# where are the history geniuses at?



## brown down (May 20, 2014)

I love american history. I read this last night and well if its true, what are the odds! two of the most horrific times in american history share sooooooo many similarities its kinda scary. only if these facts are actually facts tho.

Very interesting stuff y'all.

Mind Blowing!!!!! 

Have a history teacher explain this if they can.

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.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Now it gets really weird.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Now hang on to your seat.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford."

Kennedy was shot in a car called "Lincoln" made by "Ford."

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And here's the "kicker":

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.

A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

AND...................:

Lincoln was shot in a theater and the assassin ran to a warehouse...

Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and the assassin ran to a theater... 
I saw this had to share just in case anyone did not know.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## barry richardson (May 20, 2014)

Cool.... but what were the 3 names Lincoln was known by?, cant recall ever hearing his middle name


----------



## ironman123 (May 20, 2014)

Man, that is really interesting and a little scary. Thanks for sharing.

Ray


----------



## kweinert (May 20, 2014)

barry richardson said:


> Cool.... but what were the 3 names Lincoln was known by?, cant recall ever hearing his middle name



The item said that both *assassins *were known by their three names - Lincoln didn't have a middle name, only had the two.


----------



## barry richardson (May 20, 2014)

kweinert said:


> The item said that both *assassins *were known by their three names - Lincoln didn't have a middle name, only had the two.


That's what I'm sayin'..... bogus connection... edit, oh yea, the assassins, never mind

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Kevin (May 20, 2014)

I've seen it before but I disagree with some of it. Just one example, it takes an incredible leap of faith to believe Oswald was a lone assassin, if in fact he even fired a gun at all. And what's even more surprising is what's left off the list.


----------



## Mike1950 (May 20, 2014)

I agree the most important info is left out. The feds have that info under lock and key- in both cases-to protect "we the people"  Personally I wish they would stop protecting me so much- I am a big boy and I am sure The truth would be a healthy change!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## brown down (May 20, 2014)

oh I have no doubt he wasn't alone and like you said even fired a shot, but his name is unfortunately the one that comes to most minds when thinking of Kennedy's assassination. 

we only have 40 more years to go before they unlock the truth hahah


----------



## Kevin (May 20, 2014)

I bet you could pick almost any two presidents at random and with enough research find a litany of esoteric coincidences. Heck I can even give you one for example - every modern US president after Old Hickory (and many before) were red herrings and puppets. What are the odds of that? See even a dumb Texan sawyer can figure this stuff out.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Molokai (May 20, 2014)

Kevin said:


> I've seen it before but I disagree with some of it. Just one example, it takes an incredible leap of faith to believe Oswald was a lone assassin, if in fact he even fired a gun at all. And what's even more surprising is what's left off the list.


You have to be a acrobat to make that shot from that small window, into a moving car...


----------



## Kevin (May 20, 2014)

Molokai said:


> You have to be a acrobat to make that shot from that small window, into a moving car...



The bullet would have to be "a magic bullet" to do all that to JFK and Connelly alone, but then especially the fact that James Tague was also wounded speaks to how far-fetched Arlen Specter's magic bulet theory really is and that there was only one gunman. But of course there's many other obvious problems with the lone assassin propaganda.

I never got to meet Mr. Tague though I was able to get him to autograph his book through a mutual friend for me not long before he died. He lived in Bonham but I never got to meet him but I have his book. It's a fascinating read.


----------



## Molokai (Sep 15, 2014)

if you got 12 minutes, it all explains here.....

Reactions: Like 1 | Thank You! 1 | Way Cool 2


----------



## eaglea1 (Sep 15, 2014)

Interesting, so I had to check it out on Snopes.com, and they had this in there.
"Linkin Kennedy"

Lincoln's White House secretaries were John G. Nicolay and John Hay
Booth was born in 1838, not 1839. 
Marilyn Monroe died well over a year before Kennedy's assassination


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2014)

Wow at 12:10 he says the exact same thing I had typed back in May in post #9 yet this video was not made until this month . . . . how spooky is that!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SENC (Sep 15, 2014)

Good video, Tom. Thanks. I've always been a fan of the Law of Near Enough!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2014)

That was a really good video Tom thanks for posting it. 

_"The truly unusual day, would be one where nothing unusual happened"_

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Molokai (Sep 15, 2014)

Kevin said:


> That was a really good video Tom thanks for posting it.
> 
> _"The truly unusual day, would be one where nothing unusual happened"_



Michael from Vsauce has some very good videos and you and everyone should watch them. I watched them all. Just go to his channel on youtube.


