosaurs hopping a fence and taking a running leap at a bunch of cows.

If a theory published in 2013 is correct, though, that might be more or less what happened. T‑rexes got the chance to use those small but powerful arms in their premier anti‑triceratops strategy: ambushing the poor herbivores from the side, slamming into them, and using their surprisingly beefy arms to flip the hornheads on their sides.

That’s right: T‑rex might have employed what was essentially cow‑tipping in order to hunt. As a heavy quadruped, even the formidable triceratops would be up a creek in this position. Even if the fall didn’t injure it (and it likely would), the T‑rex taking chunks out of its now exposed belly would be all she wrote.

It makes sense, despite how absurd it seems. Since we’ve already established that chasing prey down was rarely an option, and since attacking a trike’s horned face head‑on was a risky proposition at best, ambushing them from the side and pushing them over could have been a viable hunting strategy.

It might be less epic than the titanic clashes that populate dinosaur picture books, but it certainly makes the T‑rex seem more formidable.

1 They Changed Radically As They Grew

Baby dinosaurs are cute, as thousands of plushies will attest. It seems hard to imagine that an animal less than two years old could be a threat, but according to an analysis of dinosaur fossils by paleontologist Jack Horner, fossil specimens previously considered separate species may have been the same species at different stages of growth.

If accurate, an animal called Nanotyrannus—previously thought to be a kind of pygmy T‑rex—could actually be a juvenile of the larger Tyrannosaurs rex.

The picture this paints of T‑rex is that of a dinosaur that changed radically as it grew. The younger animals would have been faster and more agile, able to chase down smaller (say, human‑sized) prey that the adults would have had trouble catching. The adults, meanwhile, could stick to scavenging . . . or trike‑tipping.

This one ruins the baby T‑rex rescue from Lost World. Even with a broken leg, an infant T‑rex would have no problem taking a chunk (or three) out of Vince Vaughn, and a belt around the mouth would have been unlikely to stop it.

So, in review: T‑rex more than earned its fearsome reputation, feathers or not. It may not match all of our expectations, but in some cases, it outright shatters them.

When headlines scream about the looming threat of a nuclear showdown, it’s easy to feel doom‑laden. Yet, if we examine the science, we can uncover 10 reasons why a nuclear war could unexpectedly turn out to be a catalyst for positive change on our planet.

10 Reasons Why This Conflict Might Have Unexpected Benefits

1. Extinction Events Are Ironically Good For Life

Every few tens of millions of years, a mass extinction event sweeps away the majority of Earth’s living creatures. After each cataclysm, the survivors evolve into more intricate and diverse forms, spawning a burst of biodiversity never seen before.

Scientific records reveal at least five major extinction episodes in Earth’s history, and we appear to be on the brink of the sixth. These events are not random disasters; they are integral chapters in the planet’s biological narrative.

In essence, extinction is an inevitable part of life’s cycle. Roughly 250 million years ago, climate change wiped out three‑quarters of species. Yet, as we have already discussed, life will persist and adapt even after a nuclear war. So, a nuclear conflict would simply accelerate the next natural extinction, paving the way for fresh evolutionary chapters.

Brian is an economy student who is passionate about graphic design and an avid enthusiast of the art of writing.

2. Creation Of New Elements

While 118 elements grace the periodic table, many of them are absent from nature, existing only as fleeting products of nuclear reactions. Nuclear detonations can forge traces of these exotic, trans‑uranic elements, some of which already have practical applications.

Take Californium, for instance: it powers metal detectors, aids oil exploration, and even serves as a cancer‑treatment agent. Americium, another by‑product, finds its way into household smoke detectors and is eyed as a potential space‑fuel candidate.

A worldwide nuclear clash could generate copious amounts of such rare elements, handing surviving humanity a treasure trove to accelerate technological progress and recoup the scientific setbacks inflicted by war.

3. A Second Chance For Humankind

First, humanity will not be entirely wiped out. Nuclear weapons tend to concentrate their devastation in relatively compact zones, meaning the most massive bombs won’t necessarily erase entire continents.

Moreover, history shows that survivorship is possible even at astonishingly close ranges. A person survived the Hiroshima blast while standing just 170 meters from ground zero. In a full‑scale war, primary targets would be major cities, leaving countless smaller settlements untouched and populated.

Albert Einstein once warned that a fourth world war might be fought “with sticks and stones.” That grim prophecy could become a reality, forcing the remnants of our species to rebuild from the ashes, learn from past follies, and pursue a more sustainable path.

In this way, nuclear war could act as a harsh but effective population reset, offering a fresh start for humanity to evolve beyond the destructive habits that led us to the brink.

4. Eco‑Friendly Nuclear Lightning

Human industry releases staggering amounts of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere—gases that erode the ozone layer and contribute to climate change. Interestingly, lightning can break down these toxic molecules at the molecular level.

Nuclear detonations generate massive, mushroom‑cloud‑induced lightning. The intense heat and pressure ionize surrounding air, creating powerful electrical discharges that mimic natural thunderstorms.

Should hundreds of warheads explode, the cumulative lightning would modestly reduce atmospheric CFC concentrations. Though the effect would be minor, it would still represent a net positive shift compared to the status quo.

5. Improvement Of The Ozone Layer

The ozone shield, stretching 10–50 km above us, guards life from harmful ultraviolet radiation. A nuclear blast initially spews nitric oxide, which briefly tears apart ozone molecules, thinning the protective layer.

However, at lower altitudes, that same nitric oxide reacts with hydrocarbons to synthesize fresh ozone in large quantities. These newly formed ozone molecules ascend with the mushroom cloud, eventually reaching the stratosphere.

Over time, this process can replenish the ozone balance, boosting tropospheric ozone levels. The result? A sturdier shield that shields surface life from UV damage while also exerting a modest cooling effect on global temperatures.

6. Prevention Of Mega‑Earthquakes

When tectonic plates grind against each other, stress builds up until a quake releases it—sometimes with catastrophic force. Nuclear explosions, surprisingly, can act as controlled stress‑relief devices.

In 2017, a North Korean nuclear test triggered a magnitude‑6.3 quake, not because the blast caused the quake, but because the shockwave liberated stored tectonic pressure along a fault line.

By detonating weapons on active faults, the shock could fragment the accumulated stress into numerous smaller tremors, preventing the buildup that would otherwise culminate in a far more devastating seismic event.

Given the world’s arsenal of thousands of warheads, strategically timed detonations could collectively disperse tectonic strain, enhancing the planet’s geological stability.

7. Enhanced Species That Adapted To Radiation

Charles Darwin taught us that species evolve to survive shifting environments through natural selection. Radiation‑rich zones can accelerate this process, prompting rapid genetic adaptations.

Following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, scientists discovered a fungus that literally feeds on radiation, thriving where most life withers. Similarly, researchers in the UK identified bacteria that evolved the ability to neutralize radioactive waste within just a few decades.

These examples illustrate how life can quickly innovate in hostile, radioactive settings, spawning organisms that either detoxify the environment or simply endure its harshness.

In the aftermath of a nuclear war, we might witness a surge of radiation‑tolerant microbes and fungi, potentially accelerating the cleanup of lingering contaminants while reshaping ecosystems.

8. The Radiation Will Not Last Long

Radiation is the most feared byproduct of a nuclear blast, but its most lethal phase disappears within seconds, leaving behind longer‑lived isotopes that pose a lesser threat.

If a device detonates several kilometers above the ground, the radioactive plume disperses rapidly, diluting its intensity. Historical data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that, after a few decades, the zones became habitable again without major health repercussions.

Ground‑level detonations create a more stubborn contamination zone—ground zero may remain unsafe for years or even decades. Yet, when compared to the other long‑term effects outlined in this list, the radiation timeline is relatively brief, and life can still re‑establish itself in those areas.

9. Life Will Continue To Exist

“Life finds a way,” as the iconic Jurassic Park reminds us. After countless epochs, life has repeatedly rebounded from cataclysms, and the same resilience applies to a nuclear conflict.

Studies reveal that simple organisms—certain wasps, fruit flies, cockroaches, and the near‑indestructible tardigrade—can endure extreme radiation doses with minimal damage.

