 |
11-09-2005, 21:55
|
|
|
|
חבר מתאריך: 20.12.01
הודעות: 20,962
|
|
|
קבל, גיא:
המידע מהאתר snopes, אתה גי712 רצח בקטע של אגדות אינטרנט אורבניות ושות' ( לינק ישיר) :
Example: Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both were shot in the head.
Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.
Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners.
Both successors were named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are comprised of fifteen letters
Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
Origins: Not long after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in
1963, the above list of amazing coincidences appeared, and it has been
widely and continuously reprinted and circulated ever since. Despite the
seemingly impressive surface appearance, several of these entries are
either misleading or factually incorrect, and the rest are mere superficial
coincidences that fail to touch upon the substantial differences and
dissimilarities that underlie them.
Let's examine them one at a time: Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. This statement is literally true: both Lincoln and Kennedy were first elected
to Congress one hundred years apart. Aside from that minor coincidence,
however, their political careers bore little resemblance to each other.
Lincoln was an Illinois state legislator who, outside of his election to a
single term in the House of Representatives, failed in his every attempt to
gain national political office until he was elected President in 1860,
including an unsuccessful bid for the Senate in 1854, a unsuccessful bid t
become the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1856, and another
unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in 1858.
Kennedy, on the other hand, enjoyed an unbroken string of political
successes at the national level when he entered the political arena after
World War II. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946,
re-elected in 1948, re-elected again in 1950, won a Senate seat in 1952,
was re-elected to the Senate in 1958, and was elected President in 1960. Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. It's hardly surprising that two men who (as noted above) both achieved
their first political successes at the national level a hundred years apart
would also ascend to the Presidency a hundred years apart. This
"coincidence" is even less surprising when we consider that presidential
elections are held only once every four years. Lincoln couldn't possibly
have been elected President in 1857 or 1858 or 1859 or 1861 or 1862 or
1863, because no presidential elections were held in those years.
Likewise, Kennedy couldn't possibly have been elected President in the
non-election years of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, or 1963. So, even
though both men were politically active at the national level during
eight-year spans when they might have been elected President,
circumstances dictated that the only years during those spans when they
both could have been elected were exactly one hundred years apart.
Also unmentioned here is the fact that Lincoln was re-elected to a second
term as President, but Kennedy was killed before the completion of his
first term. The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters. Surely this is the most trivial of coincidences, especially considering that
the two men's first names contain different numbers of letters, and that
Kennedy had a middle name (Fitzgerald) while Lincoln had none.
We're supposed to be amazed at minor happenstances such as the two
men's being elected exactly one hundred years apart or having the same
number of letters in their last names, but we're supposed to think nothing of
the numerous non-coincidences: Lincoln was born in 1809; Kennedy was
born in 1917. Lincoln died in 1865; Kennedy died in 1963. Lincoln was 56
years old at the time of his death; Kennedy was 46 years old at the time of
his death. No striking coincidences or convenient hundred-year
differences in any of those facts. Even when we consider that, absent all
other factors, the two men had a one in twelve chance of dying in the sam
month, we find no coincidence there: Lincoln was killed in April; Kennedy
was killed in November. Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. This is one of the statements that is so misleadingly worded (or downright
inaccurate) that it doesn't really merit inclusion even on a list of mere
superficial similarities.
First of all, saying that Lincoln and Kennedy were both "particularly
concerned with civil rights" is like saying that Woodrow Wilson and
Franklin Roosevelt were both "particularly concerned with war," or that
Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan were both "particularly concerned
with economics." Neither Lincoln nor Kennedy evinced a "particular
interest" in civil rights, and to all appearances, both would willingly have
maintained the racial status quo had events beyond their control not force
their hands.
