The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is on track for a partial shutdown this weekend after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach an agreement on immigration enforcement changes tied to the agencys

Rep. Ro Khanna speaks at Epstein Files Transparency Act press conference with Epstein victims on Capitol Hill (Photo by Jordan Conradson) In a back-and-forth exchange on X, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) revealed

On Thursday night, news broke that the Pima County Sheriff's Office was essentially choosing to deny requests from the FBI to review and process "key" physical evidence from the Nancy Guthrie case, with

First they came for the Jews and I said nothing. Then New York City began coming to Islam and they came for the dogs. Nerdeen Kiswani has been involved in some of the nastiest anti-Israel rallies

Microsoft Office 2024 is worth the upgrade — and it’s 60% off TL;DR: Microsoft Office 2024 Home & Business delivers modern features, better performance, and familiar apps — all for a one-time $99.97 payment (reg. $249.99). $99.97...

Landesamt fr Denkmalpflege und Archologie Sachsen-Anhalt, J. Liptk / L. Dietrich et al., Antiquity (2026)The underlying meaning and purpose of the deer skull headdress found in Eilsleben, Germany remain largely mysterious.At the remains of a small Neolithic settlement near Eilsleben in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, archaeologists have found a wealth of prehistoric artifacts. Among the most fascinating objects to emerge from these excavations is a deer skull headdress that may have once served a ritualistic purpose.Whats more, this 7,500-year-old headdress also suggests a robust trade relationship that existed between Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, both of whom were then navigating their own changing worlds.The Deer Skull Headdress Found At A Neolithic Settlement In GermanyAccording to a study published in Antiquity, the deer skull headdress was discovered at a Neolithic settlement in northern Germany. Today, the settlement is located near Eilsleben. But 7,500 years ago, it was perched at the edge of two converging worlds: that of hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic age, and the farmers of the emerging Neolithic age.Martin-Luther University Halle, F. Becker / L. Dietrich et al., Antiquity (2026)Excavations at Eilsleben, a Neolithic settlement that was first uncovered in the 1970s.Excavations at the site have been ongoing since the 1970s, and have uncovered a large settlement from the Linear Pottery culture (circa 5500 to 4500 B.C.E) that stretches over 20 acres. The settlement includes longhouses, pits, and ditches, as well as traces of tool manufacturing centers.But in 1987, archaeologists uncovered something highly unusual: a modified deer skull. The skull had been worked into a rectangular shape, and notches had been added at the base of the antlers. These were seemingly for fasteners, suggesting that it had been used as a mask or headdress.Similar artifacts have been found at Mesolithic sites most famously at a burial in Bad Drrenberg from 7000 B.C.E. but they are far more rare in Neolithic contexts. Thus, the deer skull headdress appears to suggest that Neolithic people in Eilsleben had a healthy trading relationship with the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who roamed nearby.Trade Between Neolithic And Mesolithic Groups At EilslebenThe Mesolithic period began around 10000 B.C.E., when the climate in Europe began to improve after the last Ice Age. Mesolithic people were hunter-gatherers, and in present-day Germany they hunted deer, bison, and boars using bows and arrows.Martin-Luther University Halle, L. Dietrich / L. Dietrich et al., Antiquity (2026)The fragments of an antler ax found at the Neolithic settlement. Antlers were rarely used as tools by the Linear Pottery culture, suggesting that they were a technology transfer from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the area.But around 6500 B.C.E., the Neolithic period slowly began in Europe. During these overlapping ages, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers still roamed the land, even as Neolithic people like the Linear Pottery culture established more permanent settlements, including the one at Eilsleben.The deer skull headdress is not the only sign of trade between these two peoples. At Eilsleben, archaeologists also found other antler tools, which are rare among Linear Pottery settlements, but more common in Mesolithic contexts, as well as flint arrowheads, which, similarly, were a technology primarily used by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.Such items were seemingly part of a technology transfer between the two groups. But the headdress is an especially fascinating object.Martin-Luther University Halle, L. Dietrich / L. Dietrich et al., Antiquity (2026)Some of the stone and antler tools unearthed in Eilsleben.The most similar object in the archaeological record, from Bad Drrenberg, was thought to have been buried with a Mesolithic shaman. The presence of the mask at a Neolithic settlement suggests that Neolithic people were influenced by Mesolithic beliefs.Perhaps the Neolithic group faced new health problems due to their lifestyle which could include dental problems from eating grains or new diseases from working closely with domesticated animals and turned to the Mesolithic for help. Perhaps they needed a healer from the old world to help them survive in the new one.For now, many questions about the deer skull headdress remain, but it stands as an astounding artifact in more ways than one. Not only is it visually striking, but it also represents a crucial moment in human history, as the Mesolithic age ended and the Neolithic age began.After reading about the deer skull headdress that was found at a Neolithic settlement in Germany, learn about the worlds oldest structures and the fascinating history behind them. Next, go inside the stories of the most unbelievable prehistoric animals to ever walk the Earth.The post Archaeologists In Germany Unearthed A 7,500-Year-Old Headdress Made From A Deers Skull And Antlers appeared first on All That's Interesting.

