I looked for about 30 minutes until finding a URL on the graphic image on the CNN article. Anyway, the game is available here: http://www.jfkreloaded.com/

You can download a demo version and it is quite basic (of course, some of the main functions have been removed).

David

Jeez, I do not know what to think of this game. The creators state that its function is to help disprove the conspiracy theories but it is seems ridiculous that a simulation could concretely prove anything. Now, I have only been looking at the demo (so the ability to fire has been turned off) but the ability to take numerous head shots at the late US President seems, well, it seems so strange to play a sim of assaninating the preisdent.

David
Alberta, Canada

Unlike "Reality Big Game", I don't have a problem with this JFK sim concept; it seems pretty interesting, actually, from the angle of understanding how possible or not it really was for Oswald to pull it off. (I loved Oliver Stone's film.) It's been such a big historical controversy, a simulation seems like an instructive way to understand it. I'd only need to know if my aim and timing would work; I don't need to actually pull the trigger and see the results.

However, I would be offended by a game where I pilot a 747 into the Twin Towers. (Tangent -- I was offended by the gratuitious "9/11 the game".)

But I wouldn't be offended by a game where I have to figure out how to bypass the airport security systems in order to pull of the 9/11 tragedy, in order to understand how this was allowed to happen. The game could end as the planes approach the towers; I wouldn't need to actually simulate the collision with the towers to understand the situation.

Yeah, I see your point (still it is weird no?).

Later I was also thinking that it does not really prove anything. A simulation is just an abstraction and approximation (in that it models complex behaviors or a complex situation). So, if I come close to winning, all I am really doing is coming as close as possible to the simulation, not proving whether it happened that way... or does that make sense. It is weird since the game is based on the Warren Commission's report.

I was also kind of disappointed to see that they didn't model the spectators.

David

Doesn't it seem odd that it's that hard to find this link? With the perceived overwhelming public belief that there was a conspiracy, the only motivation for a company/group to create this game would be to debunk the conspiracy theories.

How do you do that if you don't make the game easy to find?

On a related note, during the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban "freedom fighters" who sailed back to Cuba to assault Castro were ferried over on two boats officially paid for by a "rich, Texas oilman." The names of those boats were the "Zapata," and the "Barbara J."

Interestingly enough, George W.'s dad owned Zapata oil at that time, when he was simply an oilman from Texas. Everybody remember his mom's name?

Heh... it makes sense why things like this come back to the limelight every now and again.

Andrew: riffing off your comments, do you think the fact that the simulation represents only the book repository room undermines its potential power? Would it be better if the game tried to paint a picture of Oswald's situation, motivations, and the general political climate at the time?

David: I was also kind of disappointed to see that they didn't model the spectators.

I also find this truly bizarre. Why do we feel this way? Is the "publicness" of the event one of its most salient qualities?

Aha! I found a note on the absence of crowds in the game FAQ. Check it out, under Assumptions:

It is safe to leave out elements with no bearing on the assassination.

In order to run the simulation at an acceptable frame-rate and to keep the file download size reasonable, we have omitted non-essential items that were present on the day but were immaterial to the assassination. This includes crowds, certain buildings and other minor objects.

The reasoning continues in another FAQ entry:

All the surviving photographic, film and testimonial evidence attests to the fact there were large crowds of people watching the motorcade pass. Many of those members of the public gave evidence to the Commission. However, for JFK Reloaded it was necessary to limit the size of the downloadable data for customers with slower internet connection speeds and also to render acceptable frame-rates on typical PCs. This meant making decisions about what to include or exclude from the scene. As the Presidential motorcade is the central critical focus of the ‘re-enactment’, this was felt to be the most important element to include in the simulation. Note that key members of the crowd who recorded the events in photos, film or testimony are acknowledged in the action-replay section of the simulation, where the player can select significant locations from which to view the action, corresponding to where the witnesses were standing at the time – for example, “Zapruder’s View”, “Nix’s View”, etc.

So, the decision seems to have been motivated by a kind of practical logic. What do you think, is the absence of crowds "immaterial to the assassination?" See the related FAQ entry on the injury of bystander James Tague:

The Commission records that a ricochet may have hit a bystander, James Tague, because there is strong evidence that James Tague was slightly injured in the face by a flying piece of debris during the shooting. However, this was a ‘random’ occurrence – clearly Oswald wasn’t intending to injure Tague. To expect the player to reproduce this chance occurrence would be unfair, to say the least.

Or what about the possibility of firing on innocent bystanders, or simply the phenomenal issues of many moving objects affecting the focus and aim of the sniper?

There's a BBC article about the game, too.

No one seems to have a problem playing the Nazi-directed German army in World War II simulations, and no one raised an eyebrow when Beyond Castle Wolfenstein was released in 1985 - the player is supposed to assassinate Hitler in that game. So any outrage or other unusual reaction couldn't spring from a general distaste for assassination or some displeasure at a game that allows you to play the bad guy.

I suspect it has more to do with the assassinated figure being a popular person in living memory, whose family members are still a part of public life. I don't think that even being a famous and well-loved American president is the main factor, since I can't imagine the same mix of feelings and responses being directed at an "assassinate Lincoln" game.

Nick -- I suppose the situation in Castle Wolfenstein wasn't purporting to recreate the actual events of a raid on Hitler's bunker. The JFK game is also very well framed by the developer, who was quite deliberate about the reasons for creating it.

Does interactivity just raise the stakes on issues of ineffability?

I think an important disctinction to make here is that the goal of the game is to recreate the event, exactly, including missing the first shot. They are not encouraging players to find the best way to kill the president.

That said, I wonder if the game might seem a little less tasteless if they weren't turning a profit from it, and instead "selling" it entirely as an educational aide.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of the newest crop of Vietnam games, either. Surprising that the same stink hasn't been raised about the America's Army games as games like Grand Theft Auto, the prior which can be supposed teaches players a lot more about how to use actual weapons accurately.

Reminds me of Screenshots. Ever since that piece first came out, I've been intrigued by what it would mean to turn each of the historical vignettes into a small, interactive simulation. I'll have to check out the game to see how it compares with the effectiveness of the static Screenshots.

I have not downloaded the Demo or the game. I remember the day clearly. I remember all the news about how it happened. The big problem is a lot of information has been sealed for 100 years. What are they hiding. Could it be that the CIA hired the Mafia to kill JFK and the Mafia called in a favor that Ruby owed so Ruby was the guy that put a lid on Oswald. He made up the story to protect the rest of his family.
I have use guns and rifles and the 3 shots that Oswald pulled off with a bolt action rifle at that angle and in motion is a very hard shot. Things just do not add up for me. Mostly the angle. Most hits seem too shallow. That is why the grassy knoll has some truth to it.
I always thought that the first shot hit JFK in the neck..
Time to see the demo

Ok, I have played the full version of the game. It's very ... antiseptic, let's say, very scientific. There is little attempt to create a sense of reward or pleasure in the violence. The player is very focused on the ballistics and the timing.

THIS GAME IS A SAD EXAMPLE OF WASTED BRAIN CELLS AND SHOWING COMPLETE LACK OF CHARACTER,NOT TO MENTION NO MORALS...I AM SURE YOUR MOTHER PROBABLY WISHES SHE HAD ABORTED YOU(FORGIVE ME FOR THAT ONE,IT WAS A CHEAP SHOT) YOU CARE NOTHING ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING YOUR LEAD AND YOUR EXAMPLE...I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER IF YOU HAVE KIDS,OR NIECES OR NEPHEWS..ITS A PITY IF YOU DO(THEY HAVE MY SYMPATHY) MAYBE YOU AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO RELIZE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING...BY THE WAY..HAS ANYONE EVER ACCUSED YOU OF BEING THE ANTI-CHRIST??MAY YOU RECEIVE WHATS IN YOUR FUTURE LIKE A MAN(OH,I'M SORRY,I AM ADDRESSING SOMETHING YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY ABOUT!