Although Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, his primary concern
with the issue was how its divisiveness affected the United States, not the
liberation of the Black man. Had the Union been able to survive half slave
and half free without erupting into war, Lincoln's stated position was that he
would have allowed the institution of slavery to remain intact and die a slow
death. And whatever Lincoln's personal feelings about the equality of
Blacks, he didn't espouse support for their "civil rights" because he
believed that white society would never accept them as equals. Lincoln's
only real expression of "civil rights" was his support for the idea of
relocating free Blacks to Liberia so they could live apart from whites in a
separate society. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued
as an exigency of war, not as measure intended to permanently end
slavery in the USA, and constitutional amendments ending slavery and
guaranteeing citizens of all races the right to vote were not enacted until
after Lincoln's death.
In Kennedy's case, it was only after racial crises such as the University of
Mississippi's refusal to admit a Black student (James Meredith) to attend
class and the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham,
Alabama, that he belatedly moved to promote civil rights legislation. Even
then, his lack of support in Congress (and, ultimately, his assassination)
meant that the task of passing civil rights legislation (such as the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965) fell to his
successor, Lyndon Johnson. Both wives lost their children while living in the White House. Another statement that, while literally true, is misleading and masks much
more substantial dissimilarities.
The circumstances and nature of the deaths alluded to here are completel
different, and the way the statement is phrased ("Both wives lost their
children") implies that both women suffered the misfortune of a stillbirth or
the death of an infant, something that is true only of Mrs. Kennedy.
All of Lincoln's children were born before he entered the White House, an
the Lincolns actually lost two children, not just one (although only one died
during Lincoln's tenure as President). Edward Lincoln died of tuberculosis
in 1850, just before his fourth birthday, and the Lincolns' eleven-year-old
son Willie succumbed to typhoid at the end of their first year in the White
House.
The Kennedys, on the other hand, were the rare Presidential couple still
young enough to be bearing children after entering the White House, and
premature child born to Mrs. Kennedy in 1963 died two days later.
Other differences: The Lincolns had four children, all boys, only one of
whom lived past his teens. The Kennedys had three children, two boys an
a girl, two of whom survived well into adulthood. Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. Another non-surprise. Absent all other factors, the odds were already one
in seven that both killings would have occurred on the same day of the
week. (Don't even think about writing to tell us that we're wrong and the
odds are really one in forty-nine. If you think we're wrong, you don't
understand the question.) Add to that the obvious notions that the best
chance the average person has to shoot a President is at a public functio
and that most public functions are held on weekends, and it becomes eve
more likely that a President would be killed on a Friday, Saturday, or
Sunday. (Indeed, an earlier plot by Booth to kidnap Lincoln while the latter
was attending a play at the Campbell Hospital was slated for March 17,
also a Friday.) Both were shot in the head. This "coincidence" is just plain dumb. The only two types of shots which
reasonably assure a dead victim are chest shots and head shots, so two
assassinations committed by head shots aren't the least bit coincidental,
especially considering that since both Lincoln and Kennedy were shot
from behind and while seated, their assassins had no other practical
choice of target. And the "coincidence" here is even less surprising when
we consider the differences: Lincoln was killed indoors with a small
handgun at point blank range; Kennedy was shot outdoors with a rifle from
several hundred feet away. Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to Ford's Theatre.
Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas. This is one of those coincidences that isn't a coincidence at all -- it's
simply wrong. John Kennedy did have a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln
(who may or may not have warned him about going to Dallas), but one
searches in vain to find a Lincoln secretary named Kennedy. (Lincoln's
White House secretaries were John G. Nicolay and John Hay.)
The more important point is that since Presidents are frequent recipients
of assassination threats, they rarely make any public appearances without
somebody's warning them of potential danger. Only on the extemely rare
occasions when a tragedy actually occurs do we later take note of the
warnings; in all other cases the failed "prophecies" are quickly forgotten.
(Lincoln received "an unusual number of letters about plots to kidnap or
assassinate him," said to have numbered at least eighty, yet none of thos
plots were enacted.) Nor does anyone think to mention other attempts at
kidnap or assassination that were not preceded by any recorded warning
to the victims. (Lincoln was shot at on at least one other occasion.)
