History Headscratchers / Timeless

* Why would Rittenhouse choose an occupation as inherently dangerous as professional auto racing for a deep-cover operative who has to embed himself into an organization for years to become effective? This isn't a sedentary job like being an English teacher at a posh prep school or a movie producer, or one where the operative can blend in with the crowd like the women's suffrage movement. Millerson has to become prominent in order to become effective, which means risking his life every time he enters the starting grid. Modern racing on the NASCAR circuit is extremely dangerous--consider what happened to Dale Earnhardt Jr. Racing in the 1940's and 1950's would be even more dangerous. Millerson could have easily been killed or crippled for life while establishing cover and the whole operation would have been ruined. It's possible that a modern NASCAR driver was a Rittenhouse member who was recruited (or blackmailed) for the job, doing a KillAndReplace on the historical Millerson, but his family would have noticed at some point. It would have been better to embed himself into (for example) Henry Ford III's entourage where he would have had access ''and'' not have to risk his life--if anything his Rittenhouse credentials might have made the job easier considering Millerson's mission was to purge the organization.

* Why would Rittenhouse choose an occupation as inherently dangerous as professional auto racing for a deep-cover operative who has to embed himself into an organization for years to become effective? This isn't a sedentary job like being an English teacher at a posh prep school or a movie producer, or one where the operative can blend in with the crowd like the women's suffrage movement. Millerson has to become prominent in order to become effective, which means risking his life every time he enters the starting grid. Modern racing on the NASCAR circuit is extremely dangerous--consider what happened to Dale Earnhardt Jr. Racing in the 1940's and 1950's would be even more dangerous. Millerson could have easily been killed or crippled for life while establishing cover and the whole operation would have been ruined. It would have been better to embed himself into (for example) Henry Ford III's entourage where he would have had access ''and'' not have to risk his life--if anything his Rittenhouse credentials might have made the job easier considering Millerson's mission was to purge the organization.

* Why would Rittenhouse choose an occupation as inherently dangerous as professional auto racing for a deep-cover operative who has to embed himself into an organization for years to become effective? Modern racing on the NASCAR circuit is extremely dangerous--consider what happened to Dale Earnhardt Jr. Racing in the 1940's and 1950's, before modern safety rules, would be even more dangerous. Millerson could have easily died or been crippled for life while establishing cover and the whole operation would have been ruined.

* Why would Rittenhouse choose an occupation as inherently dangerous as professional auto racing for a deep-cover operative who has to embed himself into an organization for years to become effective? Modern racing on the NASCAR circuit is extremely dangerous--consider what happened to Dale Earnhardt Jr. Racing in the 1940's and 1950's, before modern safety rules, would be even more dangerous. Millerson could have easily died or been crippled for life while establishing cover and the whole operation would have been ruined.

[[/folder]]

* So in the first part of the finale, Flynn kills a Rittenhouse agent who is about to meet Jessica, then kills Jessica, too. Who was her killer in the original timeline?

[[/folder]]

** 4.) While the Butterfly Effect is treated as a serious threat in the show and actually kicks in in the very first episode, from then onward it's more like a RubberBandHistory - regardless of what the time travellers do, apart from the actual imprint they left on history, the present is nigh-identical as a rule. While it helps that the actions of the team usually cancel out the activities of their adversaries, all the numerous smaller changes to the past (like the considerable body count the time travellers leave in their wake) don't leave a lasting impression as a rule. It is unclear if this is more because of the actions of the protagonists, or if there is some sort of chronological inertia at work. The events of the episode "Karma Chameleon" seem to support the idea that [[spoiler: there is at least some degree of inertia at work, but not enough to prevent the past from changing entirely.]]

** 4.) Related to the above rule, the Butterfly Effect is treated as a serious threat in the show, but thus far it has been somewhat muted, with a few notable exceptions. It is unclear if this is more because of the actions of the protagonists, or if there is some sort of chronological inertia at work. The events of the episode "Karma Chameleon" seem to support the idea that [[spoiler: there is at least some degree of inertia at work, but not enough to prevent the past from changing entirely.]]

* Women's suffrage activist Alice Paul is killed by a Rittenhouse operative while in police custody to prevent her from giving a major speech. While the impact of that speech is debatable (momentum in favor of granting women the right to vote had already been building for the past year[[note]]The changing demographics of the US in the early 1900s had a very big role in granting women the vote. Nativist sentiment in particular in the Eastern states would drive support for women's voting rights--white upper-class women (who by 1910's thinking could be told how to vote by their husbands) were needed to counter the voting impact of immigrants. Meanwhile in the thinly-populated Western states granting women the right to vote was a matter of simple logistics and a need to attract settlement; this is why Wyoming--then and now the least-populous state--was the first to grant women the vote in statewide elections.[[/note]] This is entirely the wrong strategy for Rittenhouse to pursue. Killing Paul, who had already endured a brutal prison sentence for the cause, only serves to make her an InspirationalMartyr for the women's rights movement--arguably making her even ''more'' effective than in the original timeline. In the original timeline Alice Paul would live to be 92 years old and continue to be influential in the women's rights movement, and the larger civil rights movement, until her death in 1977. Rittenhouse's strategy may have diminished her direct impact in these areas but she's still going to have an impact nonetheless. It would have made more sense to eliminate Paul the same way they tried to eliminate JFK--by targeting her as a child or young adult. Given the number of ways children could die early in the 1880's it wouldn't have been hard to do either.