While a post‑nuclear world might initially be dominated by insects and microbes, these hardy species can quickly repopulate, restoring ecosystems over millennia and paving the way for more complex life to emerge once again.

10. The Bombing Will Not Be Enough To Destroy Earth

It’s often claimed that humanity’s nuclear stockpile could annihilate the species, and there’s a grain of truth: the most powerful U.S. or Russian warheads can vaporize millions within minutes. Yet, even the combined arsenal falls short of planetary annihilation.

The Chicxulub asteroid, which erased the dinosaurs, unleashed energy equal to ten billion Hiroshima bombs. Despite that, roughly 25 % of Earth’s life weathered the impact.

Today’s global nuclear inventory hovers around 14,500 weapons. Even if every warhead detonated, the total yield would pale against the asteroid’s cataclysmic force, leaving Earth largely intact—albeit scarred, but survivable.

When we think about the end of life, most of us picture a neat burial or a dignified cremation. Yet a surprisingly wide array of cultures and sub‑cultures have found ways to keep fragments of the departed hanging around, and the reasons are as varied as they are startling. In this roundup we’ll count down the 10 reasons keeping human body parts after death, from holy relics to gruesome war trophies, and everything in between.

10. Reasons Keeping: An Overview

10. Relics Of Saints

If living a good and holy life isn’t enough to guarantee a whole‑body afterlife, many believers have turned to the preservation of specific body fragments as a tangible link to the divine. Across centuries the Roman Catholic Church has amassed a staggering collection of saintly relics, ranging from the mundane to the miraculous.

These sacred scraps include everything you can imagine: the head of St. Catherine of Siena, still displayed in the Basilica Cateriniana San Domenico in Tuscany; the tongue of St. Anthony of Padua; even the blood of St. Januarius, the foreskin of the infant Jesus, and the finger of Doubting Thomas. Entire bodies have also been venerated, such as that of St. Mark.

Other faith traditions are no less enthusiastic. In Sri Lanka a revered temple houses the Buddha’s tooth, while the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul safeguards what is believed to be the beard of the Prophet Muhammad. These objects are treated with reverence, displayed for pilgrims, and thought to convey spiritual benefits to those who touch or simply behold them.

Thus, relics serve as physical conduits between the mortal and the sacred, offering believers a concrete reminder that sanctity can be preserved, even after the flesh has faded.

9. War Trophies

In the brutal theater of war, the victorious have often turned the bodies of the vanquished into macabre trophies. While popular culture frequently points to Native American scalping as the archetype, the practice predates the New World. The Greek historian Herodotus records that Scythian warriors were required to present an enemy scalp to their king as early as the fifth century BC.

Scalps were not the only body parts seized as proof of death. During the colonial era, frontiersmen in North America collected scalps to claim bounty payments, and the Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century saw samurai cut off the noses of their foes, later storing them in “nose tombs.”

Napoleon Bonaparte’s own post‑mortem fate turned his remains into a bizarre souvenir market. After his death on Saint Helena, a physician autopsied him, bagging internal organs and even an external piece. The doctor’s priest reportedly kept a few ribs, and the emperor’s penis was eventually auctioned for $3,000, now locked away in New Jersey. The story of its diminutive size has become a footnote in the annals of odd war memorabilia.

These gruesome collectibles underscore how, in the heat of conflict, human fragments can become trophies, symbols of victory, and, oddly enough, commodities.

8. Decoration

When most people think of art, they picture paint on canvas, not rotting flesh. Yet some artists and religious practitioners have turned human bone and tissue into striking decorative objects, creating a macabre aesthetic that is both beautiful and unsettling.

In Tibetan ritual, bones are sometimes carved into elaborate patterns to fashion an “apron” worn during special ceremonies. Similarly, kapalas—cups fashioned from human skulls—play a central role in Tantric rites, often inlaid with gold, silver, and precious stones, and displayed reverently on altars.

European fascination with anatomical art reached a fever pitch in 18th‑century France, where the anatomist‑artist Honoré Fragonard produced a series of “flayed men.” By skinning hundreds of cadavers, he crafted sculptures that revealed the inner musculature and organs, merging scientific curiosity with artistic flamboyance.

Fragonard’s most infamous work, “The Horseman of the Apocalypse,” depicts a fully flayed rider and steed surrounded by a crowd of tiny, skeletal fetuses riding sheep and horse fetuses. These eerie creations still hang in the Musée Fragonard d’Alfort in Paris, reminding visitors that the line between anatomy and art can be razor‑thin.

7. Medical Science

Perhaps the most conventional reason to retain body parts after death is to advance medical knowledge. The systematic study of anatomy exploded in the 18th century, fueled in part by “resurrectionists” who exhumed fresh graves to supply cadavers for dissection.

These “donated” bodies were often displayed before eager audiences of medical students, curious amateurs, and even bored gentlemen who craved a touch of the morbid. Notorious figures like the surgeon Robert Knox built careers on public demonstrations, while infamous grave‑robbers Burke and Hare supplied corpses for a fee, blurring the line between science and crime.

Modern attempts to revive public anatomy lectures in Edinburgh have met with resistance, yet the tradition of body donation persists. Today, volunteers still bequeath their bodies to science, allowing students to spend months, sometimes a full year, dissecting a single cadaver to master the intricacies of human anatomy.

Although many medical schools now favor preserved specimens and digital imaging, there remains a consensus that hands‑on dissection provides irreplaceable insight for aspiring surgeons. Once the educational journey concludes, the remains are either cremated privately or returned to families for burial, and many of the attending staff attend the funerals—a sobering reminder of the human stories behind the science.

6. Just Plain Weird

Jeremy Bentham, the 18th‑century philosopher famed for his utilitarian doctrine, left behind a legacy that is as eccentric as his ideas. A staunch atheist who championed universal suffrage and the decriminalization of homosexuality, Bentham rejected traditional Christian burial rites.

In accordance with his wishes, Bentham’s body was dissected after his death, and his skeleton was reassembled into an auto‑icon—a life‑size wooden cabinet that houses his remains, topped with a wax head. This display sits in a corridor at University College London, where it is occasionally wheeled into Council meetings, though the myth that it is “present but not voting” has been debunked.

The original wax head deteriorated over time and was removed, now kept in UCL’s collections and displayed on rare occasions. In 2006, Bentham’s remains were again tapped by scientists who extracted DNA from his head in an effort to determine whether the famed prodigy might have been autistic, adding yet another layer of curiosity to his post‑mortem fame.

5. To Prevent Death

In some remote corners of Uganda, body parts are harvested not for art or reverence, but as a twisted form of prophylaxis. Local witch doctors claim that the blood and organs of deceased children can ward off disease, ensure prosperity, and even stave off death itself.

Since the first documented child sacrifice in 1998, investigators have uncovered more than 700 mutilated bodies. These murders are typically orchestrated by witch doctors who harvest blood for its alleged curative powers, then sell the harvested parts as talismans to desperate families seeking wealth or health.

Although the practice is illegal and condemned by both national and international bodies, it persists in isolated rural communities where secrecy shrouds the ceremonies. The grim reality underscores how, in some contexts, the preservation of body fragments is driven by belief in literal, life‑saving magic.

4. Made Into Objects

Human remains have occasionally been transformed into everyday objects, turning the macabre into the mundane. The Romantic poet Lord Byron, for instance, possessed a drinking cup crafted from a human skull, its rim edged with silver. Legend holds that the skull was unearthed by Byron’s gardener at Newstead Abbey, and the poet delighted in its morbid novelty.

Even more unsettling was the fate of William Lanne, one of the last surviving Aboriginal Tasmanians from the Furneaux Islands. Colonial settlers, viewing him as a “missing link,” subjected his body to scientific curiosity. After his death, his head was removed, and his scrotum was fashioned into a novelty tobacco pouch, a grotesque souvenir displayed by the Royal Society of Tasmania.

These objects illustrate how, in certain historical moments, the dead have been reduced to curiosities, their parts repurposed for drinking, smoking, or exhibition, blurring the line between reverence and exploitation.

3. (A Kind Of) Magic

Across sub‑Saharan Africa, the practice of juju—an intricate system of magic and spiritual power—often incorporates human body fragments as potent ingredients. Practitioners believe that personal items such as hair, nails, menstrual blood, and even organ tissue can capture an individual’s essence.

