Josiah Thompson's brand new book LAST SECOND IN DALLAS

[Greg Doudna]

On 2/15/2021 at 3:48 PM, Mark Tyler said:

Thanks Greg.  Despite the huge amount of information we have, it's a surprisingly difficult crime scene to explain.  This is why it's well worth exploring different options to see which is consistent with most of the crime scene evidence, and which has the fewest loose ends.  I do agree with you that the single bullet theory is tricky to explain, but it seems to create even more complexity when you get rid of it, as many more shots seem to be required and that's very hard to match with the autopsy.

This is one of the reasons I have considered that the SBT may have come from somewhere other than the sixth floor window as the angle from that high up seems rather too steep to work.  With a shallower angle JFK doesn't need to lean so far forward like the HSCA suggested.

On the subject of bullet experiments, if you haven't already seen it this may be worth looking at:

When I saw this I realised that the theory of a bullet hitting the oak tree and being deflected to hit Tague was nonsense.  High speed bullets seem to maintain momentum well, but can wobble or tumble so it may have entered JFK slightly awkwardly as you suggest.

Interesting Mark. On the shot originating from lower than the sixth floor, and also the evidence in your video clip that bullets shot through tree branches and leaves go straight and are not deflected, is it possible the shot was fired from the half-opened window, fourth from the right, on the second storey of TSBD facing Elm Street (the lower left window in this photo identified as taken at 12:42 pm Nov 22)? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/f2/9b/adf29b8dd4e97d0f73cb1159303dc20f.jpg

The reason that window in particular might be of interest is because it is the window of an office, locked and believed unoccupied and not in use on Fri Nov 22 the day of the assassination--into which, according to testimony to the Warren Commission, a Mauser rifle had been taken and temporarily stored two days prior to the assassination, on Wed Nov 20. That is the window of the office of Warren Caster, district manager of the Southwestern Publishing Company. Caster himself had an ironclad alibi the day of the assassination--he was in Denton. Caster testified that after taking the Mauser to his office after lunch on Wed Nov 20, that around 4 pm that day he took the Mauser back out of the TSBD with him to his car and home that night, and that it remained in his family years later. 

Caster testified that he had bought two rifles that day (Nov 20) on his lunch hour (the other being a .22 gift for his son)--giving verifiable specifics concerning name of the store and time--and then brought them in their cardboard packaging into the TSBD where he showed them and they were handled, before taking them to his office until he took them with him driving home after work that day.

It is possible to imagine a mechanism for how the Mauser that was taken into that Elm Street-facing office on Nov 20, could have been present in that office two days later on Nov 22, that is also consistent with Warren Caster's family years later having the same Mauser he bought during his lunch hour that day and brought home that day. If the Mauser that entered the TSBD and was taken to that office on Nov 20 was a different Mauser than the one Caster had purchased, and then Caster left that day with only one of the two rifles, the .22, and then took home both the .22 and the Mauser he had purchased (which under this thought scenario did not enter the TSBD) ... that could be a mechanism for the Mauser that was taken to that office on Nov 20 also being in that office on Nov 22 at the time the JFK motorcade passed.

A private office with the door locked, believed to be unoccupied, would make an excellent location for a shooter without being disturbed or seen. Since the Southwestern Publishing Company's offices were very close to the stairway at the SE corner of the TSBD which descended directly to the doorway entrance on Elm Street, it would be much easier for an assassin in the ca. 15-30 minutes between time of the shots and police thoroughly searching the floors of the TSBD, to make an unnoticed exit from the building. The locked unoccupied office of Warren Caster on the day of the assassination has received little attention as a possibility for the shooting that day, it seems because of three things: assumption that the window was closed; assumption that the tree in front of that window which largely blocked vision to Elm Street and the motorcade would also make line of fire to the motorcade impossible; and finally no good reason to doubt Warren Caster's testimony or character. In any case there never was further investigation of the circumstances of a Mauser having been taken into and temporarily stored in a private office on the second floor of the TSBD which had a window facing the motorcade on Elm Street two days before the assassination--a Mauser which had been displayed and shown to a few other TSBD employees including Oswald on Nov 20 and handled by some (though not handled by Oswald).