I don't understand the outrage. At some point last week, i was channel flipping and ended up watching a JFK Assassination-themed show. The show utilized several simulations to examine the assassination including a computer simulation that is very similar to JFK Reloaded. Yet, there was/is no outrage over that simulation and many other like it.

Ian is right on calling the action antiseptic and scientific. Action is anything but glorified- even a simple change in audio could have "amped up" the action.

My guess is that if we saw a "scientist" or "researcher" use this tool on a television, nobody would even think twice about it. Popular agency, however, changes everything regarding public opinion.

do you think the fact that the simulation represents only the book repository room undermines its potential power?

Not really, since just the logistics of the shots are so very much the controversy here... It also helps to be a least a bit familiar with the history of the controversy in the first place, or perhaps the game explains it?

Does it simulate the difficulty of shooting the gun quickly? I remember a major point in Oliver Stone's film was that the gun itself would have been difficult to get off 3 shots in the time required.

Clive Thompson reviews it, and makes it sound like it's actually kind of horrific, more than antiseptic.

What I meant by "antiseptic" is that the game doesn't sugar-coat the fact that you are committing virtual murder, rather than enacting fantasy.

Slate was fast on the trigger (as it were) with Clive's piece. How about this for a ringer: maybe part of the experience of the game should be to instill horror, disgust. How long have Gonzalo and I been saying this, that games don't need to be about fun?

I think the key word here is irony.

Yes, in some sense it is horrific and awful and ugly that we are giving people the chance to re-enact the JFK Assassination.

But isn't ironic that thousands of visitors head to Dealey Plaza every year to mentally re-enact (say, simulate) the killing? I've stood on the grassy knoll with one eye closed, peering down the road, trying to imagine if that was a good place to shoot.

Whoever is in charge of such things keeps the window on the fourth floor of the Book Depository cracked open, just like it was that day. You can head up the stairs and for a few bucks see for yourself if that would be a good place to shoot.

Oliver Stone and every newspaper and magazine in the country has participated in a slow-motion simulation of every possible hypothesis (I especially liked Penn and Teller shooting watermelons wrapped in plastic to prove that the "head-snap" could happen even if Kennedy was shot from behind.). Simualtion of the Kennedy assasination is nothing short of a national pastime. We can't begrude a bunch of Scot game developers for wanting to get in on the action.

And to follow up Nick's point, we should make a list (for ironic purposes) of all the popular games that no one has gotten out of sorts of about that depict far more horrific historical scenes.

I'll list my two favorite:

Medal of Honor and the assault on Omaha Beach

Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots expansion pack--the criminal genocide of the American Indians by settlers.

Ah, the delicious irony.

-- David

I have always found the conspiracy theories concerning the murder(s) that day hugely disrespectful to the memories of JFK and (let's not forget) officer Tippet - also slain by Oswald.

The TV documentary on earlier this year (anyone know the name of it?) proved to most rational people beyond a reasonable doubt, that Oswald acted alone.
It exposed the blatent innacuracy put forward by Oliver Stones fantasy movie 'JFK'
Giving the American public a chance to make their own minds up is a good thing. And of course if it does affend / outrage - then don't buy it. Simple as that.

The simulation seems very well researched and intelligently crafted. It's not just trying to shock by letting you kill a random well loved figure. There is no doubt as to how the Trade towers fell. Nor how Martin Luther King or Abe Lincon were slain. If no-one cared for the details on JFK's assination this re-enactment 'tool' would not exsist.

The point is obviously to end the eternal conspiracy theories and let both officer Tippet and JFK finally rest in peace.

I checked out the demo and read the warren report. Then timed the event. I would give Oswald 9 seconds at the most to get all three shots off. He had about 17 seconds to get the first shot off. Then the recoil moves the scope off target and he has to run the bolt and chamber another round and now he has to get back on target shoot and then chamber another round and get back on target for the third shot. The last 2 shots have to be done in less than 9 seconds. That is 4.5 seconds per shot. I do not think this is possible to do and hit a moving target. If the gun was a pump or a lever action, I would say yes. But this was a bolt and this requires more moves and more time to get back on target. It make a very good sniper rife. But a sniper takes his time and makes the first shout count.
My conclusion are there were 2 people in the book store. Might have been on different floors, Might not.
Oswald fired the second shot someone else fired the first shot and the last shot.
Remember Oswald only had one try at this. How did you do on the first try?

I do not think I will buy

I see Teddy Kennedy is up in arms at this game, describing it as 'despicable'. To him I have just one word: Chappaquiddick.

I'm no expert on American history, but it strikes me that he is not in any position to take any kind of pious high-ground about what is essentially a very accurate re-enaction of history. The man is a liar. Oh, I should probably add "allegedly" !!!

None of you get it. To even remotely defend or rationalize this game shows how insane you are and how far we've come in this society (or rather, how low). It really doesn't get much worse than this. And if you need to have it explained to you, you're too far gone.

Anyone who has enough time to worry about whether or not this game is morally right or wrong apparently doesn't have enough in his or her life to worry about. All it is is some programmers using an event in history to make some cash, and all the media is doing is sending more folks over to buy the game. Capitalism at its best. I wish I would have come up with the idea, then I'd be rollin in the dough instead of them.

Craig

I NEVER BELIVE THIS. JUST INSANE OUT OF THE MIND OF THE CREATOR.

Just what I need in my life, train to be be a jerk and try to kill a President...people don't have enough to do; they should get a life

Another point to ponder might be - what if this game *were* made by an American developer? How about a respected one (well, respected for their games, not employee treatment), like EA?

Every review I have read seems to emphasize the phrase "the Scottish company Traffic...".

For those of you not old enough to remember the JFK assasination, there is nothing good about watching the president of the United States get his brains blown out, along with half of his head, before a national audience. To re-create such an event for anyone, (even children) to try their hand at murder, does not speak well for the mentality of the American public.
If they had a computer game of G.W.Bush getting shot, somebody would get arrested (or commended, depending which color your state went in the election!) Point being, we know what happened that day in Dallas. Why not take the show on the road to Crawford, and get your sorry cyberass arrested by REAL flesh and blood secret service agents, courtesy of the Patriot Act?

This simulation does two things. One, it makes it very easy to re-create the Warren report theory of the magic bullet. The bullets bounce all over the place and can enter and exit objects a number of times. It gives you plenty of time to shoot and plenty of time to get off a number of shots. There are few distractions in the simulation and you have the comfort of your own safe room to practice all day long.
Which leads to number two: With all these advantages it is still impossible to recreate the Warren magic bullet. And you will never get Kennedy's head to go "back and to the left" shooting from up there...
This is the point. This game is a Trojan horse. The developers claim they believe Oswald acted alone. They built the game to favor this assumption, and still it is impossible to do. It is another piece in the puzzle.
If they had created a game where you could shoot from any location in an attempt to re-create the details in the Zapruder film it would have been derided as some sort of conspiracy crap.
This simulation is a reductio ad aburdum argument in action. Once you see how hard it is to reproduce what the Warren report wants you to believe, you will see how absurd their theory is.

moi je suis francais et je trouve ce jeu bizare

good luck

Wow!