These substances are ground, mixed, and infused into amulets or talismans, which are then used to protect the wearer or, conversely, to inflict harm. The belief holds that a piece of a person’s body can bind their spirit, giving the magician leverage over them.

Disturbingly, juju has been weaponized to control women, with priests demanding body parts as part of coercive rituals, and even trafficking them as objects of sexual exploitation. The fear of magical retribution often silences victims, allowing the practice to persist in secretive communities.

2. As Room Fittings

The Sedlec Ossuary in the Czech Republic showcases perhaps the most flamboyant use of skeletons as interior décor. A massive chandelier, composed of thousands of human bones, hangs from the ceiling, while the walls are lined with skulls arranged into decorative patterns. In total, roughly 40,000 corpses contributed to this macabre masterpiece, complete with a bone‑cross.

Similar bone‑laden sanctuaries exist elsewhere. In Rome, the Church of Our Lady of the Conception of the Capuchins houses the remains of about 4,000 friars, displayed not in crypts but as wall‑mounted skulls, with three complete Capuchin skeletons greeting visitors at the entrance.

Poland’s Czermna chapel pushes the concept even further: every surface—from walls to ceilings—is plastered with bones of plague and war victims, totaling around 20,000 remains, with an additional 20,000 stored in the basement. The chapel’s founder, priest Vaclav Tomasek, even placed his own skull on the altar after his death, cementing the space’s dedication to the dead.

1. Proof Of Kill

In the brutal theater of war, body parts have also served as grim evidence of a successful kill. During Japan’s 16th‑century incursions into Korea, samurai warriors were paid per enemy killed, and they documented their victories by severing and preserving noses—sometimes ears—as trophies.

These macabre souvenirs were stored in “nose tombs,” and in the 1980s archaeologists uncovered one such tomb containing over 20,000 pickled noses. The debate over repatriation continues: some Korean groups demand the return of these remains, while others argue they should be respectfully destroyed.

Today, the noses and many ears rest in a nine‑meter‑high mound known as the “Ear Mound” in Kyoto, maintained at public expense by the Japanese government—a lingering reminder of a conflict that still haunts collective memory.

10 reasons some folks continue to question the official narrative of September 11, 2001. From baffling pilot abilities to mysterious missile claims, the lingering doubts span decades. Below we break down each point, preserving every detail while giving it a fresh, conversational spin.

10 Reasons Some Remain Skeptical

1 Could Such Mediocre And Inexperienced Pilots Have Flown Such Powerful Planes?

Serious doubts arise over whether the hijackers could truly command massive jumbo jets. The aircraft involved were far from the modest Cessnas most flight‑training schools use; they were colossal, multi‑engine behemoths. Critics point out that the arguments hinge largely on the opinions of seasoned aviators rather than hard‑won evidence, yet many accept these professional assessments as credible.

Television specials—both investigative and conspiracy‑oriented—have enlisted top‑tier pilots to replicate the exact routes taken that fateful morning, especially the Pentagon‑bound Flight 77. The consensus among these experts is that an inexperienced aviator would struggle to execute the precise, low‑altitude maneuver that slammed the plane into the Pentagon.

San Diego flight instructor Rick Garza famously crossed paths with two of the hijackers, Khalid al‑Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, during a brief stint teaching them on single‑engine trainers. Garza concluded the pair were hopelessly inept, dismissing them from his program. Ironically, those very individuals later became the “muscle” of the terrorist cell.

2 NORAD’s Response (Or Lack Thereof)

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is widely regarded as the world’s most sophisticated air‑defense network. Yet, none of the four hijacked airliners were intercepted by fighter jets stationed at Andrews AFB, prompting many to wonder why the system failed to act.

Researchers who suspect a deliberate allowance of the attacks highlight the puzzling inaction, especially given that authorities reportedly became aware of a “something badly wrong” roughly half an hour before the first aircraft struck the World Trade Center.

At the time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was also involved, and a newly appointed senior official was still getting his bearings when the crisis unfolded. To illustrate the oddity, consider that in 2000 NORAD launched 129 scramble missions, and between September 2000 and June 2001, they executed 67 interceptions—routine responses to minor deviations or loss of contact.

Standard protocol dictates that any uncertainty triggers an immediate scramble. Yet, on that September morning, despite being notified of the unfolding disaster, the military failed to dispatch interceptors in time, according to the official 9/11 report.

3 Claims Of Explosions And Bombs

Numerous voices assert that controlled explosions, not just the impact of the aircraft, brought down the Twin Towers. Social‑media videos and shaky‑angle footage frequently circulate as “proof” of hidden charges.

Almost immediately after the towers collapsed, witnesses—including some firefighters—reported hearing internal detonations. The confusion of that chaotic moment made it difficult to separate fact from speculation.

One of the most vocal proponents of the demolition theory, internet user David Rostcheck, took to a chat room after viewing the live broadcast, exclaiming, “It looks like a controlled demolition; if we don’t hear more about that in the next few days, something is very wrong.”

Further claims emerged from April Gallop, a Pentagon employee who was inside the building with her young son when it was hit. Gallop maintains that an explosion, more akin to a bomb than a plane crash, ripped through the structure. She recounts emerging barefoot through a gaping hole, seeing no plane debris, bodies, or luggage, and subsequently filing a lawsuit—Gallop v. Cheney—against the government, enduring harassment for her stance.

4 Donald Rumsfeld’s Speech On September 10

On September 10, the day before the attacks, then‑Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced sweeping cuts to the Pentagon, promising to free billions for new operations. In the same address, he admitted that a staggering $2.3 trillion in defense spending was unaccounted for.

Rumsfeld pitched a vision of a leaner, more transparent Pentagon, promising to overhaul antiquated computer systems that tracked every transaction. He declared his intent to “liberate” the department, framing the reforms as a push for efficiency rather than an attack.

Less than 24 hours later, the Pentagon itself became the third target of the 9/11 attacks, raising eyebrows among those who see a strange coincidence between the speech and the ensuing tragedy.

5 Computer Systems Wiped Out

Adding a layer of intrigue to Rumsfeld’s speech, the very hardware he vowed to modernize lay in the portion of the Pentagon that took the brunt of Flight 77’s impact. The devastation was so complete that all records stored there were obliterated, leaving a void in the official archives.

Given Rumsfeld’s earlier admission of $2.3 trillion missing, some theorists argue that the attacks conveniently erased those phantom funds, potentially funneling them into shadowy “black‑budget” projects.

While there is no concrete proof of such a financial sleight‑of‑hand, the loss of irreplaceable historical documents—ranging from Pentagon operational records to a 1921 Port Authority charter—has left archivists scrambling to piece together what remains.

6 Other Flight 77 Conspiracies

Critics question the competence of Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of Flight 77. Weeks before the attacks, a Maryland airfield demanded proof of his pilot’s license, insisting on a chaperoned test flight. An instructor reportedly declared that Hanjour “could not fly,” refusing to let him rent the aircraft.

Official records show Hanjour earned his license in Arizona in 1999, but skeptics point to the earlier incident as evidence of his inadequacy.

Adding to the mystery, the phone calls made minutes before the crash—particularly those from Barbara Olson, wife of then‑Solicitor General Theodore Olson—are alleged by some to be fabricated using voice‑morphing technology. Theories abound about the fate of Olson and other passengers, ranging from assumed new identities to alleged murders, suggesting a pre‑planned display of “real” passengers to lend credibility to the false narrative.

These ideas are not confined to fringe elements; academics, former soldiers, and intelligence officers have also voiced skepticism, indicating the breadth of doubt surrounding Flight 77’s story.

7 Claims Of Missiles

Retired Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III, once a staunch defender of the official account, later turned whistle‑blower, insisting he could prove the Pentagon was not struck by an aircraft. He argued that all surveillance cameras were shut down except for one, and the released five‑frame sequence appeared to show a missile rather than a plane.

Stubblebine alleged that the footage had been subtly altered by the government after his claim, suggesting a deliberate cover‑up. Some conspiracy forums echo his assertion, reporting that emergency‑services frequencies captured exclamations like “the Pentagon has been hit by a missile!” during the attack.