* Women's suffrage activist Alice Paul is killed by a Rittenhouse operative while in police custody to prevent her from giving a major speech. While the impact of that speech is debatable (momentum in favor of granting women the right to vote had already been building for the past year) this is entirely the wrong strategy for Rittenhouse to pursue. Killing Paul, who had already endured a brutal prison sentence for the cause, only serves to make her an InspirationalMartyr for the women's rights movement--arguably making her even ''more'' effective than in the original timeline. In the original timeline Alice Paul would live to be 92 years old and continue to be influential in the women's rights movement, and the larger civil rights movement, until her death in 1977. Rittenhouse's strategy may have diminished her direct impact in these areas but she's still going to have an impact nonetheless. It would have made more sense to eliminate Paul the same way they tried to eliminate JFK--by targeting her as a child or young adult. Given the number of ways children could die early in the 1880's it wouldn't have been hard to do either.

* Women's suffrage activist Alice Paul is killed by a Rittenhouse operative while in police custody to prevent her from giving an influential speech. While the impact of that speech is debatable (momentum in favor of granting women the right to vote had already been building for the past year) this is entirely the wrong strategy for Rittenhouse to pursue. Killing Paul, who had already endured a brutal prison sentence for the cause, only serves to make her an InspirationalMartyr for the women's rights movement--arguably making her even ''more'' effective than in the original timeline. In the original timeline Alice Paul would live to be 92 years old and continue to be influential in the women's rights movement, and the larger civil rights movement, until her death in 1977. Rittenhouse's strategy may have diminished her direct impact in these areas but she's still going to be influential. It would have made more sense to eliminate Paul the same way they tried to eliminate JFK--by targeting her as a child or young adult before she has a chance to become influential. Given the number of ways children could die early in the 1880's it wouldn't have been hard to do either.

* Women's suffrage activist Alice Paul is killed by a Rittenhouse operative while in police custody to prevent her from giving an influential speech. While the impact of that speech is debatable (momentum in favor of granting women the right to vote had already been building for the past year) this is entirely the wrong strategy for Rittenhouse to pursue. Killing Paul, who had already endured a brutal prison sentence for the cause, only serves to make her an InspirationalMartyr for the women's rights movement--arguably making her even ''more'' effective than in the original timeline. Alice Paul would live to be 92 years old and continue to be influential in the women's rights movement, and the larger civil rights movement, until her death in 1977. Rittenhouse's strategy may have diminished her direct impact in these areas but she's still going to be influential. It would have made more sense to eliminate Paul the same way they tried to eliminate JFK--by targeting her as a child or young adult before she has a chance to become influential. Given the number of ways children could die early in the 1880's it wouldn't have been hard to do either.

* This also raises the question of whether his presence at the atomic testing site in 1962 was a consequence of his foreknowledge by keeping his affairs more discreet (with Sammy Davis performing at the local hotel, and the weekly atomic testing being a major tourist draw, both would have been distractions from anyone being curious as to why JFK was at a Las Vegas hotel without his wife).

* John F. Kennedy is the only historical figure who's seen detailed information about the future. Even assuming he never tells anyone else what he saw, having foreknowledge of the fates of his siblings, and of his own legacy, is bound to change his decisions between 1934 and 1963. We already know that he [[spoiler: took Rufus seriously and avoided Dallas on November 22, 1963--only to be shot in Austin on the same day]]. What other actions did he take as a result of his exposure to the future? How was his life in general, and his presidency in particular, changed as a result? Did he avoid the Japanese destroyer that sunk PT-109 when he was in command, ensuring that two sailors survive the war (or at least that particular engagement)? Did he avoid his numerous extramarital affairs (or at least be more discreet about them) to keep his legacy from being tainted? Was he more ambitious during his presidency and avoid some of the mistakes he made? Even if Kennedy tells no one else, having this knowledge will influence his decision-making for better and for worse.

** Probably not. Flynn isn't exactly the most stable guy, you know.

*** The only thing that I could think would bring up background checks deep enough to stumble across the fact his fingerprints match some around a crime scene from before he was born would be the military, though. You don't exactly get fingerprinted when getting a passport or a driver's license. By the time he does go for those, security cam footage or not, I doubt anyone doing them would have noticed the resemblance of this sixteen-year old to a thirty-or-so year old from a random cold case of a single day's incident from over sixteen years ago. As for joining the military, while any of that information coming up in their checks would certainly weird people out, without knowing of time travel, people can't actually see that result and think Wyatt must have committed the crimes because his birth date makes it impossible. They'd probably attribute it to an error or a one-in-a-million chance of people existing having the same fingerprints or something, because Wyatt can't have committed crimes before he was born. After they learned of time travel, however, that information might've caught their eye, but until Wyatt went rogue, if they hadn't just forgotten about this weird incident altogether, they probably thought the crime was something they'd authorise him to do in the future at some point, such as this having something to do with his pursuit of Flynn.

** Mark Felt was already taking a ''huge'' risk by talking to Woodward and Berenstein. Alienating not only Nixon but also Nixon's [[BiggerBad even more powerful enemies]] would have been fatal. And removing Deep Throat from the timeline also removes not only Watergate but an entire generation of activist media--making it easier for Rittenhouse to do whatever it is they're doing without interference.