(PART 327)


Attempt to explain exactly why the US Secret Service in their December 1963 assassination re-enactment, as well as the FBI in their February 1964 assassination re-enactment, BOTH placed the third shot impact some 30 feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313 impact. Which location, by the way, places the shot directly in front of James Altgens' position.


You're an idiot.

Purvis apparently thinks that JFK was shot in the head (from behind) a SECOND time around Zapruder Film frame #353 [pictured below], which would place Kennedy's car just about directly in front of AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens' position. Altgens can be seen in Z353 on the south side of Elm Street with his camera to his eye:

Now, it's rather interesting when we study the above Z-Film frame (and the frames surrounding it) to note how much of President Kennedy could have been viewable at that time from Jim Altgens' point-of-view. Mrs. Kennedy has begun to get out of her seat....she's rising up in her seat en route to the back of the car, and Jackie appears from this angle of the Zapruder Film to be totally blocking out any view Altgens had of JFK during these critical frames when a kook named Purvis insists that Mr. Altgens was witnessing a SECOND head shot to John Kennedy's cranium.

Crazy shit from Purvis, huh? You bet it is....and from several POVs too. Not just this "Altgens" one.

Another crazy part of Purvis' "2 Head Shots" theory is the fact that the Zapruder Film shows absolutely NO EVIDENCE on the film of any SECOND impact of a bullet to JFK's head at approx. Z353 (or any other post-Z313 frame).

But, since Purvis has his "plat maps" to guide him and two subjective witness statements (Altgens and Hudson), I guess we'll just have to chuck the Z-Film in the trash, along with the autopsy report, and the everlasting "JFK WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY JUST ONE BULLET" testimony of Humes, Finck, and Boswell.

Because evidently those trivial things I just mentioned are trumped by Thomas H. Purvis' detailed analysis of the shooting. Right, Purv?

BTW, where in James Altgens' WC testimony does he ever even HINT that President Kennedy was hit in the head by MORE THAN ONE BULLET? Where?

Answer: Nowhere. That idea rests uniquely in the mind of only a kook named Thomas H. Purvis.

Let's take a look:

MR. ALTGENS -- "There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

MR. LIEBELER -- "What makes you so certain of that, Mr. Altgens?"

MR. ALTGENS -- "Because, having heard these shots and then having seen the damage that was done on THIS SHOT [DVP's emphasis] to the President's head, I was aware at that time that shooting was taking place and there was not a shot--I looked--I looked because I knew THE SHOT [DVP's emphasis] had to come from either over here, if it were close range, or had to come from a high-powered rifle."


MR. LIEBELER -- "So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?"

MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that. I was just going to make a conclusion here, but that's not my place to do that, so I'll just forget it--what I was going to say."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Well, what were you going to suggest--go ahead."

MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock--but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head [DVP's emphasis]."


Evidently Purvis believes that one bullet hit JFK in the head around the "hairline" area of his head, but this shot didn't cause the massive explosion of Kennedy's head that we see in Z313 of the Zapruder Film. Then at around Z353, the President is hit by another shot in the head, causing the massive explosion (even though the Z-Film shows no such massive explosion of JFK's head at any other time except Z313).

Is that about the size of your made-up tripe, Mr. Purvis? If I've misinterpreted your make-believe bullshit, please forgive me....but, you see, since I'm dealing with a kook who wants to make up his own scenarios about this assassination, I sometimes have a hard time figuring out which end is up regarding the nutjob's theory....seeing as how it never happened that way in the first place.

Anyhow, as we pull ourselves back into the realm of Reality from Purvis' Twilight Zone of Idiocy, there's no question that JFK was struck in the head JUST ONE TIME, and that one time was at Z-Frame #313.


Does Purvis think the Zapruder Film is a fraud or a fake? If not, then where's the SECOND head-shot impact on the film? Even if this additional "impact" didn't cause a large spray of blood and brain tissue, why isn't there at least SOME indication on the Z-Film of this second impact from a high-speed bullet as it strikes somewhere on JFK's head?

And how did James Altgens, who never uttered a word about there being TWO separate shots that hit JFK in the head, manage to see an explosion of JFK's head around Z353 (at a time when the President was slumping down in the back seat and, as mentioned, was a time when Altgens' view appears to be blocked by Mrs. Kennedy's movements)?

Purvis, of course, is just making up his own "Two Head Shots" theory while utilizing selected slices of some of the witnesses' remarks, such as when Altgens said the following to the Warren Commission:

MR. LIEBELER -- "Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head."

MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, I was about 15 feet from it."

MR. LIEBELER -- "But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right?"

MR. ALTGENS -- "Yes."


I think the key word in the above exchange between Wesley Liebeler and Jim Altgens is "almost". But the "almost" becomes blurred and misrepresented by kooks of Purvis' ilk. And that's because Purvis WANTS his crazy theory to be accurate and true....no matter how stupid and idiotic it really is (when weighed against the super-sized mountain of evidence that proves he's an idiot in this "Two Head Shots" regard).

So, therefore, the "almost" isn't important to Purvis. And the "almost" becomes "positively directly in front of me [Altgens]" for the purposes of the kook named Purvis who is bent on rewriting the history of how a President died.

Purvis also apparently is of the opinion that James Altgens must have had a tape measure with him on November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza as the President's car passed by him on Elm Street, with Altgens physically going to the trouble to measure the distance between himself and JFK's car at various points along Elm. Because the estimated distances provided by Mr. Altgens during his Warren Commission testimony are supposedly rooted in FACT, according to Purvis. They couldn't possibly be slightly off one way or the other.

In short, folks, it couldn't be more obvious (given the sum total of evidence that has been on the table in this case since Day 1 in 1963) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the head only ONE time, with that one bullet entering the back of the President's head and exiting the right-front-top portion of the head, chiefly exiting in the "parietal" region of the skull, just exactly as the official autopsy report clearly indicates [Warren Report, pp. 540-541].

And even though Thomas H. Purvis does (rightly) believe that all of the shots on 11/22/63 came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, and those shots were fired by Oswald himself from the Book Depository, Purvis is still a conspiracy-loving kook in my book, because he is attempting to rewrite the true facts surrounding some of the events of November 22nd. And he's attempting to do that based on some very, very flimsy evidence.

David Von Pein
September 12, 2008