These claims dovetail with April Gallop’s earlier bomb assertions, painting a picture of a coordinated, hidden assault rather than the accepted narrative.

8 Flight 93 And The White Plane

Flight 93, the often‑overlooked fourth hijacked plane, remains shrouded in mystery. During a 2004 Christmas‑Eve address, Donald Rumsfeld appeared to admit that U.S. fighters shot down the aircraft, prompting conspiracy theorists to claim a government confession.

The Pentagon later brushed off Rumsfeld’s remark as a misspeaking, but the theory persisted. Adding intrigue, a mysterious white aircraft was reportedly observed circling Washington’s restricted airspace around the time the Pentagon was hit and shortly after the Twin Towers fell.

CNN’s White House correspondent John King noted on live TV that “you generally don’t see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted airspace,” and that the Secret Service expressed “very concerned” about the sighting.

Speculation abounds about whether this enigmatic plane later targeted Flight 93, its origin, destination, or occupants, but no definitive answers have emerged.

9 CGI Technology

If you spend any regular time scrolling through social media, you’ve likely seen jaw‑dropping CGI tricks—like a blue whale bursting from a gym floor, turning the room into an ocean. Such visual wizardry proves that realistic‑looking footage can be fabricated.

Ex‑CIA pilot John Lear argues that the footage of the second plane striking the South Tower was a grand illusion. According to Lear, no aircraft ever hit the Twin Towers; instead, a computer‑generated image (CGI) was timed to coincide with pre‑planned explosions, creating the illusion of a crash.

Lear’s claims have been largely dismissed by mainstream analysts, who label them as unfounded speculation, yet they continue to circulate in conspiracy circles, feeding the broader debate.

10 The Physics Argument (Kind Of)

Memes proliferating online often proclaim, “Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams,” suggesting that the towers’ collapse could not be explained solely by burning fuel. Critics argue that the heat from jet fuel alone would be insufficient to melt structural steel, implying an alternate cause.

Proponents of the controlled‑demolition theory contend that the towers—and Building 7—collapsed due to pre‑planted explosives weakening the steel framework. They cite the alleged “pull” command broadcast over emergency channels as evidence that demolition crews were ordered to evacuate, not that the buildings were being taken down.

While many engineers acknowledge that the steel did not melt, they agree that it weakened enough under intense heat to lose structural integrity. Detractors of the demolition hypothesis point to the outward‑flying debris, arguing that a genuine controlled demolition would keep rubble within the building’s envelope.

11 The Many Contradicting Timelines And Accounts

Conflicting testimonies, divergent timelines, and contradictory statements have long fueled doubts about the official 9/11 story. For instance, President Bush appeared on a live CNN “Ask‑the‑President” segment and claimed he was waiting in a hallway when he “saw an airplane hit the tower.” Official accounts, however, state he was listening to children read when he learned of the second impact.

Moreover, Bush said his first instinct was to speak with Donald Rumsfeld. Yet Rumsfeld later told a TV interviewer that he only became aware of the crisis moments before the Pentagon was struck, contradicting Bush’s timeline.

These inconsistencies—whether stemming from genuine confusion or miscommunication—provide fertile ground for skeptics who argue that the official narrative cannot fully account for the myriad discrepancies.

When you think of medieval Europe, the image of shining knights comes to mind, but there are 10 reasons why these famed warriors were actually terrible on the battlefield. The knights of medieval Europe are among the most recognized warriors of human history. They played a key role in the society and warfare of the Middle Ages, and their ideals of chivalry survive to this very day. What many don’t realize, however, is that knights weren’t actually all that great as a fighting force. Below are 10 reasons why knights made absolutely terrible warriors.

10 They Were A Logistical Nightmare

If there was one factor that greatly limited the destructive nature of war in the Middle Ages, it was logistics—the supplying, housing, and movement of armies. Without centralized control, it was difficult for feudal rulers to marshal enough resources and authority to carry out large‑scale military campaigns.

Logistically speaking, knights were a huge burden. For starters, a knight never went to war alone. At the very least, he brought a squire, who would carry his armor and tend to his horse but wouldn’t participate in combat. To make matters worse, knights took at least two horses with them—a riding horse and a warhorse, which was used exclusively for battle. As a result, medieval armies had to feed not only the knight himself, but also his horses and retinue.

The horses’ need to graze further restricted the speed of an army’s movement and made warfare a difficult proposition in winter or in arid climates. A great example of these logistical burdens comes from the Crusades, where one of the leading causes of death for knights was actually lack of fodder and water for their horses, rather than combat.

9 Limited Service

While the specifics varied from country to country and over time, the feudal obligation of knights only required them to provide military service for about 40 days per year. This was a major limiting factor for both how long, and to what geographical extent, war could be conducted. Worse yet, knights could refuse service altogether and instead pay a fee called scutage. In 13th‑century England, for example, it is estimated that 80 percent of the country’s 5,000 knights chose to pay scutage instead of going to war.

These limitations were a major reason for the rapid development of infantry tactics in the 14th century as well as the increased use of mercenaries, particularly in England. By the Hundred Years’ War, the English army was composed almost entirely of paid men.

In particular, the practice of hiring men‑at‑arms—mercenaries who had all of the equipment of a knight but were not necessarily nobles—became increasingly widespread. These men could serve as long as they were paid and were also more experienced and disciplined than knights. By the time of the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, knights constituted only about 8 percent of English heavy cavalry.

8 They Were Expensive

Because of their elaborate armor, weapons, and powerful horses, knights were incredibly expensive. The equipment of an English knight, by one figure, was worth about 32 Anglo‑Saxon pounds by the mid‑13th century, about 10 years’ worth of wages for an archer. By contrast, an archer could be fully equipped for about 4 percent of that cost.

The knight’s most prized possession was the warhorse, which could cost as much as £300. (An average craftsman at the time would only make a few pounds a year.) Furthermore, if a medieval ruler wanted to maintain a group of knights for longer than their feudal obligation, he usually had to pay them money. Knights didn’t come cheap; they cost roughly twice as much as a man‑at‑arms of commoner background.

The bottom line is that for the cost of a single knight, it was much more pragmatic to equip a dozen infantrymen or archers or to hire other men‑at‑arms for half the cost. Based on the rapidly falling numbers of knights in English armies from the 14th century forward, this lesson was not lost on medieval rulers.

7 Adherence To Chivalric Ideals

In war you kill or get killed, so it’s crucial to use whatever you can to your advantage. Knights, however, held an idealized view of the battlefield. While some of these ideals, like courage, were useful in combat, others were detrimental. For example, there was the expectation that knights should battle other knights on fair terms, and if they were defeated and withdrew, they should not be pursued. There was also a widespread practice of taking defeated knights as hostages and ransoming them back, rather than killing them outright.

One famous example of knightly ideals backfiring on the battlefield was the Battle of Kutná Hora in 1421, where forces of the Holy Roman Empire led by King Sigismund fought a group of Bohemian rebels known as the Hussites. The rebels were surrounded but managed to break through and make a last‑minute escape. Sigismund chose to courteously allow Jan Žižka, the Hussite leader, to withdraw without being pursued, presuming him to be utterly defeated. This, however, was a grave mistake. After spending the next month gathering reinforcements, Žižka returned and caught Sigismund completely unaware, ultimately driving his armies out of Bohemia.

Meanwhile, England’s King Henry famously broke the rule of taking knights hostage at the Battle of Agincourt. Fearing that the French were mounting a counterattack, he ordered the execution of roughly 2,000 surrendered French knights to prevent them from taking up arms. The English knights disobeyed the order, but from a practical standpoint, Henry made the right move.

6 Poor Leadership

If there is one area in which we can excuse the knights themselves, it’s leadership. By and large, the men who commanded feudal armies were little more than glory‑seeking nobility with no actual military training. Some armies did luck out with having effective generals such as King Edward III of England, but they were the exception, not the rule. The French in particular were notorious for using their knights without any regard for terrain, strategy, and previous defeats.

Another problem was command structure. Since feudal kings had to rely on powerful nobles, who in turn brought their own hosts of knights, it was not always possible to exercise direct control over the whole army. Individual nobles could very well act on their own, and disagreements were common. The quarrels between the earls Gilbert de Clare and Humphrey de Bohun, for instance, played a major role in the English defeat at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.