They did a good job of depicting the Plaza. Everything you NEED is there (no extras though). I'm very interested to see how close anyone can get to the Warren Commissions version of what happened. I personally think it was a conspiracy. The game (which ironically was meant to bolster the WC's findings) may actually prove to be a hinderance as it shows how hard it would be to hit the President on Elm. I won't go into all the problems with the WC version but here's one:

Of the three shots, 1 missed and hit the curb leaving only bullets to hit 2 people over a half dozen times (but that's not my point). Playing this game shows that the curb is NOWHERE near the line of fire from the 6th floor. You have to aim ON PURPOSE to hit the curb. Not even close, unless you were shooting from a lower position that brought that curb into the line of fire. From the 6th floor, that curb strike would've been a wild mistake from the shooter who later pulls off a perfect head shot.

PS: It obviously not hard to kill Kennedy from the 6th floor. It's just hard to do it like real life.

I just can't bring myself to give this a look-see. I guess the images from that day are just to ingrained in my mind to want to try to "play" a scenario that puts me in the role of Oswald on that day.

I'd be curious to know what the difference is in reactions/attitudes to this are based on age? If you were alive and aware at the time, how does your reaction compare to folks who grew up "hearing" about the assasination compared to those of us who remember it so vividly?

Also, I'll be curious to see if they pay out the teased $100,000 prize...

The fact that the Patriot Act surfaced in this discussion is hilarious . . . not to mention an obviously stout Republican bringing up a completely irrelevant subject such as G.W.B. Bush is still alive, he is our president, he has nothing to do with JFK's assassination. (Apparently, we better watch our non-Christian-right cyberasses, cuz ol' dubya's a'comin' to take out the trash.) The fact of the matter is that JFK's assassination is an event in American history; one no worse than, say, widespread slavery, the Vietnam war, or the Iran-Contra scandal. None of these historical events are ones that we would promote or relish within our patriotism, but they're still there, and they're never going to change. This simulation is certainly not promoting a presidential assassination (I mean, really, as if someone, after playing JFK Reloaded is going to think he should go try it himself), it's not trying to convey the idea the JFK's assassination was anything but an horrible tragedy, and it's not an attempt to "train" people for or glamorize assassination. It's simply an exploration into a historical event that has an enormous controversy surrounding it. The only difference between JFK Reloaded and Oliver Stone's JFK is the medium through which it's presented. I remember JFK (the movie) was surrounded by quite a bit of controversy when it was released as well, and I believe that any time this subject is brought back into mainstream, it will be considered as insensitive to the Kennedy family. How could it not? But, as far as being completely "over the top," devoid of any morals, or anyone who plays is being the anti-christ . . . really, people, there are bigger fish to fry out there.

After checking it out, I would agree with most comments, as it's a very sterile simulation, in fact, I think it's a bit of a stretch to actually call it a game. It's definitely not something I'd play for fun, there's not a lot to it. There's very little, if any, glamour to it, and the area (being a Dallas resident myself) was very realistically modelled. I think it gives a really good insight into what may or may not or could have happened that day, and I'm fairly interested in seeing if anyone can pull off the same shots as Oswald.

nobody complains about all those muslim/vietnamese murdering games?
shut up and let em blow his head for free

Nice comment, Nacho. Thought about that for a long time, didn't you? :|

"antiseptic and scientific"... Scientific programs usually don't have a demo version and you don't have to pay 10 dollars to get to see the complete version. And they are definitely not giving away $100.000 dollars to those who achieve a certain outcome. That can't be called scientific.

I would have no problem with this if the game elements were taken out of it. I can understand how a simulation of this event can be useful to determine the truth, but don't make a game out of it.

In a way, I agree that this software should probably be free, as the advertising that Traffic is receiving through this release is, no doubt, incredible.

Furthermore, I obviously cannot say for sure, but the sweepstakes aspect is probably another marketing ploy. The odds of getting the three shots close enough to Oswald's alleged shots to be determined a winner are probably similar to winning the same amount of money in a state lottery.

But, Traffic did make JFK:R to make money, and I don't think $10 is unreasonable . . . well, yes it is, but I don't think charging *some* amount is unreasonable simply to offset development and marketing costs.

I may be wrong, but don't software companies (scientific companies included) develop software for sale and hopefully profit?

Finally, the "game aspect" is simply user input . . . not an uncommon function in modern software gaming or non-gaming. I think it's fair to label this software as simulation as opposed to a game. If you couldn't move the mouse, or pull the trigger, it might as well have just been a pre-rendered AVI or cut scene - a movie. I couldn't consider this a game unless you could improve upon or alter the events in any way, aside from timing, such as moving to a different position, or somehow creating a new chain of events. If I went to the store and bought a game only to find out I can do nothing but aim my gun and shoot 3 bullets in the same scenario over and over, I'd return it immediately . . . that's not a game. Hence, I won't be paying the $10 for this . . . whatever it is.

Interesting thing about interviews with Gerald Ford. When the interviewers bring up his piss-poor tenure as President he shrugs it off. When they bring up his perceived stupidity (long since eclipsed) he laughs. Buuut, mention the conclusions of the Warren Commission and his face grows red and he bares his teeth.

Anything that causes the Kennedy clan pain is fine with me. These high minded civic servants got their connections and their money by violating the Constitution during Prohibition. I don't think Carrie Nation was right, and neither did anyone else, but the law of the land is inviolate until amended. Joe was a criminal rum-runner who did whatever he wanted to make himself rich, and passed on this lack of principle to his family. John deserved to die. He very nearly caused the nuclear extinction of the entire fucking planet because of his stupid ego and a personal grudge against Castro. He was a womanizer and a murderer and a drug addict. Teddy is a drunk, a womanizer and a murderer AND a bad driver. Who cares if we get to replay one of the most dangerous psychos ever elected get their brains blown all over a car?

People are smaking such a big deal about Kennedy getting his head blown off, but they dont seem to care about how he and his whiz kids instigated the Vietnam war that killed thousands of Americans. This hypocrisy reeks. This program is an honest attempt to demonstrate that inductively that Oswald was the assassin, and it is quite good. This company should and I think would be doing a public service if they created a simulation concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks with the same type of scientific scrutiny. There are many questions surrounding this event as well.

I remember an old NES game with a laser gun where it was based on a single landscape and had to shoot a moving target.
Not even the vegetarians got upset cause they were ducks, very similar.

I aint even American but I still got 2 cents, and mine are worth more (financially anyhow).

It seems much more likey this was a college project for a software development course and then minimally changed to make a few £'s (GBP).

Well done I say, if they can sell enough.
But $10 for a single level seems excessive.
and additional costs for entry to the competition (after 10 attempts).

Whether intended or not, this game is making people think about their own attitude to playing violent games. One objection I've heard from critics in the States is that "we usually play the good guys and we shoot the enemy", so JFK Reloaded breaks the mould by turning that premise on its head. Yet in any game based on an historical re-enactment you are shooting someone who is "the good guy" to the other side (or at least to their own family!)... So there is certainly a degree of hypocrisy here.