Warren Caster was a long-time Southwestern Publishing Company manager and he had solid alibis concerning both his whereabouts Nov 22 and the disposition of the two rifles he purchased on Nov 20. There also is testimony that one of the secretaries of the Southwestern Publishing Company remained in the publicly-accessible reception area next to Caster's locked office on Nov 22 at the time of the assassination, and never volunteered having heard the sound of a shot fired from what she would have assumed was the unoccupied office adjoining hers. Ian Griggs believed Warren Caster, believed there was nothing further to this story than freak coincidence. But it is troubling that it was not investigated further so that exculpation could have been established on the basis of fact rather than trust, in the manner that leads are run down and people cleared otherwise in a criminal investigation. As Griggs reported, Warren Caster told him (Griggs) that nobody ever even verified Caster's alibi in Denton that day! (Caster noted that to Griggs as a negative aspersion on the quality of the investigation.) The lack of running down other leads, such as this one, of course fits into police and FBI thinking, particularly after LHO's death on Sunday morning Nov 24, that there no longer was need or purpose served in running down any other leads, since the case was now believed to be clear and closed. All of the many 6th floor line-of-sight photos and trajectory reconstructions and calculations--compared to none (?) at all from that 2nd floor window ... this is what came to mind to me from your comments on trajectory and the video.

[Mark Tyler]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Interesting Mark. On the shot originating from lower than the sixth floor, and also the evidence in your video clip that bullets shot through tree branches and leaves go straight and are not deflected, is it possible the shot was fired from the half-opened window, fourth from the right, on the second storey of TSBD facing Elm Street (the lower left window in this photo identified as taken at 12:42 pm Nov 22)?

A shot from a second floor TSBD window would be a good candidate for a single bullet going through JFK and then hitting Connally.  The Wiegman film has a great view of that specific window while the shots were still being fired:

The window looks closed I think, but the photo you reference from 12:42 seems to have the sun-blind slightly further down so somebody must have been in that room I would say.  Another comparison is the Weaver photo taken about 30 seconds before the shooting started:

From a similar time as Weaver but from another angle is Moorman 3, which suggests that window did have a view onto Elm Street:

Overall I think that the vertical angle is perfect, and the limo could probably be seen (assuming nothing like the oak tree or the concrete block near it obstructed the view).  However, the window probably wasn't open so whoever was in that room wasn't able to fire a shot at the victims Z190-Z220.  Without other open windows on the lower floors of the eastern side of the TSBD, I would think that one of the middle floors of the Dal-Tex might be worth considering as another source of the single bullet theory shot as the angles seem about right.

[Mark Tyler]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The reason that window in particular might be of interest is because it is the window of an office, locked and believed unoccupied and not in use on Fri Nov 22 the day of the assassination--into which, according to testimony to the Warren Commission, a Mauser rifle had been taken and temporarily stored two days prior to the assassination, on Wed Nov 20. That is the window of the office of Warren Caster, district manager of the Southwestern Publishing Company. Caster himself had an ironclad alibi the day of the assassination--he was in Denton. Caster testified that after taking the Mauser to his office after lunch on Wed Nov 20, that around 4 pm that day he took the Mauser back out of the TSBD with him to his car and home that night, and that it remained in his family years later. 

That's a really interesting backstory, which I didn't know about so thanks for mentioning it.  The Mauser angle is deeply troubling as there were reports on the day of a Mauser being found in the search of the TSBD.  I shall have to put the Mauser and Caster issues on my reading list for the next week or two!

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The lack of running down other leads, such as this one, of course fits into police and FBI thinking, particularly after LHO's death on Sunday morning Nov 24, that there no longer was need or purpose served in running down any other leads, since the case was now believed to be clear and closed.

I completely agree with this reading of the police and the FBI from 1963, as they clearly felt they had caught the culprit: he worked in the building where the witnesses said the shots came from; they had a photo of him with the gun found in the TSBD and the gun used to shoot Tippit; Oswald fled Dealey Plaza and violently resisted arrest less than an hour later.  Superficially the narrative fits perfectly so it seems reasonable that the authorities acted on this and assumed he was the only suspect.  Once Oswald was dead they had no real motivation to dig around chasing up any other leads as they felt all of the jigsaw pieces fitted together without any gaps.  We have the benefit of hindsight and see things slightly differently, but I do feel their behaviour was understandable at the time.

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

A shot from a second floor TSBD window would be a good candidate for a single bullet going through JFK and then hitting Connally.  The Wiegman film has a great view of that specific window while the shots were still being fired:

The window looks closed I think, but the photo you reference from 12:42 seems to have the sun-blind slightly further down so somebody must have been in that room I would say.  Another comparison is the Weaver photo taken about 30 seconds before the shooting started:

From a similar time as Weaver but from another angle is Moorman 3, which suggests that window did have a view onto Elm Street:

Overall I think that the vertical angle is perfect, and the limo could probably be seen (assuming nothing like the oak tree or the concrete block near it obstructed the view).  However, the window probably wasn't open so whoever was in that room wasn't able to fire a shot at the victims Z190-Z220.  Without other open windows on the lower floors of the eastern side of the TSBD, I would think that one of the middle floors of the Dal-Tex might be worth considering as another source of the single bullet theory shot as the angles seem about right.