The Goliath birdeater is one of the worlds most recognizable arachnids. Its impressive size allows it to prey on a variety of creatures, including birds, making it the biggest and possibly the scariest spider in the world.But there is more to this Goliath spider than meets the eye.Goliath Birdeater: The Biggest Spider In The WorldPiotr NaskreckiThese colossal arachnids are indeed large enough to prey on birds, which they do on rare occasions.At nearly one foot wide and weighing six ounces, the Goliath birdeater is the biggest spider on the planet in terms of weight. However, they drop down to second place behind the giant huntsman spider for the honor if measuring by leg span.Indeed, the Goliath birdeater (Theraphosa blondi) can easily strike fear in the hearts of those who come upon it. It has a large body covered in barbed hairs known as urticating hairs which are both intimidating and painful if ever caught on another creatures skin and equally enormous fangs. This giant spider breed makes its home on the dusty forest floor of the rainforest in northern South America. It creates silk-lined burrows under the forest rocks and roots in parts of Venezuela, French Guiana, and Brazil.Wikimedia CommonsDespite their scary appearance, these spiders have poor eyesight and are rather timid.When preparing to attack prey or fend off forest predators like the coati, the Goliath birdeater rises on its hind legs to make itself appear even bigger, showing off its long limbs and inch-long fangs. As part of this intimidation tactic, the Goliath tarantula rubs its hairy legs together a common technique called stridulation that is used by other spiders, snakes, and insects to create a hissing noise that can be heard from 15 feet away. This leg-rubbing also releases the sharp hairs which stick and cause discomfort when they come into contact with skin, creating the perfect diversion for the giant tarantula to escape an imminent threat. Do They Really Eat Birds?The Goliath tarantula catches an unsuspecting lizard.The Goliath birdeaters name has given the spider a terrifying reputation, but the reality is less scary than it sounds. Although it has the physical ability to prey on birds and occasionally it does the so-called Goliath bird-eating tarantula mainly preys on frogs, insects, and rodents. The Goliath birdeater is nocturnal and typically hunts at night. These arachnids actually have terrible eyesight so they use the hair on their legs to catch the vibrations from animal activity, be it predator or prey.These tarantulas are stealthy hunters who wait until a victim is close enough for them to pounce on and trap within their leggy embrace. Their big fangs are strong enough that they can easily slice through flesh, including human skin. As its victim tries to struggle free, the spider releases neurotoxic venom, paralyzing its prey. Wikimedia CommonsTheir one-inch fangs are strong enough to puncture human skin.Because spiders dont have teeth, they must liquefy the insides of their prey so they can suck it dry. The Goliath birdeater does this by regurgitating digestive juices onto its victim which breaks down soft tissue, turning the insides into a slurpy concoction. By the time the Goliath tarantula finishes feeding, only bones, skin, and fur remain.But if the Goliath birdeater doesnt kill birds as frequently as its name suggests, where did their nickname come from?The name birdeater originated from an 18th-century engraving that showed another kind of tarantula eating a hummingbird. The discovery inspired the moniker birdeater that is now used to describe the entire Theraphosa spider genus of South America.Conservation EffortsWellington ZooBaby Goliath birdeaters hatched at the New Zealand zoo in 2020.Human encounters with the Goliath birdeater are rarely lethal. Although their venom is dangerous enough to kill their prey, it is relatively nontoxic to humans. A Goliath birdeater bite would likely only cause some discomfort and swelling.A bite from the Goliath bird-eating tarantula can become deadly, however, if the person bitten has an allergic reaction to the venom or if the puncture wound becomes infected.By now, it seems that the Goliath birdeaters notoriety has more to do with their size rather than the actual danger they pose. Their unique appearance has made them a hot commodity in the world of exotic pets, but that popularity might be a double-edged sword.Goliath birdeaters are listed as Not Evaluated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature or IUCN, the body which monitors the status of the planets wildlife. Because of this, the current situation of their species is unknown. But their status as quirky pets and the low-level harm they pose to humans could have an effect on their population. FlickrThese enormous tarantulas are viewed as exotic pets to some.The Wellington Zoo in New Zealand is among the few places known to breed these Goliath spiders in captivity. In May 2020, zoo officials announced the successful hatching of 13 Goliath bird-eating spiderlings at their facility.It was the first time the zoo successfully hatched