Meanwhile, one of the most ridiculous examples of poor leadership occurred at the Battle of Crécy, where John, the blind king of Bohemia, insisted on being led into battle by his knights so that he could strike an enemy. This went about as well as you’d expect; John and all of the knights were killed.

5 Lack Of Standardized Training

For hundreds of years, knights were the closest thing to professional soldiers in medieval Europe. They had years of training on how to ride horses, fight in armor, and use a variety of weapons, and medieval tournaments gave them a chance to keep their skills sharp in peacetime.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact that outside of training in their youth as pages and squires, there was no formal, standard system for training knights. Once an individual attained the rank of knight, it was fully up to him how to continue to hone his skills. As a result, when knights came together under one army, they had different capabilities and styles of fighting.

This put knights at an obvious disadvantage when faced with professional forces that followed a systematic training regimen. Soldiers such as the Swiss pikemen underwent a sophisticated system of battle drills, where they learned how to use their weapons, march together, and function as a unit. Such practices were important not only for developing military skills, but also because they gave everyone the same training, ensuring that soldiers were able to keep up with their peers and work together.

4 Poor Teamwork

Discipline and organization are some of the most important aspects of warfare. This is a major reason why the Romans were so good at war. Knights, however, had a tendency to fight as individuals. The nature of feudal warfare was such that armies were assembled as they were needed. This meant that groups of knights from different parts of a country never had the chance to train together and learn how to function as a single unit.

There were some exceptions to this rule; knights who fought together in several campaigns were certainly more capable of working together. Orders such as the Knights Templar in particular developed an effective system which ensured that they operated as a disciplined and united force on the battlefield.

However, by and large, knights were individual fighters in search of personal fame and honor. The best that you could hope for is that they charged together once or several times. This also explains why cavalry charges were not always performed in an organized manner, with some knights riding ahead of the group.

3 Reliance On Favorable Terrain

Given that knights rode horses, they required solid, flat, and open ground to be effective. If forced into a clash in mountainous or muddy terrain, they lost their mobility and shock value. The Scots, for example, famously defeated the English in the Battle of Bannockburn by utilizing the boggy terrain and by digging pits to break up any potential cavalry charge.

Another prominent example of using terrain against knights was Courtrai, also known as the Battle of the Golden Spurs, where, in 1302, a group of Flemish militia delivered a crushing defeat to French cavalry. The Flemish carefully chose a position with marshy ground that was surrounded by streams and moats. The resulting cavalry charge was slow and uneven, and some knights never made it to the enemy. Unable to break the Flemish lines, the noble men‑at‑arms were equally unable to retreat in the muddy ground. The French ended up losing over 1,000 knights, and the battle received its name from the golden spurs collected off their corpses.

The English were equally innovative in the Hundred Years’ War with France. In the Battle of Agincourt, they chose a position with soft ground and also built a line of stakes in front of their archers. The French cavalry charge was easily repulsed, and the English emerged victorious despite being outnumbered four to one.

2 Archers Ruined Their Day

This may come as a surprise, but knights were actually quite vulnerable to archers. Mail armor could be pierced by bows from distances of 180 meters (600 ft), meaning that knights could get killed long before they got close. Better yet, experienced bowmen could fire a rate of 12 arrows per minute.

While the introduction of full plate armor in the 15th century was a big help, it didn’t make knights invulnerable to missile attacks. Crossbows were still capable of piercing plate, and even if bowmen were unable to kill a knight outright, they could target his horse instead. The arrows that didn’t hit still had a profound psychological impact on both the horse and its rider.

Archers were so deadly that knights developed a huge disdain for them, calling both the bow and the crossbow dishonorable, cowardly weapons. As noble‑born warriors who saw themselves as superior in every way to common rabble, they were naturally disturbed by the possibility of an anonymous, low‑born miscreant ending their life from a safe distance. The nobility even tried to get crossbows banned in the 11th and 12th centuries, because unlike bows, they required literally no expertise outside of aiming and pulling the trigger.

Numerous groups successfully deployed archers against knights in the Middle Ages, but none were more famous than the English during their Hundred Years’ War with France. Using the power of the Welsh longbow, numerically inferior English forces decisively defeated the heavily knight‑reliant French armies in the Battles of Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt.

1 They Were Easily Defeated By Professional Infantry

While well‑trained archers were already a deadly force to contend with, professional infantry was the Achilles heel of the knight. Disciplined infantry soldiers deployed in phalanx formation and armed with pole‑arm weapons such as pikes rendered heavy cavalry all but useless. Horses naturally refused to impale themselves by charging into a thicket of spears, and even if they did, all the infantrymen had to do was hold their ground.

So why did knights trump infantry for hundreds of years? The answer is simple: They rarely fought professionals. For most of the medieval period, knights faced peasants and freemen who made up the bulk of feudal armies. Neither of these groups had the proper training or equipment to stand up to a cavalry charge and would typically break ranks in fear of a charging mass of horse and man.

When knights did face professional infantry, it was a totally different story, and no group was better at demonstrating this than the Swiss. While largely overlooked by history in favor of their world‑famous watches and cheese, the Swiss actually played a decisive role in exposing the weaknesses of knights and revolutionizing medieval warfare.

Encroached upon by feudal kingdoms on all sides, the Swiss city‑states developed a professional militia force armed with halberds and pikes. These infantrymen were drilled constantly and were able to execute very complex maneuvers. Beginning in the 14th century, the Swiss delivered crushing defeats to the knight‑centric forces of Burgundy and Austria, most famously in the Battles of Morgarten (1315), Laupen (1339), Sempach (1386), and Nancy (1477). The Swiss were so successful that the rest of Europe began to copy their tactics, making knights all but obsolete.

Gleb Oleinik is a freelance writer and web developer. He likes to recite meaningless historical facts and ponder the big questions of life. You can contact him by email.

So you want to be a writer? If you even clicked on this list, you’ve already given yourself a little nod that writing matters to you. Maybe it’s a burning passion, maybe a casual hobby, or perhaps you just stumbled upon a dreadful article online and thought, “I could definitely do better.” If you can dream up an eye‑catching Top‑10 list, the internet is waiting for you to publish it for a massive audience—think millions of eyes per day.

6 Reasons You Should Start Writing Today And Get Paid

1 You’re Totally Qualified

Breaking into a new arena can feel like climbing a sheer cliff, especially for aspiring writers. Many outlets demand “experience only,” which can be a real buzzkill for newcomers. Here, we’re more like the friendly rocker who says, “You’re great just as you are.” Whether you’re an aspiring novelist, a lawyer, a filmmaker, a self‑proclaimed car, or a ’70s rock star who once jammed with Joan Jett, you only need to follow the simple guidelines and start typing. It’s so straightforward that even I could pull it off. Before I submitted my first article, my writing résumé consisted of college essays and long Facebook rants. I had an idea, a computer, and—boom!—my piece landed on the front page. That moment is incredibly empowering.

2 You Can Show Off Your Smarts

You’re a unique individual with a treasure trove of experiences. Wouldn’t you love to share them with the world? Maybe you’ve trekked across continents and witnessed sights most people can’t even imagine—perfect material for a list like “10 Bizarre Aspects Of Chinese Culture.” Perhaps you’re a political junkie who’s spent a lifetime studying international affairs, ready to craft “The 10 Worst Diplomatic Faux Pas By Famous Politicians.” Or maybe your encyclopedic movie trivia could humble even Quentin Tarantino, inspiring a list such as “10 Obscure Films Memorialized For All The Wrong Reasons.” As for me, three years teaching English in South Korea gave me enough quirky facts for a “10 Awesome Facts About South Korea” piece, and my teenage encounters with eccentric conspiracy theorists fueled a “10 Crazy Catholic Conspiracy Theories” list. Whatever your background—your job, your travels, your passions—turn it into a list and send it our way. The world is eager to read it, and we’re ready to pay you for it.