Yes, Lincoln was warned not to go to Ford's Theatre by persons
concerned for his safety, just as he had been warned not to visit Richmon
a week earlier, and just as he had been warned not to attend his own
inauguration in 1861. Obviously, only one of the myriad of warnings he
received throughout his four years in office was on the mark. Likewise,
Kennedy was warned not to visit San Antonio the day before his trip to
Dallas (and undoubtedly before a host of other appearances as well), but
only the last warning he allegedly received is considered significant,
because it coincidentally happened to come true. As Jeane Dixon and
other "psychics" have demonstrated, if you make enough predictions, one
of them is eventually bound to come true -- just as a stopped clock is also
right twice a day. Both were assassinated by Southerners. A dubious use of the term "Southerner." Although John Wilkes Booth was
undeniably a Southern sympathizer, he was born in Maryland, which (alon
with Delaware) was the northernmost of the border slave states and
remained part of the Union throughout the Civil War. Additionally, Booth
spent a good deal of his life in the North and "thought of himself as a
Northerner who understood the South."
Oswald was nominally a Southerner by virtue of his having been born in
New Orleans; he spent his youth being shuttled between Lousiana, Texas,
and New York before finally joining the Marines. But Oswald's
"Southerness" is of no real import, because, unlike Booth, Oswald was no
motivated by a regional affiliation. Both were succeeded by Southerners. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were "succeeded by Southerners" because
both had Southerners as vice-president, another fact hardly surprising
considering the circumstances. Lincoln was a Northern Republican running
for re-election while the country was in the midst of a civil war and needed
a Southerner and a Democrat to balance the ticket, hence his choice of
Tennessean Andrew Johnson. Kennedy, represented New England and
therefore needed a vice-presidential candidate who could appeal to the
populous Southern and Western regions, hence his choice of a
Southwesterner, Texan Lyndon Johnson.
The identification of Andrew Johnson as a "Southerner" is also a bit
problematic here. Although Johnson was born in North Carolina and spent
his adult life in Tennessee (both slave states), Johnson was also the only
Southern senator who refused to follow his state when it seceded, and he
remained loyal to the Union. Both successors were named Johnson. Given the high frequency of "Johnson" (literally "son of John") as a
surname in both Lincoln's and Kennedy's time, this "coincidence" should
be no real surprise to anyone. Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908. Another hundred-year coincidence that is hardly surprising, since nearly all
American politicians have attained high office (President or
Vice-President) while in the 50-70 age range (and Andrew Johnson and
Lyndon Johnson were, obviously, contemporaries of Lincoln and Kennedy,
respectively). Perhaps it's time to point out that there's nothing
"coincidental" about events merely because they somehow involve the
number 100. If we sifted through all the Lincoln/Kennedy data, we could
produce multiple instances of events involving the number 17 or 49 or 116
but nobody would consider those "coincidences" because they don't yield
nice round numbers that have any significance to us, even though they're
all just as "coincidental" as the number 100.
And once again, let's consider all the differences between the two
Johnsons, such as that one hailed from North Carolina while the other was
from Texas, or that one supported slavery while the other championed civil
rights, or that one was never elected President in his own right while the
other won the biggest presidential landslide in history, or that one was
impeached while the other wasn't, or that one became President at the
end of a war while the other became President at the beginning of a war. John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939. Another coincidence that is no coincidence because it's plain wrong:
Booth was born in 1838, not 1839. Both assassins were known by their three names. Another "coincidence" of dubious veracity. John Wilkes Booth was often
billed as "J. Wilkes Booth" or simply "John Wilkes" (primarily to distinguish
himself from his father and brother -- both named Junius -- and his brother
Edwin, all three of whom were also actors), and as a prominent actor, his
name was already familiar to the general public at the time of Lincoln's
assassination. Lee Oswald was generally referred to as "Lee" (not "Lee
Harvey") before Kennedy's assassination and was unknown to the genera
public until his arrest; the common usage of his full name only came about
after the assassination because his habitual employment of false names
(including several variations on his real name) and his possession of
forged identification cards made it difficult for the Dallas police to identify
him. Both names are comprised of fifteen letters Coincidence? None of their first, middle, or last names have the same
number of letters. And why should it be significant that both assassins had
the same number of letters in their full names when the same wasn't true of
Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, or of Andrew Johnson and
Lyndon Baines Johnson?