Mark, thank you for these additional photos and comments. If that window was closed during the time the shots were fired then that is decisive; a shooter could not have been in the Caster office. The window does look closed in the Wiegman film frame you show in the sense that it looks like dirty exterior glass panes that have not been cleaned for a while, just like the panes in the window to the left. But just to be sure here: is that "dirty exterior window" appearance really that, or is it an artifact of level of contrast/static? If you will check at 0:09 seconds in this copy of the Wiegman film on Utube (= the photo you show), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdRr4KHbhqg , the lower part of the window appears to look darker than the upper part, not apparent in your photo, why? It seems the contrast may have been set slightly differently between the two--would that account for the apparent visual difference? 

The question: Is that Wiegman film frame (on the assumption of no intentional tampering) stand-alone decisive that that window was not partly open? (Partly open in which a panel was raised such that its lower edge was approximately the same height as the partition in the pane would appear if the window were closed, on analogy with the appearance of the open windows at the 4th floor third from the right, 5th floor third from the right, and 6th floor "sniper's nest window" first from the right, in the Weaver photo above that you showed.) I defer to those with experience and judgment in interpreting photographs on this question.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

A different conclusion from Dr.Shaw as opposed to the "official" perspective: 

[Richard Price]

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

A different conclusion from Dr.Shaw as opposed to the "official" perspective:

Chris, given your extremely well thought out and researched perspective on the Z film, limo speeds and the various angles for possible shots, would you comment on the possibility and angles of a shot from the Dal-Tex sixth floor on the eastern end?  Do you think it would have been consistent with the origin point of any of the shots (other than the head shot at z313)?  I think you made a comment on a post I made earlier in discussing Howard Brennan's first statement(s) before he began obfuscating and obliging his questioners with the answers they wanted to hear.

 

[Chris Davidson]

Westerly viewed perspective for Connally:

 

 

[Mark Tyler]

On 2/18/2021 at 2:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Mark, thank you for these additional photos and comments. If that window was closed during the time the shots were fired then that is decisive; a shooter could not have been in the Caster office. The window does look closed in the Wiegman film frame you show in the sense that it looks like dirty exterior glass panes that have not been cleaned for a while, just like the panes in the window to the left. But just to be sure here: is that "dirty exterior window" appearance really that, or is it an artifact of level of contrast/static? If you will check at 0:09 seconds in this copy of the Wiegman film on Utube (= the photo you show), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdRr4KHbhqg , the lower part of the window appears to look darker than the upper part, not apparent in your photo, why? It seems the contrast may have been set slightly differently between the two--would that account for the apparent visual difference? 

I think this version of the Wiegman film is generally darker, but otherwise it looks consistent with the lighter still frame.  That window seems to be in full view of the first few seconds of the film and I don't see any movement or changes in the various versions I have seen.  Judging from my animation and the speed calculations of the cars turning that corner onto Elm Street, I think the first clear frames were exposed around Z285-Z340 so the lack of a gunman suggests to me that the head shot wasn't fired from that window.  Also, if the shot(s) that hit the victims were fired Z190-Z220, I don't think an assassin had time to fire the shot, shut the window, and duck down so I think we can eliminate that possibility also.

On 2/18/2021 at 2:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

The question: Is that Wiegman film frame (on the assumption of no intentional tampering) stand-alone decisive that that window was not partly open? (Partly open in which a panel was raised such that its lower edge was approximately the same height as the partition in the pane would appear if the window were closed, on analogy with the appearance of the open windows at the 4th floor third from the right, 5th floor third from the right, and 6th floor "sniper's nest window" first from the right, in the Weaver photo above that you showed.) I defer to those with experience and judgment in interpreting photographs on this question.

I think the window is closed because the horizontal frame in the middle of the dark area is the right size for the thinner middle section.  If the window was open in the same way as the sixth floor window sniper position it would be thicker like the base of the window, as seen in these photos:

Alas, photo-analysis is always somewhat subjective, but what I see here is a slightly dirty window above and below the mid horizontal bar:

Having said that I'm always open to another point of view if anyone disagrees.

[Mark Tyler]

On 2/18/2021 at 2:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

The question: Is that Wiegman film frame (on the assumption of no intentional tampering)

The issue of authenticity is always important in this case.  Unfortunately there have been proven examples of photo manipulation such as the touching up of the shoe in the presidential limo that was done some time soon after the assassination:

Then there was the more recent Photoshop job where someone pasted an image of Lee Harvey Oswald onto the Dillard photo:

https://vincepalamara.com/2014/11/08/photo-of-lee-harvey-oswald-in-window-after-jfk-assassination-fake/

Thankfully it was easy enough to expose both, but it does demonstrate the value of a keen eye and skepticism when studying evidence in this case (including the motivations of the human actors involved!).