a clutch of baby Goliath birdeaters in 20 years and the first time the spiders have ever been bred in Australasia.Were excited to announce that we have successfully bred Goliath bird-eating tarantulasThey are an absolutely fantastic species that were really proud to be working with, said Dave Laux, the zoos team leader of reptiles and invertebrates of the event. He added that the spiderlings were really, really big and their coloring was a beautiful mahogany brown.Goliath birdeaters are usually solitary creatures and only seek out other spiders when it comes time to mate. Female Goliaths use their urticating hairs to cover their tennis ball-size egg sacs which typically hold between 50 and 200 eggs. In the wild, hatchlings stay close to their mother until they fully mature at two to three years. Meanwhile, the father will usually die a few months after mating.In captivity, the lifespan of bird spiders can be anywhere between 10 to 15 years, though females have known to live up to 20 years.Now that youve learned all about the terrifying truth of the Goliath birdeater, read how tarantula venom could offer a cure for a deadly childrens disease. Next, meet the banana spider, the arachnid whose web is made out of the strongest natural material known to man.The post Meet The Goliath Birdeater, The Biggest Spider In The World By Weight appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Charles Milles Manson was not a good person. By most accounts, he was a racist, rapist, car thief, and attempted murderer, having nonfatally shot a man named Bernard Lotsapoppa Crowe in a drug deal gone wrong in Hollywood on July 1, 1969 the month before the Tate-LaBianca killings that made him forever infamous.But, despite being branded a murderer by the media and being remembered that way by the public over the half-century since, Charles Manson never actually killed anyone.Locked up from the ages of 12 to 19, 21 to 24, and 25 to 32, Manson spent half his life in prison prior to the 1969 murders. And he likely belonged there or at least in a mental institution and surely would have ended up incarcerated again for something at some point.Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesCharles Manson sits at the defendants table at the Santa Monica Courthouse for a hearing regarding the murder of Gary Hinman. June 1970.But was the successful murder case against him for the Tate-LaBianca killings which he was said not to have committed but to have ordered and which kept him in prison until his death in 2017 as airtight as weve been led to believe?Its long since been established that the answer to the question who did Charles Manson kill? is nobody. So the real question then becomes what did Charles Manson do? And the answer certainly isnt as simple as brainwash some innocent young hippies and force them to commit murder. The real answer, in fact, is much more complicated and disturbing than you might think.Did Charles Manson Kill Anyone: Getting To The TruthVernon Merritt III/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty ImagesCharles Manson heads to a preliminary hearing in his murder proceedings in Independence, California. December 1969.For most people, Charles Manson was either a criminal mastermind with the near-mystical ability to bend others to his will or an acid casualty ex-con who turned a group of 20-somethings into his personal death squad either as an act of personal vengeance or to kick off a predicted apocalypse.And there are good reasons why this is the most widely-believed story behind the Manson Murders. It was both the case put forward by state prosecutors led by Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi during the 1970 trial, as well as the defense mounted by several people who were credibly tied to and ultimately convicted of the Tate-LaBianca and Gary Hinman murders. However, there are also good reasons to question this version of events.Bettmann/Contributor/Getty ImagesCharles Manson speaks with reporters as he is escorted by a deputy sheriff and his lawyer, Irving Kanarek, from a Santa Monica courthouse following a hearing in the Gary Hinman murder case. June 1970.Part of the problem in unpacking the truth behind the Tate-LaBianca and Hinman killings is that many of the people involved offered conflicting accounts, many of which have themselves evolved in different directions depending on who is telling the story and when.But the first account of the crimes the one that originally set the case against Charles Manson in motion came from one woman named Susan Sadie Atkins, a former stripper and Church of Satan member who met Charles Manson in 1967. Less than two years later, she set in motion the proceedings that would eventually bring him down.Susan Atkins Complicated ConfessionsRalph Crane/Time Inc./Getty ImagesSusan Atkins leaving the grand jury room after testifying against Charles Manson.Picked up in an October 1969 police raid on the Manson Familys home at Death Valleys Barker Ranch, Susan Atkins was identified as a person of interest in the still-open murder of Gary Hinman, having been reportedly