As for the game's "educational" value, you can focus on replicating Oswald's shots, and the attention to detail is incredible. But what no-one seems to be commenting on here is that players can also opt to put the game in "chaos" mode and create total mayhem, with spectacular car crashes, bodies flying everywhere and cops fleeing the scene. I have to blushingly admit to finding that aspect of the game extremely entertaining (though I doubt playing it in that mode is going to earn me the highest score for matching Oswald's accuracy!). It's a very clever and well-designed piece of work which can be non-gory and strictly historical if you want it to be, but which can be cranked up to something more random and - yes, let's say it - fun at the player's discretion. College project? You're kidding! It's made by experts.

There is nothing wrong with a reconstruction simulation of an historical event for amateur forensic investigators.
The only fault I can see in the game is that the sniper's nest position does not have a box shielding Oswald from being seen by people on Houston street , as was the case with the actual alleged assasination.
I was already interested in studying the assassination almost like an amateur detective, and see investigating the assassination as a good example of how deep any investigation should be.
The simulation helps to that end in understanding locations which before were only place names
At the end of the day if someone doesn't like it then don't buy it , but don't pontificate to others whether they should take an interest in history or not.
History is for all, not just college kids.

SCORES? any competition scores yet no updates on the site

A friend of mine has scored above 600/1000 in practise runs; I've found it hard to get above 500, though as I said above, I have been rather distracted by looking at the "non-forensic" aspects of the game when the motorcade is set in "chaotic" mode! Oh, and shooting policemen's helmets off by aiming just above their heads! (Silly, I know! I should be trying to replicate Oswald's shots, shouldn't I?). I hope they start showing high scores on the site soon to give us a feel for how close you can get.

I notice they're now including French, German and Spanish translations of the rules, which is thoughtful!

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU MAKE A GAME ABOUT THAT. HAVE ANY OF YOU FOOLS WHO ACTUALLY GOT THE GAME ACTUALLY SEEN THE PROPER ASSASSINATION? IT'S HORRIBLE. JFK'S WIFE HAS TO LEAN OVER THE BACK OF THE CAR TO GET THE BLOWN OFF HEAD. I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE COULD INVENT THAT SORT OF THING.

Hey spannerman, the last thing we need in this overcrowded world is another angry nut.
This is serious. If you don't like this sim/game/whatever, you don't have to look at it. It is just another part of human experience.

Your words are angry and you seem to demand to have only your way. Are you super human? Are you the judge of what is good or bad? Do you know what is best for all of us?

Take a step back. And most of all don't let something like this turn you into some monstrous ideologue.

If the premise of this so called game is to "prove" the obviously false conclusion of the Warren commision, why do they leave out the richochet? Because this, more than the magic bullet, proves their was more than one shooter.

What richochet? The one hits James Tague?

I spoke too soon - a high scores page is now up on the site. (So, clearly, a game then?)

I would now like to ask Austin S Williams to step forward and tell us how much money he has spent taking the top spot (and 13 others). It brings to mind a kid standing at an old-style arcade machine plunking in quarters for hours and hours.
I would like to hear Mr. Williams' comments. I would like to know how realistic he feels the game is and if he thinks his results would be repeatable in the real world.
I would also like to know how close a score of 748 (as of 3:14pm PST) is to the Warren report theory.
And remember: You will never get the "back and to the left" snap of JFK's head (as seen in the Zapruder film) from up there.
And after all that damage, do you really think this bullet would simply sloosh out of Conoley's living body and be in pristine condition?

A read an article at msn that 1,000 was a perfect score but could find nothing at the web-site. So the best score is over 20% or 252 points short. And the dude with it has his name on there at least 12 times- so he has spent more than the initial $10. Yes, the richochet that hit James Tague. and from what I read about the "accuracy" of the ballistics in the game the designers were appearantly smoking the same stuff that people who believe the lone gunman theory smoke

Here's were it gets a little tricky...
By making the game's ballistics very "forgiving" two things happen:
One, it makes reproducing the magic bullet trajectory more likely (within the sim/game). But what this also means is that if anyone ever does get 1000 in game it will be a less valuable result.
Another up side is as you have alluded to: With the game being very much "in favor" of the magic bullet, what does it mean if gangs of kids with unlimited time can't get closer than 20% of the proposed theory?
Answer: It means the theory is deeply flawed. For if you cant get a bunch of video game junkies to get a rigged game to produce the magic 7 wounds and not become imbedded in the car then how is it that it could ever happen in real life?
The awful part is that if people don't go this extra step and simply conclude that a score of %80 of the magic bullet is close enough, then this game will have succeeded in adding to the lone-nut/ magic bullet theory.
But I for one do not have so little faith in my fellow man's intelligence. After all, who have been buying all those JFK books (conspiracy or otherwise) if not average people who smell a rat?

And yes, James Tague was a long way off to be getting hit under that underpass by concrete chunks from the imagined first shot.

Here's were it gets a little tricky...
By making the game's ballistics very "forgiving" two things happen:
One, it makes reproducing the magic bullet trajectory more likely (within the sim/game). But what this also means is that if anyone ever does get 1000 in game it will be a less valuable result.
Another up side is as you have alluded to: With the game being very much "in favor" of the magic bullet, what does it mean if gangs of kids with unlimited time can't get closer than 20% of the proposed theory?
Answer: It means the theory is deeply flawed. For if you cant get a bunch of video game junkies to get a rigged game to produce the magic 7 wounds and not become imbedded in the car then how is it that it could ever happen in real life?
The awful part is that if people don't go this extra step and simply conclude that a score of %80 of the magic bullet is close enough, then this game will have succeeded in adding to the lone-nut/ magic bullet theory.
But I for one do not have so little faith in my fellow man's intelligence. After all, who have been buying all those JFK books (conspiracy or otherwise) if not average people who smell a rat?

And yes, James Tague was a little far away to be getting hit by stray concrete bits all the way over at the underpass.

ok i have play this game for about 3 days
and i have to say this

yas ok the developer might make this game for the reson they told but after playing the game for a while i figure out this small thing

1)if I was the killer of jfk i could kill him with only one shot and not with 3or 7 or any other number that i have hear(see) and without risking the life of any other in the car.the possision of the shot for the people who want to try is at the turning of the car 1 hit on head.

2)the game developer told at there page tha only one man can kill the jfk.i think this is not true(i might be wrong )but hhow many times i have try to to that i allways failed so there is no way one single man kill jfk like that.plus if you see the range of the rifle is shorter so there is no way he can killed him like that without the help of other from different positions maybe someone one the tracks or the brige or i dont know where else.Plus in the real video jfk lead front when the first shot is fired and then back and then front again.this tells me tha he has been hit from 2 ways (first back second front).

this is what i want to say i may be wrong i dont know.

sorry if my english is bad

something thati have forget i have crack the game so im trying differnt ways of the hit to see if there was another way or if my theory is true or not .

Vas, Do you mean you can shoot from different places in the game now?

not different places yet but im working on that too for now i m trying from the original place of the shooter with different style like first take off the driver or hit jfk as the car has just turn the corner nad other style like that the result is allways the same one shot is more than enought if i was the shooter not 7 or any other number the best way to shoot jfk without any harm of others is the position i have told.one shot jfk down no harm to other and no bullet found case it jumps away after the hit 97% of the try i make (67 time until now)allways the bullet leave the car hitting jfk in the head and then somewhere at back of the car and then out to nowhere.

I can't belive all these folks who are up in arms over this - seem like mostly conspiracy believers. And frankly, I can understand - I used to be in that camp also, until I actually started looking at the other side and realized that the conspiracy folks theories all fell apart under close scrutiny.