Once again, perhaps we should focus on the substantive differences
between the two men: Booth was born into a prominent family and, like his
father, was a well-known, popular, gregarious actor. Oswald was born (and
lived most of his life) in near poverty-level circumstances, never knew his
father (who died two months before Oswald was born) and was an
obscure, moody malcontent who never had any close friends or a steady
job. Oswald was married with two children; Booth had neither wife nor
offspring. Oswald enlisted in the Marines, but Booth kept a promise to his
mother not to join the Confederate army. Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Another "coincidence" that is both inaccurate and superficial.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre of the type where live stage shows are held,
then fled across state lines before being trapped and killed in a tobacco
shed several days later.
Oswald shot Kennedy from (not in) a textbook warehouse, then remained
in Dallas and was caught and taken alive in a movie theater a little over an
hour later. Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials. Another superficial similarity with much more significant underlying
differences, and a potentially dubious use of the word "assassinated."
After Booth shot Lincoln, he fled the scene and eventually (with
co-conspirator, David Herold) crossed the Potomac from Maryland into
Virginia, eluding capture for a total of eleven days before federal troops
finally discovered him to be hiding on a farm belonging to Richard Garrett
and surrounded the barn in which he and Herold were sleeping. The two
men were ordered to surrender: Herold complied, but when Booth failed to
drop his weapon and come out, the barn was set ablaze. A trooper named
Boston Corbett, who was watching Booth through a gap in the barn's
siding, shot the assassin. Whether Corbett can be said to have
"assassinated" Booth is problematic -- the deeply religious Corbett
sometimes claimed that he had shot Booth because "Providence
directed" him to do it or because he "did not want Booth to be roasted
alive," but he also testified that he shot Booth because he "saw [Booth] in
the act of stooping or springing and concluded he was going to use his
weapons."
Oswald left the warehouse from which he shot Kennedy and was arrested
in a movie theater a little over an hour later by police officers who had no
idea who he was. (Oswald was initially arrested only for the murder of
Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, whom he shot while in flight; his
connection to the Kennedy assassination was not established until later.)
Oswald was captured alive and remained in custody for two days before
being gunned down by Jack Ruby, a private citizen.
Other differences: Booth was shot in the back in the neck and lived for
another three hours; Oswald was shot in the abdomen and died within
minutes of his arrival at Parkland Hospital. A month before Lincoln was assassinated he was in Monroe, Maryland.
A month before Kennedy was assassinated he was in Marilyn Monroe. This is a latter-day addition to the list and nothing more than a bit of
salacious humor. Even as a humorous coincidence it fails the test, as
Marilyn Monroe died well over a year before Kennedy's assassination.
So what are we to make of all this? How do we account for all these
coincidences, no matter how superficial they may be, and why do so many
people find this list so compelling?
The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere
chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two
marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and
kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of
Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems
from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our
universe is orderly and can be understood. In this specific case two of our
most beloved Presidents were murdered for reasons that make little or no
sense to many of us, and by finding patterns in their deaths we also hope
to find a larger cosmic "something" that seemingly provides some
reassuring (if indefinite) rhyme or reason why these great men were
prematurely snatched from our mortal sphere.
Last updated: 12 June 1999
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2003
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
לצערי נעלמו מספר אותיות בזמן העריכה, אבל התיקון ייקח שנים. מקסימום תסתכלו בלינק. שם הכל תקין 
|
|
ראשי
צ'אט
מצב כלאיים