implicated by his killer, Bobby Beausoleil, as an accomplice in the botched drug deal that ended in homicide.Then detained by authorities separately from other Manson Family members picked up during the raid, Atkins began to brag to her new cellmates about all of the murders she had been a part of in her attempts to do a crime that would shock the world.In addition to confessing to her role in the murder of Hinman, she went on to describe the then-unsolved Tate-LaBianca murders, saying she herself had killed actress Sharon Tate in her home on August 9 and drunk blood from her stab wounds. Atkins cellmates quickly told the authorities everything.Between Atkins arrest and Mansons capture at the groups makeshift home at Spahn Ranch soon after, Atkins confessed to police multiple times. According to the district attorneys notes, that testimony did not implicate Manson in the murder of Hinman. However, in one retelling of the Tate-LaBianca murders, Atkins guessed that Manson had given them instructions to kill ahead of time.And this would be the initial basis of Mansons arrest and all the charges against him. However, its worth noting a couple of things that throw Atkins reports into question. Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesSusan Atkins at a 1970 court hearing for the murder of Gary Hinman.For one, Manson is never mentioned in Atkins original testimony and she later claimed that the story she told her cellmates was an inaccurate exaggeration. Additionally, as investigators pressed Atkins for more information, they were illegally threatening her with the gas chamber, offering her full immunity, and had custody of her 10-month-old son all of which may have put her undue pressure and thus swayed her account.Lastly, when Atkins ultimately clarified her account, she said that she actually had no foreknowledge of what she and fellow Manson Family members Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkel were meant to do at the Cielo Drive house where Sharon Tate and her friends Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, and Wojciech Frykowski were staying, but instead said that Manson had only told her to do everything Tex said to.This brings us to the second person whose account and credibility may not be airtight that made Charles Manson a murderer in the minds of the state and the public.Tex Watson: American Zombie?Bettmann/Getty ImagesCharles Tex WatsonOriginally from Texas, Charles Tex Watson had met Charles Manson while living with Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson in 1968. One of the relatively few male Manson Family members, Watson is unique in several other ways. As he had left the Family by the time of the other arrests in late 1969, his trial was handled separately.But Watson was the one who, by all accounts, had done most of the actual murdering, even proclaiming Im the devil, and Im here to do the devils business before shooting one of his victims. Watson was also pivotal in selling the prosecutions theory that he and all the others had been brainwashed by the mentally ill drifter with whom theyd been associating.Prior to Tex Watsons trial in 1971, he was briefly declared mentally incompetent and was hospitalized after suffering a psychological breakdown in jail. Upon his return to court, the psychiatric consensus was that he had drug-induced brain damage and periods of delusion but was otherwise competent. At the time of the murders, two years previously, Watson had been a daily LSD user and regularly ingested tea made from belladonna seeds, a scopolamine-producing nightshade he found growing in the desert. Whats more, he and Susan Atkins shared a secret methamphetamine stash that both of them used continually in the days before the murders.Though drug use assuredly had a lot to do with Watson and Atkins actions, Watsons defense maintained that he had committed the murders in a robot-state brought about by Manson perpetually drugging him and desensitizing him to violence. His victims had felt like imaginary people, he told a psychiatrist, forming the basis of his temporary insanity plea. This argument that Manson had brainwashed Watson (and the others) was the crux of both Watsons defense and Mansons prosecution. But it virtually all rested on Watsons word, which perhaps shouldnt be taken at face value.Even Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, upon hearing Watsons claims, asked the psychiatrist: Can you tell me one thing Watson told you that you did not believe or did you buy everything he said lock, stock, and barrel?Following Bugliosis lead, here is a thought experiment: Which of these two scenarios sounds more likely?Bettmann/Getty ImagesCharles Tex Watson arrives for his arraignment on charges of conspiracy and murder.Was Charles Manson diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1963, prone to speaking in nonsense, and incapable of staying on topic successfully conducting extensive MKUltra-esque brainwashing experiments on as many as 40 people in the desert? Or, could Tex Watson who already threatened to kill one of the Manson girls