Back to the simulation - I purchased it and was able to score 654/1000 when I was trying to duplicate the Warren Commission report. I certainly don't think it will be easy to duplicate, there are way too many variables.

I will say, it's quite easy to hit JFK in any of a number of ways outside of duplicating the actual assasination. I think the sim shows that any idiot with a rifle, in that position, with the will to do so, could have pulled it off. There didn't need to be sharpshooters positioned all around the plaza that day.

I agree with what you say Al. I do think playing the game helps you to understand what was possible from Oswald's position. Looks like your score would put you just outside the current top 50 if it were a competition entry!

As for Bill's earlier comments about the player at the top of the leader board who must have bought extra tokens: well why not! The point is to see if anyone can replicate what Oswald is supposed to have done, and this guy's obviously done his research and is trying very very VERY hard to do that! (Mind you, just noticed his top spot is under threat! There's a long way to go yet!)

Good! Now that we can see that it was easy to kill him lets move on to why he was killed. If I hear any more talk about grassy areas or lone nuts you're all getting an "F" and will be expelled from the history program.
The only fact we know for sure is that Kennedy was murdered. And because he was a president we can also say that it was politically motivated.

If it was the act of a single angry person with no other motive than that he didn't like Kennedy, then there is nothing to discuss. The political motive stops at the personal level and there is no way to fathom the heart of some dead killer.

But if this killing has real historical relevance then we need to find out what was at stake at the time and for whom.

So the question you will have to answer for your final paper is: Who had motive, opportunity and ability.

The reason we are always "stuck" at Oswald is that the most important evidence has been ruined (either on purpose or by acident).

All of the forensic evidence is missing or worthless and can only lead to circumstantial connections.
The limo was stripped down and rebuilt immediately. There's not one single damaged bullet that can be examined for traces of bone or skin or concrete or metal or paint.
The brain is missing and there is no forensic analysis or even a photo.

We have nothing. We have dozens of witnesses and no hard evidence. We have hundreds of photographs and no physical examination of the scene.

We are stuck because we don't even have enough hard evidence to even convict Oswald. All that is left are the circumstances. All that is left is to argue about possibilities.

This lack of evidence itself should be enough to make any person want to look into it further. But there is nothing to look at. The window of opportunity to secure hard physical evidence is long past. And Oswald is dead.

All people want to understand and make sense of the world.
There are three possibilities for us to accept:
1: We say Oswald did it. He was crazy. The End.
2: We try to make sense of circumstancial evidence and risk getting labeled crazy.
3: We say powerful people got away with murder and that history repeats itself, and we are hated.

And now we're playing a video game about it.

You don't want to talk about "grassy areas or lone nuts", yet you propose more "evidence" that a conspiracy existed because there is no forensic evidence? No film, no photos, no autopsy, no eyewitness accounts, no spectrographic examination of fragments, no reenactments?
I suppose you're looking for an apology from the FBI and Secret Service because they didn't forsee the advent of DNA analysis, or the tools on your favorite CSI show.... They did the best they could with the tools they had. My God, this was the President that was killed, do you think that the entire FBI, Secret Service and whatever other investigative bodies were involved in some kind of massive conspiracy?

A secret "kept" by more than one person is no longer a secret. Conspiracies of more than one rarely escape being uncovered.

Who had motive, opportunity and ability? I say - Oswald, case closed.

Ability: easy. It looks like anyone with even a little bit of practice and a scope could get the job done.
Motive: In this case Oswald is mixed up with some messy stuff, so who knows, why not.
Opportunity: He has to get a rifle into a public building, maybe not so hard in 1963.
But being on the second floor 90 seconds after the last shot is fired? This seems hard to imagine. Even 2 minutes for 4 flights of stairs might leave you puffing (and you’d still have to stash the gun).

All it takes is one thing to make it seem like something isn't quite right.
They didn't need today's latest technology to cordon off the area and treat it like a crime scene.
As far as evidence goes, there is plenty, as you say. But none of it is conclusive. The Zapruder film has been called into question because “back and to the left” doesn’t match up with the wound that opens up in the front. There are missing and damaged frames and it was not made available to the public for 12 years. All little things that leave questions.

I would love to have this be a done deal, but every time I want to put a bow on the “Oswald did it, case closed” there is something that runs against it. There are photos of people running to the “grassy knoll” – not conclusive evidence, but another question. There is testimony that people heard more than three shots, again vehemently discredited.

And as far as keeping a lid on the story, there have been a string of “untimely deaths” of people who might have had something to say.

These are all open, answer-seeking questions that tend to cast a “shadow of a doubt” on the conviction of Oswald. But these questions seem to invite a level of hostility that gets very personal very fast. It is almost as if those who believe that Oswald was a “lone nut” have something personally at stake in having everyone accept this. Why? Why are my questions so upsetting to you? Why must I accept your conclusions or suffer your outrage?

But, I can see I am upsetting you, so I will stop. You are entitled to put whatever closure on this you feel you need.

As for anyone else, I am more than willing to discuss the details of this ongoing murder investigation, even if it may never get us any closer to a final verdict.

I just wanted to say how good I thought the game was, I don't think it's quite so nice an idea but it is just a game, lets not forget mohaa, thats a game but a hell of alot more ppl die and nobody had any problems with it. Plus, how many times have we all seen the Zapruder film. It's just a historical sim and it has sparked my interest and countless others in the assasination. We should also all probably write in and tell them to add the spectators, a spot to shoot from the knole, and a version you can play offline. Just a thought. lol

Yes, Jmarsh, that is a bit of a laugh! I would like to see those options added too.
And speaking of the Zapruder film, you might want to compare the game's "Zapruder view" with the real thing. The grassy hillside is too high (as the limo goes out of sight) and the concrete area by the steps is in the wrong place.

In the original Zapruder film you can see the car and the overpass past the tree at the corner of the "grassy knoll". But in the game the hillside is higher and blocks the view differently.
So, it would seem that the "Oswald camp" is trying to short sheet us again...

And now we are on version 1.03. The “head shot” animation now looks different. It no longer simply deflects forward as it did in version 1.01. It does a little back-snap now. By version 2 we should be right up to a full backward and to the left deflection, eh?

And I paid $10 for this because it looked like an honest simulator in the beginning.
What a shame.

Have just read an informative and "non-hysterical" interview with the game's developer Kirk Ewing about the background to JFK Reloaded. The URL is:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=112501

Thank god I downloaded it for free. It's quite bad when you look at it, it needs all the scripted moments the Nix, Zapruder, and Muchmore films had. lol.

The hill in front of the overpass might be bigger because thats what it looks like now?

Also, where the hell can I get bigger and better versions of the Nix and Muchmore films, searched my ass off and nothing. The versions I have now are not quite choice.

Don't get a big head Bill, you're not upsetting me - rather, it looks like you're the one upset that all don't agree with you...the hostility exudes in your answers.

There's been more than enough analysis of the Zapruder film that shows that, yes, a shot from the rear could easily cause the motion you described. Much of the "analysis" of the Zapruder film that says that it isn't so has been done by folks only claiming to be experts.

The "untimely deaths" thing has been exaggerated for years.