3 Access To The Writers’ Forum

Did you know there’s a dedicated forum just for writers? It’s built to let you work directly with editors, connect with fellow writers, and peek behind the curtains of the business. Once your first article gets published, you’ll receive an invitation to join. Every day, editors post fascinating fact‑lets they’d love to see turned into lists—claim an idea, and you’re off to the races! Think of it as the closest thing to free money on this side of a busted ATM. If you can cut the mustard, we’ll help you sharpen it even further (and maybe throw in a metaphor or two).

4 You’d Be Writing For One Of The Best Sites On The Web

If prestige matters to you, you’ll want to avoid publishing on just any Top‑10 site. Some outlets churn out subpar articles riddled with typos and click‑bait headlines. That’s not the case here. Our straightforward guidelines show you the ropes, and a crack team of editors polishes your work, catching typos and dispensing sage, Yoda‑like advice. The content we publish is top‑tier. Don’t just take my word for it—major publications like Time, the BBC, The New York Times, National Geographic, and PBS have featured us. Imagine telling friends or future employers that you’ve written for a platform recognized by these giants. Even your mother will be proud.

5 Your List Could Show Up In A Book

Did you know we’re also in the book business? So far, three collections of our best lists have hit the shelves, and a fourth is already available for pre‑order. Imagine your list making it into the fifth volume—our books are packed with the cream of the crop and end up in libraries, stores, and coffee tables worldwide. Kept away from moisture, book lice, and over‑zealous firemen, they’ll last for generations. Think of it this way: you follow the guidelines, submit a $100 list that reaches millions, and as a bonus, your work could sit on a Barnes & Noble shelf. Even if it’s just a cool Christmas gift or a party conversation starter—“Yeah, I’m a published author”—that’s a win.

6 Now Just Go Do It

Have I convinced you to launch your first mind‑blowing list? If you feel ready, double‑check your sources and dive right in. Maybe you prefer a slower start—perhaps you want to read “10 Tips for Getting Paid to Write.” It’s another solid guide packed with tricks from someone who knows the trade inside out. If you’re thinking about giving this platform a go, it’s definitely worth your time.

7 Don’t Forget About Knowledge: Nuts

If the main site is a caramel macchiato—rich and full—then KnowledgeNuts is the espresso shot: a burst of micro‑articles packed with concentrated, fascinating facts. It’s a blast for readers and a golden opportunity for writers. Got a cool fact about Japanese history? It might not fill a full list, but it’s perfect for a Nut! Craft a few hundred words about something like “The Ant‑Walking Alligators Of Hiroshima,” and you can earn an easy $10. Constantly correcting friends on “The Difference Between Hades And Satan?” Turn that tidbit into a KnowledgeNut and pocket a quick ten bucks. Even if you’ve been chewing on the myth that the Brontosaurus never existed, explain it in a Nut and earn the same. Keep it short, punchy, and entertaining, and you’ll be set.

10 reasons think the massive 20th‑century wars may have been meticulously plotted, and here’s why.

10 Reasons think: The Grand Conspiracy Overview

It’s one of the most popular conspiracy theories, largely because a lot of the claims have at least partial facts to them. Some believe that events of the 20th century, in particular the two global conflicts that left millions upon millions slaughtered and changed the face and direction of the entire planet, were not only orchestrated, with the same people controlling both sides, but were decades in the planning.

10 The ‘Hidden Predictions’ Of Disreali

Benjamin Disraeli is widely seen by most in the political world as one of the most influential Britons of all time, and certainly of the 19th century. He served as British prime minister twice and was usually at the heart of the political change and events of the era, not just in Westminster but in Europe, amid an ever‑changing world in light of the increasingly strong United States.

In 1844, Disraeli released a work of fiction entitled Coningsby, or The New Generation, which was a political, current events, thriller type of work. To some, however, the writings contained hidden truths and even predictions of a world to come. The novel spoke of “unseen forces” who control the everyday goings‑on from the shadows, unknown to anyone, even most politicians. These forces would also look to “shape Europe’s affairs and secret revolutionary movements.”

While it is a safe bet, given his intelligence and experience in the political world of the mid‑ to late 1800s, that Disraeli would have had a fair idea of how certain events were likely to progress, some believed his notions were a little too accurate to be dismissed. In light of his statements about “revolutions,” we look at perhaps the biggest revolution of the 20th century in our next entry.

9 The Seeds Of The Russian Revolution

Although the Russian Revolution, in basic Reader’s Digest terms, took place in 1917 following the horrendous conditions on the Russian front lines during World War I, anti‑establishment sentiment had been building for decades. And what’s more, it would appear that outside involvement was indirectly responsible for at least part of it.

As we will look at a little in our next entry, Russia was encouraged to sign what were presented to them as “mutually beneficial” pacts with countries such as France and Britain. In reality, these agreements would isolate them and put them at odds with long‑term allies such as Germany. They were also “encouraged” into a war with the Japanese from 1904 to 1905, a war that deeply demoralized the nation and led to an unsuccessful uprising.

What’s interesting about this conflict, in what is an apparent recurring theme throughout the 1900s, is which parties were responsible for financing the Russo‑Japanese War. The Russians (officially the Romanov royal family of Russia) received funding from the European banks of the Rothschild family. The Japanese were funded by an American bank called Kuhn, Loeb & Co.—which was controlled by the Rothschilds, the very same family who controlled the European banks. Officially, Jacob Schiff represented Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., and it is well‑established that the Schiff and Rothschild families share ties going back hundreds of years.

8 Pacts And Treaties Of The Early 1900s

As we mentioned above, the early 1900s saw a series of international pacts signed between various European countries, including Russia. The idea of these pacts, at least officially, was to maintain peace in the region.

However, following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austria‑Hungary would declare war on Serbia due to their guilt in the killing. Bound by their pact, Russia came to the aid of Serbia. And so it went on, with each country “bound” to come to the aid of another. In short, the French and British had to aid Russia, and in turn Serbia, while the Central Powers—Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, and Austria‑Hungary—would side with each other against them.

Incidentally, once the Russians were officially at war on the side of the Allies, they were armed by a company called Vickers & Maxim, which was controlled by a gentleman named Ernest Cassel. Cassel, in turn, was a longtime business associate of the Rothschilds and had a history of dealings with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. There were considerable delays in supplying these weapons to the Russians, which accelerated the complete breakdown of morale (some soldiers were sent to the front unarmed) and, in turn, sparked the eventual revolution. Many researchers, albeit retrospectively, suggested this “delay” was intentional.

7 The Rothschilds And Funding Of Both Sides

As we mentioned with the Russo‑Japanese War, the Rothschild family appeared to have funded both sides, albeit indirectly. This trend would continue with World War I and specifically World War II.

While Standard Oil provided the funding, hardware, supplies, and weapons for the Allied forces, IG Farben would do the same for the Nazis. (As we will look at a little later, much of the Nazi funding also came from the Soviet Union, adding a third dimension to the already muddled affair.) IG Farben and Standard Oil were both companies that were owned or controlled through majority ownership by the Rothschild family.

In fact, it wasn’t just the global conflicts that had funding from surprising sources. The Russian Revolution, a rebellion driven by communist ideology, received the bulk of its funding from the capitalist banks of the West, as we will look at next.

6 The Capitalist‑Funded Russian Revolution

Perhaps the first two people who come to mind when talking of the Russian Revolution are Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin. Both were staunch communists who were, it would appear, the driving forces behind the establishment of the Soviet Union and the questionable deaths of the Romanov royal family. However, while 1917’s revolutions were taking place on the streets of Russia, both Trotsky and Lenin were safe in their respective beds in the “evil” capitalist West.

Furthermore, each received substantial financial backing from their capitalist “adversaries” upon their return to Russia. For example, Lenin would arrive from the “sanctuary of the financial elite,” Switzerland, with the funding from both the Federal Reserve and the City of London. A US Congress report from 1919 shows deposits of substantial amounts of money (millions of dollars) in a secret bank account to be used by Lenin or Trotsky.

Trotsky, incidentally, would even arrive in Russia off the back of a US passport—one personally issued for him by President Woodrow Wilson. He also had $10,000 in cash, another gift from the US government.

5 World War I Set The Stage For World War II (Purposely?)

By the end of World War I, not only were millions of people dead, their lives needlessly ended, but Europe would never be the same again. Just to appreciate how drastically the Treaty of Versailles changed Europe, nine new countries emerged from the ruins. Many of them were restored nations that once existed before being absorbed into the Central Powers of Europe. The balance of power had drastically changed.

