He was found with two shotgun wounds to the head, and the coroner ruled it suicide?[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup]Yes, I know. Double barreled shotgun. I guess. I hope the coroner’s not that dumb.
Yeah, but the GOP and Tea Partiers (and Libertarians?) even compare Jehovah unfavorably to Reagan.
:dubious:
–G!
I believe it was his father’s pistol not a shotgun. Supposedly the first shot just went through his cheek. But there are people that believe he was murdered by the CIA.
As governor of New South Wales, Bligh also managed to spark an armed rebellion and overthrow by his own military, still the only one in Australian history. He wasn’t a ranting maniac, in many ways he was an admirable and enlightened commander, but he did have a singular gift for pissing subordinates off.
It’s not uncommon for suicides to require more than one gunshot to the head, especially with a small pistol. People don’t realize that killing yourself with a headshot is rarely as quick & clean as it’s shown in the movies; in fact, the most common scenario is that the first bullet doesn’t kill you instantly, but you’re too messed up and/or paralyzed to take a second shot, so you end up slowly & painfully bleeding to death.
As for the CIA murdering him – seems unlikely. Not that I know anything, but I’d imagine that the CIA doesn’t cotton to assassinating American citizens, especially those in the public eye. Too noisy, and you run the risk of a future Ed Snowden spilling the beans. Seems more effective to instead discredit the guy, causing him to lose his job, his home, his livelihood…hmm, waitaminute.
Mata Hari. More than likely nothing more than a not very clever courtesan.
Yes, he may have pissed off his subordinates but I believe he was largely vindicated eventually for his actions.
And without trying to place firm parameters the original question is a little difficult to answer - as an example, I think Bligh was badly treated. However, how many others here on the board have heard the story? Similarly Gary Webb- who seems to have been the victim of bastardisation - was unknown to me.
A universally known figure I would think has more claims to being more libeled than a locally- or nationally, known entity.
And maybe another thread about those creatures who can’t be loathed sufficiently like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Manson…
Her reputation is not tarnished, it’s completely puffed-up; quite the opposite.
Sounds pretty weak to me. What, some Florentine is going to say “Hold it! He’s being feared more than loved!” and the Medici will say “Curses! Foiled by that infernal Machiavelli! Time to use a trick that he *hasn’t *exposed!”
IIRC, he wasn’t involved in illegal wiretapping.
Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, and pretty much anyone else on MSNBC. That network is as left as Fox News is right.
He has had at least three major Hollywood movies devoted to him; he was played by Charles Laughton, Trevor Howard and Anthony Hopkins. He’s not exactly an obscure figure; I’d be a little disappointed in anyone who didn’t at least know the name and associate it with a tyrannical naval captain who sparked a mutiny.
I don’t understand your logic (aside from you wishing to disagree with anything I state).
The title posited which people were the most libeled in history- Mata Hari certainly was, and whether she is remembered for that rather than her other activities has no bearing. She was extremely well known for her Paris life before being executed as a spy, and I would suggest the knowledge of her execution, whilst doing little for her future career, certainly made people look upon her with disfavour.
90% of people in this thread have had their lives remembered as much for the deeds assigned to them rather than their acual lives.
All that aside, I would add another figure- Sir Douglas Haig.
He won a war for the UK. He has been disparaged for the losses of men when all military men were struggling with technology and a new style of war. He was not a heartless butcher- he was the man the UK needed.