This from "The Case of the Grassy Knoll: The Romance of Conspiracy" by John Kaplan; printed in The Historian As Detective, Winks, editor; originally published as "The Assassins" in Stanford Law Review (May 1967):

"There is not the slightest indication that any of the "victims" have had anything to tell that they had not already told, and indeed the deaths seem concentrated among those who bore only the most peripheral relation to the assassination. When one stops to consider that almost each one of the "mysterious" deaths requires the recruitment of at least one and often several new conspirators, it would seem that, like the pyramid club, the conspiracy would be getting bigger and bigger rather than smaller. One would think that in light of what had happened to those who knew too much it would get very difficult to recruit new members into the conspiracy. Most important, however, it is hard to say why the supposed killers are taking whatever chances these murders entail when it is so obvious that, whoever the conspirators are, they have already gotten off scot-free."

As for the timing of Oswald to get downstairs; from the Warren Commission report:

"A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run."

Of course, there have been all kinds of theories to try and show that the whole timing test was flawed.

As I stated before, I was in the conspiracy camp for over 20 years - I gave up trying to make things fit what I believed and stopped believing the conspiracy authors who do nothing but contradict themselves and each other half the time.

One last thought (not my own, but it sums up what I've come to believe after all these years):

"My research has shown over 75% of all alleged facts in this case are false. Just take any book and compare the author’s conclusions to another author’s conclusions. Check each alleged fact in each book and see how many cancel or contradict each other. If all the alleged facts in all the conspiracy books were true, we could expect to have the following conclusions:

- The Grassy Knoll was a very busy place with many gunmen who never saw each other.

- There were at least 10 individuals depicted in the photos of the three tramps.

- There were at least 30 gunmen firing from 4 different buildings, the overpass, the Grassy Knoll, the South Knoll, the Presidential limo, the Secret Service follow-up car, the curb on Elm Street and the sewer.

- There were at least 100 conspirators in Dealey Plaza.

- These "facts" seem absurd and ridiculous but this is exactly what we end up with if we believe all of the conspiracy books which have been published."
(Source: Bill Adams, "The Enemy Within")

fuck u this game is gay and stupid

I will give you the single lynchpin for me: “Back and to the left.”
This was the one thing that did it for me. Right or wrong “jet effect” or not, back brace or otherwise, when I look at that film I see that head go back and it looks like he’s getting clothes-lined by a sledgehammer.
I don’t claim to be right, I simply claim that this is the one thing that blows the single killer thing for me.
And, if I want to believe that Oswald did it all alone, I have to get over this. But, every time I look at it I’m more convinced that the shot could only have come from the front.

You don’t have to agree with me. And I will not invoke any authorities to convince you of my perception.

I ask simple one more question:

What is it that tips the scales for you? What thing makes you say to yourself “oh yeah, of course Oswald did it!”

To Al:

The 30 Gunmen, the 100 Conspirators, etc.?

This doesn't seem so relevant to me.

Yes, I do think that the Zapruder film clearly showing the physical movement of the President's head back and to his left make a shot from the front about 99.9% probable.

And I also think that even one hole in the case made by the Warren Commission as to the physical events captured on film should be a red flag.

It seems to me that the Lone Gunman makes it too easy for us to just pass over an event of this magnitude as some "it's too bad" occurance.

And, you talk about how flawed conspiracy theories are when totalled up and bunched together. This isn't the point.

Some crazy sharpshooter with no motive other than blind, unaffiliated hatred for the president?

The American public was told that Oswald was just some damned Communist who hated Kennedy and got some lucky shots.

What is far more probable in the case of someone this important getting murdered in public is a dedicated effort by more than just one crazy person.

Conclusion: A few people with ties to the government and a vested interest in seeing Kennedy removed from power without thier being punished put Oswald and others in place. Then, in order to seal it up for the American public, they fit all of the evidence around who they wanted the murderer to be.

The Warren Commission decided before they investigated to place blame solely on Oswald.
To deny the possibility of a conspiracy from the outset and place all responsibility on Oswald is to make judgements before a due process of law can take effect.

This doesn't look intentional? The President was killed; a commission should have been in place to actually investigate anyone or anything surrounding the events leading up to and during the assassination, objectively, WITHOUT presupposing that Oswald acted alone.

But the WC's purpose instead was to make a judgement, apportion blame, (Oswald alone), then fit everything in as "evidence" that would support this theory.

That's not investigation. That's persuasion (read: propaganda). That's a cover-up.

This is why we cannot simply view "conspiracy vs. lone shooter" on such a superficial basis.

Oh, and Bill:

The revamping of the game is very much in keeping with my "correcting history" studies based on the account of rewriting history in George Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith sits at his desk and pastes new photos over old ones and rewrites back editions of periodicals to make them "true" according to what the administration says.

I played the Reloaded demo; I shot at the target and reviewed the results. One shot that went into the President's lower back, according to the "Zapruder" camera angle, made the President grab at his throat. (WTF?) The animation was obviously made to look more like the real recorded events than my pittly shots would have produced in a TRUE SIMULATION.

This game is BS, and if the makers, like so many people with a vested interest in the status quo, make conclusions and then find evidence, then it is obviously a persuasive, not an educational tool.

Well said Zigray.

I do get frustrated at the "fit-the-facts-to-the-desired-conclusion" camp. And getting into any of the various details only gets one mired down in them.

What I would really like to know is why, after 41 years, there are still people who seem so vehemently opposed to the mere suggestion that Oswald might not have acted alone (let alone not acted at all).

Who is this "Al" person from the above posts? Why did he go to such lengths to dismiss any questioning of the evidence? Why should he care about maintaining some status quo?

I ask this because I am curious; not because I think this is some giant conspiracy that involves everyone and everything.

I want to know how any single person using all the resources available can say that he studied the case for 20 years, started out as a "conspiracy nut", and ended up believing Oswald did it.

This person is either tired of all the unanswerable questions or he is on a mission. And tired people don't fight that hard.

So who is he? Who are you Al? Why do you care to so much? I don't promote one single answer. I don't defend one single view. I simply ask why Oswald? Why? Who are you? What are you keeping from us? Why don't you tell us why you are so sure?

If Al is some little nobody like the rest of us then I might be tempted to push him aside as moron who knows nothing. But this is clearly not the case. He has shown he has read many of the books available. He knows far too much to be pushed aside as some innocent boob.

So then why does some intelligent (or at least well informed) person go onto an open forum and push the "Oswald did it" story?

Tell us Al. Tell us what makes you so sure.

In regards to one posters notes: And remember: You will never get the "back and to the left" snap of JFK's head (as seen in the Zapruder film) from up there.
And after all that damage, do you really think this bullet would simply sloosh out of Conoley's living body and be in pristine condition?

Take a much closer look at the Zabruder film than you have. Kennedy's head snaps *forward* two inches in 1/18th of a second, then snaps back one-half and inch over the next two seconds. Impact of bullet from rear puhsing head forwards, spray of brain and bone matter forwards pushing head back. Simple physics like a rocket. next you'll be claiming that rockets should be going downwards despite thrust in that direction.

Pristine condition? What are you talking about? The bullet looks fine from a side view, but from a view from it's base it's flattened by 50%. Pristine bullet myth again.

I've seen film of a 15 year old son of a forensic doctor, untrained in weapons, recreate the shots exactly. And Army tests showing that bullets travelling through soft matter (like neck muscle) do change dirtection. And Oswald's own Army records show he scored 94.5% in marksmanship. He had means, motive and opporunity. Plus the employees of the School Book Repository, including a WW2 infantry lieutentant, who watched the motorcade pass by through their open window on the fith floor, all testified that the shots came from "directly above them."

In regards to one posters notes: And remember: You will never get the "back and to the left" snap of JFK's head (as seen in the Zapruder film) from up there.
And after all that damage, do you really think this bullet would simply sloosh out of Conoley's living body and be in pristine condition?