and was using large amounts of dangerous drugs have had preexisting proclivities toward violence?When it comes to the guilt or technical, legal innocence of Charles Manson, this is the question everything comes down to. And the evidence that saw the state and the public decide that question not in Mansons favor is much thinner than most people realize.Who Did Charles Manson Kill And What Did Charles Manson Do?Bettmann/Contributor/Getty ImagesCameramen film the scene as Charles Manson is brought into the Los Angeles city jail under suspicion of having masterminded the Tate-LaBianca murders. December 1969.Manson was ultimately convicted on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (Watson was likewise convicted, despite his attempt at an insanity plea). In every case, the murder charge was as an accomplice and prosecutors acknowledged Manson was neither present at the murders nor had he explicitly ordered them. According to the case put forward at trial, Manson did not need to explicitly command anything in order for the Family members to know what it was that he wanted them to do.In one interview with a psychiatrist, Watson said that Manson was capable of computing him and influencing him at a distance:As we drove along I could hear Charlies voice inside my head, computing what he had said, every movement, Go up to the house kill them, cut them up, hang them on the mirrors.'Wikimedia CommonsTex Watsons mugshot. 1971.Admittedly, Manson himself might well have believed that he actually had such an ability. He claimed to have resurrected animals in the desert and that President Nixons resignation was the result of one of his hexes. During his initial arrest period, prior to trial, he apparently spent time trying to dissolve his jail cells bars with psychic energy. These are clearly the acts of a mentally unstable man. But, if this is the sort of thing that prosecutors had in mind when they said that Manson was capable of brainwashing dozens of people and bending them to his will, that is a serious problem.Sick, Yes, But What Kind?Michael Ochs Archives/Getty ImagesCharles Manson at trial. 1970.In his 1971 summary of Tex Watsons psychiatric reports, Dr. Keith Ditman made a crucial statement: Although the drug ingestion started as a willful act on his part the psychosis was not willful, this occurred as a happenstance of the confrontation of Mansons dominant personality and psychotic philosophy with [Watsons] passive-dependent, inadequate personality, and non-directional life orientation.Although Ditman seems to mean that Watson did not willingly choose to believe in Manson as a god-like figure (and was instead brainwashed), the doctors same framing and phrasing could just as easily be taken to mean that Manson did not will for Watson to believe in him at all.In order for the relationship between Manson and Watson to be criminal on the part of the former, Manson would have to have demonstrably and intentionally brainwashed Watson. And brainwashing is precisely what the prosecution said Manson did. But that ignores Watsons own comments about Manson seeming to not know what he was doing. Atkins meanwhile referred to Manson as crazy and at one point suggested that he was a canvas for Family members projections: [W]hen Charlie talked.. we all heard different things. He spieled generalities and we supplied the details individually.Bettmann/Contributor/Getty ImagesCharles Manson is escorted by a sheriffs deputy to the courtroom as his trial continues for the Tate-LaBianca murders. August 1970.There is indeed plenty of similar evidence to suggest that Charles Manson was not the mind-bending cult leader hes come to be seen as. Whats more, theres even evidence to suggest that some of Mansons supposed followers were actually the leaders themselves.Bobby Beausoleil was proven to have had his own followers, claimed to be the devil, and was shown to be the man behind the Hinman murder. Furthermore, the Family continued expanding even after Mansons arrest and Manson was said by insiders to have needed follower Lynette Squeaky Fromme, the Familys subsequent leader, more than she needed him.The questions on everyones minds shouldnt have been who did Charles Manson kill? or did Charles Manson kill anyone? but was Charles Manson even responsible for inciting murder or leading a cult at all?Brainwashing: A Prosecutorial ParadoxVernon Merritt III/The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty ImagesEven if we take Watsons statements about brainwashing as fact, the very idea of brainwashings effectiveness is an open question. And even for those who actually do believe that it can be effective, it does not sound like what Tex Watson described to his therapist. In reality, this sort of programming involves an incredibly regimented and time-consuming process, requiring near-medical grade control over a subject for an extended period. An interesting parallel can be found in the case of Patty Hearst, the kidnapped heiress turned urban guerilla fighter. Three years after the Manson verdicts, Hearst was abducted by the radical