Furthermore, this change was not yet complete, as further upheaval and the even worse horrors of World War II were a mere two decades away. It is reasonable to suggest that the destruction and then the reparations that followed intentionally lit the fuse for further conflict, particularly in Germany, where Adolf Hitler would use the crippled German economy to his advantage in his sweep to power. Once there, he would begin his rampage over Europe, claiming past “empires” as part of the new Germany. However, the initial assault on Europe, specifically Eastern Europe, was not just a German offensive.

4 Soviet‑Nazi Pacts

In a similar way to how many pacts were signed in the run‑up to the World War I, in the decade before World War II, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would sign various pacts and treaties of their own.

These treaties, such as the Molotov‑Ribbentrop Pact or the German‑Soviet Credit Agreement, would guarantee that neither country would go to the aid of an enemy of the other. They also looked out for each other’s interests, while “turning a blind eye” to any indiscretions of the other. In addition, the agreements allowed for the transferring of materials such as rubber and steel, as well as money, from one country to the other with no disruption.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had quietly created a “sphere of influence” throughout Eastern Europe, one that would be detrimental to the power and influence of Britain and France. With this in mind, it is also worth remembering that the invasion of Poland was not just by Germany. Soviet forces invaded from the other side. They would also take control of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, while the Germans pummeled the French.

3 Soviets ‘Armed’ The Nazis

Even after the Nazis’ intentions were clear, and after Britain had declared war on them in response, the Soviet Union would still make deals with them. And these deals, whether intentional or not, would greatly assist in helping Nazi Germany to build up their arms as quickly and as powerfully as they did. In fact, some historians will tell you bluntly that without these pacts and Soviet assistance, the rise of Nazi Germany, at least in the form the world saw it, wouldn’t have been possible.

The 1940 German‑Soviet Commercial Agreement made the movement of oil, raw materials for weapons production, and even grain to feed Nazi soldiers far easier. And the materials, food, and funding moved regularly and as required. In return, Nazi Germany allowed the Russians access to their scientists’ leading research.

While the ideologies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union appeared to be worlds apart, they weren’t—at least not according to Stalin’s vision of the world, which we will look at in our next entry.

2 Nazi Germany‑Soviet Communist Ideology

As we mentioned, the Soviet Union did all but actively support the Nazi invasions, instead launching their own separate offensives, laying claim to territories they had long coveted. However, according to some, Stalin and other high‑ranking Soviet officials were greatly impressed with Nazi Germany. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Soviet premier Vyacheslav Molotov gave several deeply passionate and supportive speeches on the subject of Nazism and Nazi Germany. He would at one stage suggest that to “fight [Nazism] was a crime.”

It is also worth noting how similar the methods used by the Soviet Union were to those of the Nazis, such as their propaganda. Many Jewish people would flee Stalin’s Russia and into the arms of the Nazis. Others were turned over to the Nazis by Soviet troops.

Some researchers also claim that Stalin was so enamored with Nazi Germany that when intelligence reached him telling of a surprise invasion by the Nazis, he delayed a response, believing there had been a mistake. Ultimately, the Nazis would make considerable advances into Russia, but by December 1941, the Soviet troops were actively pushing them back. It is an interesting notion to think what might have happened if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union when he did. However, if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory of “unseen forces” directing events, the choice may not have been his to make.

1 IG Farben And Standard Oil

Okay, so we have mentioned that the above companies, which were essentially owned by the Rothschilds, were responsible for the funding of both sides of World War II. It is from this financial arrangement that much of the steam for the conspiracy theories involving certain major 20th‑century conflicts stem from, and it is easy to see why. Incidentally, not only were IG Farben responsible for the funding of the Nazi war machine, but they were also responsible for the death camps set up by the Nazis throughout Europe. Many conspiracy theorists suggest that these death camps were a way for otherwise “Western” corporate families to experiment with eugenics, something they purportedly continued under the CIA and such projects as Operation Paperclip.

Many US soldiers in Germany, for example, reported how IG Farben buildings were uncannily untouched and unscathed in surroundings that were otherwise devastated. Both IG Farben and Standard Oil also made millions of dollars in the rebuilding projects that followed the war, not to mention the arms race that the Cold War would bring on the world for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

10 reasons leonardo is a phrase you’ll hear whenever the Renaissance pops up in conversation. You probably picture a genius with a beard, a smile that never quite shows, and a mind that seemed to invent everything before anyone else even dreamed of it. Yet, when you dig into the facts, the legend of Leonardo da Vinci starts to look a lot less like a flawless masterpiece and more like a patchwork of half‑finished ideas and over‑hyped achievements. Below we count down the ten ways Leonardo’s reputation is more hype than history.

10 His Painting Skills Were Surprisingly Dodgy

Even if you accept that the Mona Lisa is the greatest painting of all time because that is what we have always been told, it is pretty much like every other run‑of‑the‑mill portrait commissioned back then, except that her eyebrows wore off.

Most of Leonardo’s paintings are standard portraits and religious scenes, not exactly earth‑shattering, and they are so boring that you could not pick out any of them out of a line‑up. In a few decades, men like Titian and Raphael would produce works easily beyond Leonardo. And nobody who looks at the work of Caravaggio, who painted many of the same biblical themes and subjects and worked within a century of da Vinci, could disagree that he makes Leonardo’s best pieces look hopelessly antiquated and conventional.

Composition‑wise, The Last Supper isn’t anything special either, and regardless of style, there is actually a major flaw hidden within the work that most people do not even know about. Any master artist can tell you that The Last Supper is a technical disaster. The fresco began to fall apart within Leonardo’s own lifetime due to his own lack of knowledge of how to correctly apply the special egg‑tempera paint he prepared. That leads to our next point … … … …

9 In A Head‑To‑Head Contest With Michelangelo, He Lost—Badly

Lest The Last Supper sound like a one‑time mistake, the error was repeated again. In a competition with Michelangelo to decorate opposing walls of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, in what should have been the most exciting art spectacle in history, da Vinci failed monumentally. He didn’t know enough about his craft to execute the project.

He mistakenly tried to apply oil paint to an unprepared wall. The colors of his painting, The Battle of Anghiari, ran in the humid air, a blunder he never recovered from. Leonardo walked away in frustration. The painting competition was over before it even got interesting. Michelangelo emerged triumphant with his Battle of Cascina fresco in the battle of geniuses.

As fate would have it, Michelangelo got snatched up by the very impressed Pope, leaving his uncompleted wall to be destroyed by envious locals who despised his talent. Leo’s Battle of Anghiari was painted over by a nobody to fix his amateurish‑looking mess years later.

8 His Most Famous Inventions Were Not Original

Leonardo da Vinci is known to have been an inventive mastermind of the first order. But there is a slight hitch in this preconceived notion: It is a lie.

The “helicopter” he famously designed was not a helicopter but an inclined screw. He borrowed the design verbatim from a long‑known Chinese kid’s toy without grasping (or caring) that this toy did not spin upward by its own force but was intended merely to twirl down. His helicopter, as it appears to anyone who understands the most basic of physics, is not airworthy. It cannot be made to fly and it never will. Da Vinci did not really comprehend aerodynamics or the necessity of an engine for powered human flight or the physics of propulsion.

He gets credit for a lot of machinery and innovative designs, like the hang glider, to name just one. But he was not the first to design a hang glider, nor the second. The other two guys—an English monk and a Muslim polymath named Abbas ibn Firnas—who did design them test‑flew them with varying success despite the very dangerous realities of flinging oneself off a ledge. Any technology or modification of any existing device that is depicted anywhere in his notebooks is assumed by less stringent historians to be his, but research usually proves this to be verifiably incorrect.

7 He Was A Mediocre Sculptor

If you’re looking to Leonardo’s great sculptures to redeem him, you will sadly never find them. None exist anywhere. The only existing physical statue we have to evaluate his ability is a conventional bronze equestrian model statue, complete with an awkward metal strut supporting the massive weight of the horse and rider.