Take a much closer look at the Zabruder film than you have. Kennedy's head snaps *forward* two inches in 1/18th of a second, then snaps back one-half and inch over the next two seconds. Impact of bullet from rear puhsing head forwards, spray of brain and bone matter forwards pushing head back. Simple physics like a rocket. next you'll be claiming that rockets should be going downwards despite thrust in that direction.

Pristine condition? What are you talking about? The bullet looks fine from a side view, but from a view from it's base it's flattened by 50%. Pristine bullet myth again.

I've seen film of a 15 year old son of a forensic doctor, untrained in weapons, recreate the shots exactly. And Army tests showing that bullets travelling through soft matter (like neck muscle) do change dirtection. And Oswald's own Army records show he scored 94.5% in marksmanship. He had means, motive and opporunity. Plus the employees of the School Book Repository, including a WW2 infantry lieutentant, who watched the motorcade pass by through their open window on the fith floor, all testified that the shots came from "directly above them."

So why do you feel the need to come to the defense of Judge Warren and Allen Dulles (fired by JFK)?

Are you not aware of the follow-up investigation in the 1970's that clearly stated that JFK's assassination was "probably the result of more than one person"?

So what would you say to these later government officials? Were they a part of those conspiracy theorists who want to say Oswald didn't act alone?

I did not ask for refutations. I asked for a genuine experience that says to you "Of course, Oswald did it!"

I have said what sways me. I have said that I believe this in spite of the refutations. I do not base this belief on a refutation; I simply say that having looked at the film (a basic piece of evidence in this case) that the backward motion is enough for me to believe that a shot came from the front.

I am perfectly aware of the various arguments both against and in favor of this. I make no reference to them.

When I let that film run at regular speed and I see his head go back, I need no other proof that there is a strong possibility of a shot from the front.

In accusing Oswald of murder, the burden of proof falls to the prosecution. This backward movement is one piece of evidence that is enough for me to say there is some doubt as to where that final kill shot came from.

Now I want to hear what piece of evidence does it for you. Put it out there for all to see. Convince us with something that points to Oswald. Give us that mighty piece of evidence (not an argument) that says, “Oswald is the only guy who shot at JFK that day. And Oswald is the guy that killed JFK that day.”

This is a very big demand. But such is the burden of proof.

I might even demand this much if you were the accused.

So why do you feel the need to come to the defense of Judge Warren and Allen Dulles (fired by JFK)?

Are you not aware of the follow-up investigation in the 1970's that clearly stated that JFK's assassination was "probably the result of more than one person"?

So what would you say to these later government officials? Were they a part of those conspiracy theorists who want to say Oswald didn't act alone?

I did not ask for refutations. I asked for a genuine experience that says to you "Of course, Oswald did it!"

I have said what sways me. I have said that I believe this in spite of the refutations. I do not base this belief on a refutation; I simply say that having looked at the film (a basic piece of evidence in this case) that the backward motion is enough for me to believe that a shot came from the front.

I am perfectly aware of the various arguments both against and in favor of this. I make no reference to them.

When I let that film run at regular speed and I see his head go back, I need no other proof that there is a strong possibility of a shot from the front.

In accusing Oswald of murder, the burden of proof falls to the prosecution. This backward movement is one piece of evidence that is enough for me to say there is some doubt as to where that final kill shot came from.

Now I want to hear what piece of evidence does it for you. Put it out there for all to see. Convince us with something that points to Oswald. Give us that mighty piece of evidence (not an argument) that says, “Oswald is the only guy who shot at JFK that day. And Oswald is the guy that killed JFK that day.”

This is a very big demand. But such is the burden of proof.

I might even demand this much if you were the accused.

I really don't have an agenda here - I'll admit that this has always been a favorite debate topic for me.

As I've stated before, I gave up trying to fit the evidence to my beliefs in the matter and took an open look at what all three sides had to say. Why three sides? In my view there's the conspiracy, no conspiracy, and "the Warren Commission made mistakes" sides. I personally place myself in the third group - the Warren Commission made mistakes - not that the mistakes point to anyone else but Oswald, but the Commission opened the door to the conspiracy theorists by not closing everything. I don't feel that it was deliberate, just a sign of the times and the forensic capabilites certainly were not anywhere near today's.

But if you support the Committee's findings or use it as a defense for a position of conspiracy, you need to be be prepared to admit that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

From the the House Select Commitee:

-------------------------------------------------

"I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963

A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
- President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.
- The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.
- Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle. that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.
- Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
- Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.

B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
- The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved. "

-------------------------------------------------

The Committee's entire basis for their determination of a conspiracy came from the acoustical examination of the Dallas Police Department dictabelt tape of the assasination.

That acoustical "evidence" has since been debunked quite well. The best analysis was done by the National Academy of Sciences: "Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics.". http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html

Picking and choosing what "evidence" you use to defend the conspiracy position is just as wrong if the WC did as Bill's stated above:

"But the WC's purpose instead was to make a judgement, apportion blame, (Oswald alone), then fit everything in as "evidence" that would support this theory."

I don't think I could ever say what single piece of evidence turned me to the "dark side" - it's more a preponderance of really bad "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists. In the end, at least in my mind, none of it stands up to the evidence that supports that Oswald was the single shooter on that day.

I have to say that when I first heard about this 'GAME' I was shocked. Although games or simulations of equally bad taste have been around for ages -

Conflict Europe - where you had 20 different Nuclear Fireplan Options to kill there warsaw pact

and more up to date

Road to Bagdad - what on earth were they thinking there are people dying out there right now under those circumstances.

In any case all those who do not want to be upset by the simulation simply do not download it,and to those that do buy simulations prey that u are not touched by such similar acts of violence in your life in case your dilema is the next simulation.

Whatever JFK was as a human being he didnt deserve to die.

Ur Choice -

You said: “In the end, at least in my mind, none of it stands up to the evidence that supports that Oswald was the single shooter on that day.”

You also said, “Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.”

So why don’t you tell us what evidence sways you.
You have spent more time introducing and debunking than telling what moves you to believe. What “other actions” do you refer to? There are many actions you might claim, which ones do it for you?

And there is still a “burden of proof”, which ought to have claims be supported.

You (and others) make some specific claims:

1. You claim that Oswald did it alone.
2. You claim that only three shots were fired (no more, no less).
3. You claim that all shots came from behind.
4. You claim that the single bullet theory is all that is needed for the multiple wounds (except the head wound).
5. You (specifically you) claim there is “evidence” for Oswald but you never say what any of it is.
6. You (specifically you) claim that there is no single piece of evidence that convinces you but that it all adds up to Oswald.

I have some doubts and some claims of my own:

Doubts:
* I would be glad to know for sure that Oswald did, so I say, “prove it and I will believe”. This is what I mean when I say, “I doubt Oswald did it” (I am simply doubting your claim, I’m not saying he couldn’t have done it, I just want to “pin it down”).
* I question why limit the number of shots to three?
* I question why limit the number of shooters to one?
* I ask (in response to your quotes above) where is this evidence that only Oswald did it?

Claims:
* I claim that all the good evidence is lost (I will not claim that it was “destroyed” but there are others who have seemed very adamant about a serious lack of evidence).
And as luck would have it, you have supported this claim (of insufficient evidence) by saying that there was insufficient forensic ability “back then”) – fine, I’ll take what I can get, I guess.

* I do not point a finger at any particular person. I withhold judgement and do not claim to know who did it. I accuse no specific person or group.

