The Fourth Bullet - Johnson Assasinated in 1963

Interesting why do you think Anderson wins? I do disagree with you on the non McCormick Democratic nominee- I think Hubert Humphrey is the frontrunner. He brings us the Great Society and no Vietnam, He does get the blame for the fall of South Vietnam or more likely sends in troops to bolster a tottering regime.
 
Because the man was. If you're using Oliver Stone as a resource, that movies all BS for the reason it makes a better show and is not a historical accuracy.

And he did train a lot because the man was in the damned Marine Corp. He WAS an exceptional shot.

During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards (180 m) [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle). Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter), military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot". [25]
While in the Marines, Oswald was trained in the use of the M1 Garand rifle. Following that training, he was tested in December 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a sharpshooter. In May 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a marksman.[21]
And he trained and had tests far more than that if you wanna look, and he scored with the same quality.

And the rifle was an accurate rifle, and Oswald qualified enough to make up for any short coming.

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:
1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[29] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[30] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2 1/2 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet (81 m),[31] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."
2) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[32] Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.
And shooters better than Oswald can make those shots; its shooters inexperienced or inexperienced with the weapon who couldn't and to use them as evidence Oswald couldn't do it is bunk. I recall an 80 year old man replicated it in a documentary for goodness sake.
 
Thanks for combating another conspiracy canard your majesty!
Oh, how about Conally and Yarbourgh do some public sniping and a newstory about LBJ being dumped from the ticket appears that morning. Kennedy defys protocal and puts the governor and the senator in the same car and seats Johnson next to himself.
 
Originally posted by Paul V McNutt
why do you think that Anderson wins? I do disagree with you on the non-McCormick Democratic nominee - I think Hubert Humphrey is the front runner.

I think that Anderson is a possible winner over Reagan because I get the impression from the wikipedia article on the 1966 California gubernatorial election - http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_1966 - that another Democrat could have defeated Reagan.

I thought of Humphrey as being the likely Democratic front runner in 1964, however from the wikipedia article about him - http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey . "Humphrey's defeat in 1960 had a profound influence on his thinking; after the primaries he told friends that as a relatively poor man in politics, he was unlikely ever to become President unless he served as Vice President first."
 
Top