A side note to keep in mind: The primary advantage of bronze over marble was that you do not need struts to support bronze if you know how to balance the weight properly, which Leonardo did not, based on what is left of the model. So it is reasonable to conclude his grasp of metalworking was fairly substandard, and the myth of the artist’s genius and mastery of science evaporates in one single prototype.

Compared to someone like Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the gulf between a true artist and a dabbler becomes strikingly clear. Bernini arguably pushed the medium to its ultimate level with his The Rape of Proserpina. The marble detail is so fine that you can see skin realistically rippling under fingers, individual teardrops, and wisps of blowing hair—all beautiful enough to distract us from the unpleasant fact that we are witnessing some seriously messed up Greek mythology. Leonardo’s giant horse statue on the other hand, was commissioned by the Duke of Milan but never was constructed because Leonardo never figured out a way of casting it. The Duke, Ludovico Sforza, openly wondered if he was wasting his time with Leonardo because his approach to the project was so lax.

Leonardo da Vinci never got further than the drawing board phase on Sforza’s horse for the same reason he never completed his celebrated The Battle of Anghiari: He most likely did not understand his own craft despite what we all like to think. After Leonardo’s plodding first few steps, the Duke pulled the plug. If Leonardo had not wasted so much time, Sforza might have found a replacement soon enough, and the fabulous equestrian statue might have been erected.

6 His Real Inventions Were Junk

Da Vinci’s inventions were awesome, right? That’s a fair question to shout angrily at the screen as you read this, but his inventions were more often than not harebrained or dead ends. There is a good reason they were not constructed from his blueprints; they were not practical nor necessary. Most were abandoned in the early stages and were not workable without a lot of added parts or modifications.

Producing sketches is a large part of Leonardo’s legacy. But to call yourself an inventor, you should also produce viable prototypes and then work out the kinks. There doesn’t seem to be much proof he ever did work past the preliminary stages on the vast majority of his drawings. The robotic soldier he made was just a parlor trick that rattled around, by historians’ best estimates. The contraption only functioned when modern engineers added parts and fixed the faulty design.

His tank, when tested in real life, was painfully slow in ideally dry and flat terrain (a far cry from realistic 15th‑century battlefield conditions) and would have concussed and permanently deafened the poor serfs inside who fired the canons. Self‑propelled armored vehicles were, interestingly, not new. Any claim that he could have changed the face of warfare is wishful thinking.

As for the perpetual motion machine he supposedly built, physicists since at least the 18th century will remind us that 100‑percent energy‑efficient machines cannot exist. Modern science has rejected that idea. Leonardo did not come up with that idea nor perfect it either. We can stop pretending like he was onto something there or ahead of his time. It is instances like this that indicate he was trapped firmly within the medieval mindset.

While Leonardo was inventing a parachute 400 years before anyone accidentally found a logical use for it, he gave up on a conical bullet design (i.e., the bullet used today), despite working for despots who fought wars for a living and could have used it.

5 He Copied His Legendary Notebooks From Others

Da Vinci did keep interesting notebooks, and had he kept on developing upon the ideas and refining them, he might have changed the world. But scholars today openly admit that those notebooks are probably copies … of copies.

Mariano Taccola was another eccentric creative type in Italy who kept notebooks, and it was from these that Leonardo got his trademark Vitruvian Man (as well as many of his fantastic blueprints). Some historians further believe that a mathematician named Giacomo Andrea actually deserves the credit.

Neither did Leonardo invent underwater demolition, another innovation posthumously assigned credit for. His optical “death ray” was borrowed from Archimedes. The flywheel was already conceived centuries before by some other guy we do not care to learn about, and though Leonardo never bothered to find anything to do with his version, the flywheel is yet another gadget he is granted the credit for dreaming up.

There has some speculation that many of his inventions might very well have originated with designs of Chinese origins, which makes a lot of sense considering the Chinese invented such staples of modern civilization as the printing press, cannons, rockets, rifles, and paper in pre‑Columbian times.

4 He Was Not A Respected Civil Engineer In His Time

His civil engineering track record is worse than you think for the simple reason he couldn’t secure contracts nor deliver anything he promised. Other than a proposed bridge that was not built, an insane scheme to reverse the flow of the Arno river—which failed miserably when his contingency plan featuring earthen dams collapsed in a rainstorm—and some other local projects for Venice including a dike (which was rejected as over‑priced), da Vinci accomplished nothing despite the massive acclaim he gets as a skilled civil engineer.

Designing grandiose projects is not the sign of a good designer, as any engineer can tell you. Generally, his ideas were too fantastic or complicated to be practically implemented, and they were always too expensive. His plans didn’t solve problems efficiently but instead posed more.

When a Norwegian team tried to actually construct one of Leonardo’s designs, more out of curiosity than for any practical use, they ran into the same problem as did the 16th‑century Italian dukes. It cost too much.

3 His Anatomical Work Was Not Important

Dissections of corpses was all but banned as an immoral practice by the Church authorities, therefore Leonardo’s anatomical drawings were all that much more important, many suggest. However, his contemporaries—Michelangelo, Dürer, Amusco, and Vesalius—all made laborious studies of dissections as well, work more impressive not only artistically but scientifically because they actually tried to pass on their observations to others to expand the limits of human knowledge.

Leonardo, again, is one in a crowded field. He took extreme precautions to prevent anything he learned from being used by outsiders by writing his notes backward. Charles Estienne wrote an entire detailed series on the human body, depicting the internal organs, muscles, arteries, and veins for academic use, while Leo’s notes were kept secret for centuries. His arguably greatest (and sole) contribution to science is completely redundant, paling in comparison to other pioneers.

2 He Left No Great Formulas, Discoveries, Theorems, Hypotheses, Philosophical Treatises Or Breakthroughs

Leonardo did not have much to say of new or lasting importance when it came to chemistry, medicine, sociology, astronomy, mathematics, or physics either, as one might think for an individual of his level of superstardom. He left no treatise or thesis and had no astounding concepts, equations, techniques, or groundbreaking theories to call his own like Newton or Francis Bacon.

His lone resonating scientific idea was his hunch that the Great Flood of the Bible probably didn’t happen based on his observations of natural rock formations, which he conveniently kept to himself instead of using to question the status quo. He was skilled in science, maintained a basic understanding of the human body, and possessed a healthy skepticism, but to call him a scientific “genius” seems unwarranted in comparison to the pantheon of ignored luminaries of the age like Gilbert, Fibonacci, Brahe, Mercator (not to mention the ancient Greeks and Medieval Muslims) who all exerted tangible, lasting influence on the sciences during the Renaissance and even today.

1 He Was An All‑Around Terrible Role Model

Leonardo was not a thwarted genius. A lot of great thinkers were able to realize their ideas under just as much social pressure and limitations.

Nobody was in a better position than Leonardo; he had the best teachers and patrons. Leonardo’s former overseer, Filippo Brunelleschi, was a master goldsmith who also dabbled in architecture and civil engineering like Leonardo. That is where the similarities end. Charged with completing the dome of Florence’s Duomo, arguably the most recognizable building of the period, he completed it after all the other architects had failed for decades. Brunelleschi not only connived to get his archrival off his back in a maneuver straight out of Machiavelli, he then proceeded to custom build the astoundingly modern cranes needed to complete the unprecedented construction project. His brilliant innovations genuinely changed his world and remain cultural and architectural milestones, in his spare time discovering linear perspective.

Roughly the same time da Vinci was studying his dissections, Bartolomeo Eustachi was teaching and writing books on dentistry and the inner ear and doodling his own models, creating far more demanding and anatomically accurate diagrams that still look like they could have come from modern anatomy textbooks. They even named a body part after Eustachi for his effort. Giordano Bruno was a scholar, poet, mathematician, and mystic, best remembered for accurately guessing that stars are just other suns and that they logically should have their own planets, suggesting alien life exists like many modern astrophysicists do now. Daring to question prevailing religious dogma, he went one step beyond Copernicus and actively dismissed the tenets he thought silly and unscientific. Then he was executed as a reward.

Da Vinci, meanwhile, proposed incredible machines, which he found impossible to complete or sell to clients, and it might be surmised he simply did not care to understand them. While others were dying for their right to question power in the name of science or speak out against religious intolerance, da Vinci kowtowed to despots and power‑hungry aristocrats.