* What I do claim is that the Zapruder film’s backward movement is enough to doubt that all the shots came from behind. Again, I am not making any conclusive or final claims about Oswald (either for or against). And technically this is really a doubt about your claim that all the shots came from behind, so technically I don’t have to support it, but…

The support for this claim is in the viewing of the film. Any backward movement in the film would seem to support my claim that there was indeed backward movement. What caused this backward movement is the subject of some speculation. Even whether or not this backward movement really happened could also be asked (but why someone would forge this kind of a change doesn’t seem like a likely speculation).

So there it stands. All of my doubts are out. They are doubts about your claims.

All of my claims are out, and they have either been supported by you or they can be examined independently of me (by looking at the film and speculating).

The burden is now on you. You are the one making (or continuing to make) specific claims about who did what that day.

You now have a new choice: You can either produce the various pieces of evidence that support your 6 claims about Oswald, or you can withdraw your specific claims and be just as unsure as the rest of us.

Personally, I don't really see any reason for building up such a conspiracy.
If some group of people wanted JFK murdered they could find someone more or less able to do the task. One shot - one kill - quick leaving - no time for security to intervene...
Oswald can't be a pro by no means. The way it was done points out the lack of ability and presence of great nervousness during taking the shots.
It really looks like he did it of some personal matters... Or 'cause of being a psycho... (same thing)
But I still don't get the reason of JFK's head going backwards... That "rocket science" point seems too laughable to me for considering.
"Jet effect" from "brain and bone matter"...
What pressure should it take for such an effect? Furthermore, what about the bullet's entry point; why didn't it produce a countereffect?

Can't tell how that "backwards and to the left" effect could be done shooting from behind, but still I see no reason for anyone to do anything THAT stupid to fire different shots from different places in such an inconvenient place...
There are more appropriate places seem to around there: opposite buildings, the bridge, whatever else...

The ballistics seem interesting and complex enough... at least - for a game. But some animations seem quite odd...
And yes, it's veeeery easy to make first shot a kill. After little practice even possible to kill when the limo just appearing from around the corner.

Anyway, I found this "game" far more interesting than "Hitman", for example.

I got a question, how come there was a manhunt for a guy with Oswald's description and not for Oswald himself (like by name maybe)? Did somebody him guy shooting? And if this somebody did see him why didn't they go follow him home, or at least run up to a cop and point him out?
I dont get it. All that crap about bullets just seems like smokenmirrors when I try to figure out how Oswald even got charged to begin with.
So what if he's a shady character. I wanna know why they didn't just ask someone at the book building where he was. Didn't someone see him right away after? Wouldn't they have his name and address in the employee file?
And then how would they know he was in some theater?

I got a question, how come there was a manhunt for a guy with Oswald's description and not for Oswald himself (like by name maybe)? Did somebody see him guy shooting? And if this somebody did see him why didn't they go follow him home, or at least run up to a cop and point him out?
I dont get it. All that crap about bullets just seems like smokenmirrors when I try to figure out how Oswald even got charged to begin with.
So what if he's a shady character. I wanna know why they didn't just ask someone at the book building where he was. Didn't someone see him right away after? Wouldn't they have his name and address in the employee file?
And then how would they know he was in some theater?

Oswald did it. Don't be such a stupid bunch of gullible idiots. There's no one else who could have done it. I don't need to prove it. All the proof is there. Anyone with have a brain should be able to see it. If you can't see it then I guess you are as blind as you are stupid.

I rest my case.

Someone on the high scores board does say that it's odd that Oswald's first shot missed when the other 2 were so accurate.

But, conspiracy theories aside, I'm more interested in the technicalities of the game now there's a "blog" feature so the high-scorers can comment. One guy is projecting the game onto a 3 metre wall so he can see every pixel! It hadn't occurred to me to go to those lengths... Not sure my wall's big enough!

Ah, and there we have it. When unable to convince others of an argument by logic one resorts to insults. This generally happens when one is forced to confront the errors of their thinking but are unable to admit they are wrong. Al you have argued well but by resorting to insults you merely demonstrate the weakness of your position. Admit you are wrong and move on with your life.

Well I guess examining the game up close on a wall might be entertaining. I think that before you get too caught up in the details (and can't see the picture for the pixels) you might want to make some "in game" measurements.

There seems to be a misrepresentation of the grassy knoll in the game. The concrete area where the steps come up is too low and too close to the "Zapruder position".
Also, the hillside is too elevated and does not have a retaining wall (this is the "moved concrete area” I was referring to).

Perhaps projecting the Zapruder film on the wall beside the game will help to show these differences.

I understand the conversation you guys are having is to try and somehow rationalize and justify what some sick non-american came up with to try and make money. The truth is the people who spent the time and money to come up with a "game" (using there own words) that depicts the assasination of one of this countries most prominent and respected presidents of our time. The use of the term "game" and it being marketed as a game is a slap in the face to all americans and the presidency. The company at the last minute it seems is rationalizing it as a simulation. A simulation is not a "game". People on this forum who compared this to a game depicting the hunt and murder of Adolph Hitler to this "game" depicting the assasination of President Kennedy are sick. To take a murderer of millions and compare him to Kennedy HELLO are we on the same planet. The people of this country who pay money for this trash should re-evaluate their patriatism pull their head from their buttocks and consider moving to Iraq.

Whoa!! BK! What's with all the hate??

And when did the line between game and simulation become so clear for you?

You can tell us what you believe (with or without a supporting argument), but please do not attack us with your moral outrage and appeals to patriotism.

"Patriotism is the last act of a scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson (1709–84)

Bill, what you continually have not addressed here is the fact that Kennedy's head DOES move forward in the Zapruder film (watch it in slow motion). Apparently this is your main reason for being unsure as to whether all the shots came from Oswalds location. His head is literally thrown into his chest for a split second before (thanks to elasticity and the laws of physics) it rebounds and the jet stream emerges. The kinetic energy from the bullet is transferred to Kennedy's head, than released when his head explodes.

I highly recommend watching "Images of an Assassination". They document the digital restoration of the Zapruder film, then they show it magnified dramatically, Kennedy center frame, in slow motion. His head lurches forwards for a very small amount of time, before it can't go forward any longer, in which it rebounds off of his chest.

And while I'm at it: check out my amazing score of 739 on the highscore list! I didn't have to buy any extra "tokens" to score that crap. Kennedy was a psuedo-sitting-duck on Elm Street. The simulation makes this all to apparent.

It doesn't matter if the head went forward too. I never denied this. But to conclude this forward movement is what causes the backward movement is to actively try to fit the evidence to a specific conclusion.
A forward movement (even as a result of a shot from behind) does not specifically rule out another shot coming shortly afterward from the front.

But if I concede that all shots must have come from behind, why must it be limited to exactly 3 shots?
And even if I then concede that it was exactly 3 shots, all from behind, what led investigators to exactly the 6th floor and that particular window?

There is not sufficient unmolested evidence to trace shots fired back to this particular point in space (the 6th floor window).

But, I'll go you one better. Lets pretend for a moment that we could get a nice clean chain of evidence to that exact location. Mr. "gutz2gore" brings up a good point: Why were the police searching for Oswald based on a description?

There were no witnesses that ever came forward to identify Oswald as the shooter. No one ever said, "I saw a guy who looked ‘such and such’ and he went that-a-way, or he was there…."

If the evidence so clearly pointed to that exact window on the 6th floor, don't you thi