----------



## Tclem (Sep 15, 2014)

How about this.
I'm from Mississippi
@SENC wants to be from Mississippi
I'm a genius
@Kevin wants to be

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2014)



Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## SENC (Sep 15, 2014)

Good example of my version of the Law of Near Enough.

Tony, you're near enough. Please don't move any closer.

Oh, and @brown down, the history geniuses are behind the at, with the grammar police.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## DKMD (Sep 15, 2014)

SENC said:


> ... the history geniuses are behind the at, with the grammar police.



I was tempted but decided against it. I'm taking the high road, Henry... Where are you at?


----------



## SENC (Sep 15, 2014)

DKMD said:


> I was tempted but decided against it. I'm taking the high road, Henry... Where are you at?


Just couldn't pass... my mom used to flog me with that on a weekly, if not daily, basis. So I guess I'm behind the at, too.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2014)

I think you can follow a preposition with an adjective and be okay. Like this:

_Henry where are you at, jerkwad? _

Or I guess that could be a noun.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## SENC (Sep 15, 2014)

Kevin said:


> I think you can follow a preposition with an adjective and be okay. Like this:
> 
> _Henry where are you at, jerkwad? _
> 
> Or I guess that could be a noun.


Funny, but still behind the at, illiterate ingrate.

Unless, of course, jerkwad is a place. In which case, no, I am not there... and you can lose the "where" and the comma, my friend.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2014)

SENC said:


> Funny, but still behind the at, illiterate ingrate.
> 
> Unless, of course, jerkwad is a place. In which case, no, I am not there... and you can lose the "where" and the comma, my friend.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## ripjack13 (Sep 15, 2014)

The at? What's that?


----------



## NYWoodturner (Sep 16, 2014)

ripjack13 said:


> The at? What's that?


Rip scores one for the Southern Team!!!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ripjack13 (Sep 16, 2014)

But I'm a swamp yankee!


----------



## ripjack13 (Sep 16, 2014)



Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kevin (Sep 16, 2014)

NYWoodturner said:


> Rip scores one for the Southern Team!!!



This is absolutely hilarious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ripjack13 (Sep 16, 2014)

I need to figure out what's what and where this at is at....


----------



## brown down (Sep 17, 2014)

SENC said:


> Oh, and @brown down, the history geniuses are behind the at, with the grammar police.



I don't have any idea how I've missed all of this lol kevin told me to lay off the booze awhile ago and I never listened 
That video was very interesting! love stuff like that. 

please fill me in on the "behind the at 
I am so lost I can't even begin to tell you all lol.  my bad for not following my own posts

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## SENC (Sep 17, 2014)

Jeff, it is something my mother, who was a stickler for grammar, used to beat me over the head with. In a nutshell, it is improper grammar to end a sentence in a preposition (at, on, in, to, with, by, and about) - as I did in my first sentence. The reason is that a preposition is intended to connect two pieces of a sentence, and so to be correctly used it needs a target (prepositional object). When the preposition is hanging at the end, it lacks the prepositional object (and it is considered incorrect to have that object, generally speaking, precede the preposition). My first sentence would have been grammatically correct had I said "My mother, who was a stickler for grammar, used to beat me over the head with this saying." Similarly, "at" requires an object (ie., it needs something "behind the at"). The saying doesn't really make sense because if you knew the answer you wouldn't be asking the question, right? But the intent of the saying is to sarcastically indicate that you don't need the "at" at all. "Where are the history geniuses?" would be perfect. The "at" does nothing but raise the ire of mothers and grammar teachers, and provide openings for smart-ass forum colleagues to poke fun.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## ripjack13 (Sep 17, 2014)

This is the sort of bloody nonsense that ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## brown down (Sep 17, 2014)

hhahahaha I will tell you that if it wasn't for auto correct on my puter the "at "wouldn't be the only thing you were pointing out . I am terrible with spelling and grammar!! too bad this site wasn't around when I was in high school lol I might have passed English class lol.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Schroedc (Sep 17, 2014)

I snagged a dangling participle on a barbed wire fence one.......

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## SENC (Sep 17, 2014)

Schroedc said:


> I snagged a dangling participle on a barbed wire fence one.......


That'll larn ya!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## DKMD (Sep 17, 2014)

Schroedc said:


> I snagged a dangling participle on a barbed wire fence one.......


Just gets worse as you get older... The participles seem to dangle further and further.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Kevin (Sep 18, 2014)

SENC said:


> and provide openings for smart-ass forum colleagues to poke fun.



Didn't you mean to say _"... poke fun *at*."_?

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## brown down (Sep 18, 2014)

SENC said:


> and provide openings for smart-ass forum colleagues to poke fun.
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> ...


----------