group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army. But following the deaths of her main captors in an FBI shootout, Hearst continued carrying a rifle and participating in robberies. After her arrest, Hearsts defense described her torture and rape at the hands of her captors that resulted in her being brainwashed. However, just five years after the Manson trials, another California jury decided that Hearsts defense wasnt good enough and didnt buy the brainwashing angle, causing her to be sentenced to 35 years in prison.Getty ImagesManson Family members and murder suspects (from left) Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and Leslie Van Houten.In the case of Watson and the rest of the Manson Family, however, this brainwashing angle is precisely the sort of the thing that the jury (and the public) believed to be accurate.Done in by the brainwashing angle and already guilty in the court of public opinion, Manson was convicted in December 1971. President Nixon had already called him guilty on live television. It was the crime of the century, in no small part because it had happened in Hollywood and left a beautiful, young actress butchered in horrific fashion. The prosecution, the public, and the country itself wanted, even needed, this case to be wrapped up quickly and tidily. And however guilty he actually was, Manson visibly deranged, spouting nonsense in the courtroom, sporting an X and then a swastika carved into his head certainly looked the part of the villain.Mondadori Portfolio via Getty ImagesBut the only substantial evidence legally connecting Manson to the murders came entirely from the massaged and sculpted testimonies of Watson and Atkins, both confessed murderers whose reports could easily have been tainted by the likes of drugs and undue police pressure. Based on the available evidence, the only way to secure Charles Mansons conviction was to portray him as a homicidal hypnotist effectively a supervillain motivated by an insane ideology.Ironically, to this end, no one was more effective in selling the states case than Charles Manson himself.Another View On The Manson MurdersReferring to himself as Manson, Charles M., aka Jesus Christ, God, he was denied permission to act as his own attorney and so he began to work the case in other ways. He successfully pressured Atkins to recant her testimony, leading her to be replaced as the key witness by Linda Kasabian. In addition to instigating other coordinated theatrics, Manson influenced the three other Family members on trial to fire their attorneys in favor of ones he preferred. Then, during the penalty phase, he influenced Atkins and the other Manson girls to blame Linda Kasabian and absolve him entirely.After his conviction, Charles Manson continued to be infamous for his outrageous ramblings, including those given during his first televised interview (above) in 1981.Whether this was the master plan of the mythical Manson, the ramblings of an unmedicated schizophrenic, or just an experienced ex-con doing everything in his power to escape prison, it doesnt really matter.Faced with such an obvious display of his powers, the jury convicted Manson on all charges and sentenced him to death (later changed to life in prison). And in the end, that was the most important thing, everyone thought: Charles Manson needed to be taken care of. He was mentally ill. He was guilty of something. Anyone could see how dangerous he was just by looking at him, right?After all, if a schizophrenic drifter who can barely read turned young people into killers with speeches like, Yeah get educated study the mystery of history, and the ramis-jamis and in the meantime, well call it the in-between time Now, take the toads toenail pretty, aint it bleep bleep ride in a jeep, clearly the children needed to be protected from this menace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyt6UBA3JcAnd lock up this menace the prosecution did, even if it meant effectively arguing that he was a telepathic wizard who computed people through rambling speeches and folk music. Given the actual available evidence, the wizard angle was the easiest way to convict Manson, and the part of the wizard was one he was born to play.Building the myth was easier than understanding the crime. It was certainly easier than answering how the hippie generations hopes for a brighter tomorrow and the white American middle-class best intentions for their children had spawned such a terrifying turn of events.After this look at the often-asked questions who did Charles Manson kill? and did Charles Manson kill anyone?, experience some of the most astounding Charles Manson quotes. Then learn more about the answer to the question of what did Charles Manson do with this chilling collection of Manson facts.The post What Did Charles Manson Do? Inside The Surprisingly Thin Case Against Him appeared first on All That's Interesting.

McDonald's broke new ground when it introduced the Filet-O-Fish back in the 1960s, but before the launch, CEO Ray Kroc made a lot of noise about its inception.

Preserve your favorite cheeses!READ MORE...