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I've just watched the interview on YouTube of Patti Paschall posted by Vince Palamara. Like quite a few witnesses. She says bang.... bang-bang to describe what she heard. I haven't heard any witness say bang... bang... bang. Their are two issues highlighted by this. One is that people would not likely describe shots spaced by two seconds are more as bang-bang. The second issue is that the lone gunman theory requires the shots to be pretty equally spaced to fit the extant film sequence/amount of Elm Street available. 

[Chris Davidson]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:59 AM, Richard Price said:

Chris, given your extremely well thought out and researched perspective on the Z film, limo speeds and the various angles for possible shots, would you comment on the possibility and angles of a shot from the Dal-Tex sixth floor on the eastern end?  Do you think it would have been consistent with the origin point of any of the shots (other than the head shot at z313)?  I think you made a comment on a post I made earlier in discussing Howard Brennan's first statement(s) before he began obfuscating and obliging his questioners with the answers they wanted to hear.

 

 

Richard,

I just don't have any photos from that location. It makes it somewhat difficult to imagine what appears looking down from there. The best in terms of what I have is the reverse LOS of what is truly needed and the perpendicular side of the Dal-Tex building.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26636-did-even-the-warren-commission-believe-howard-brennan/?do=findComment&comment=425996

It doesn't appear as if Connally could receive his wounds from your location because of the lateral bullet angle through his back into his left thigh, basing that on the assumption that one bullet did all the damage to him.

Other than that, any location from behind is very viable. imo

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

I think this version of the Wiegman film is generally darker, but otherwise it looks consistent with the lighter still frame.  That window seems to be in full view of the first few seconds of the film and I don't see any movement or changes in the various versions I have seen.  Judging from my animation and the speed calculations of the cars turning that corner onto Elm Street, I think the first clear frames were exposed around Z285-Z340 so the lack of a gunman suggests to me that the head shot wasn't fired from that window.  Also, if the shot(s) that hit the victims were fired Z190-Z220, I don't think an assassin had time to fire the shot, shut the window, and duck down so I think we can eliminate that possibility also.

I think the window is closed because the horizontal frame in the middle of the dark area is the right size for the thinner middle section.  If the window was open in the same way as the sixth floor window sniper position it would be thicker like the base of the window, as seen in these photos:

Alas, photo-analysis is always somewhat subjective, but what I see here is a slightly dirty window above and below the mid horizontal bar:

Having said that I'm always open to another point of view if anyone disagrees.

Yes your analysis seems sensible. The window looks closed at the time the fatal shots were being fired, and the timing does not easily allow a shooter to have fired a shot and then closed the window within several seconds. 

But a point you mentioned earlier seems very significant, when you noted a difference in position of the sun shades on that window between the photo above, taken at about the time of the final shots at 12:30 pm, and the James Murray photo at 12:42 pm, indicating that someone was in Caster's office who was not Caster, in those minutes. If they were not a shooter, then the reason surely would be to watch the motorcade, just as Sarah Hughes alone in the room next to Caster's office watched the motorcade (that is the window in your final photo above with blinds fully raised--Sarah Hughes said she was at that moment standing behind those glass panes even though it is not detectable by the camera). From a written statement of Sarah Hughes, March 20, 1964:

On November 22, 1963 I went to south window near my desk which overlooks Elm Street to watch the Presidential Motorcade pass along Houston and Elm Streets. I was standing looking out this window when President John F. Kennedy was shot. I was alone in the office as all the other people had gone to the street to watch the Motorcade pass. I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time. I do not know Oswald but I had seen him in the building several times prior to this day. I do not recall seeing any strangers in the building on November 22, 1963. I remained in my office until about 1:30 P.M. when I left for the day and went home. (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0342b.htm) 

 

The problem is the whereabouts of most persons in the TSBD at the time of the assassination are known, yet that human presence in Warren Caster's office at the time of the assassination is unaccounted for. Sarah Hughes herself was never called to testify, was never asked whether she knew if someone was in Caster's office next door and if so who, was not asked if she had gone into that office herself, was not asked whether she heard any unusual sounds from there, who had access (via keys) to that office, etc. As it stands, there was a mystery person in that office at the time of the assassination.

In the copy of the Wiegman film below, starting at :08 there is a distinct horizontal line of light just below the top of the dark area below the shades. It is visible only partway across, from the right edge to mid-pane but not to the left edge. What is that? Is it a flourescent ceiling light that has just been turned on? Starting at :09 that line of light (a ceiling light?) becomes progressively blocked at the left end in the middle of the pane, "shortened" in length--is that due to movement of a human head or body blocking it from the camera's view? Or is there some other explanation for that line of light and its changes in the film frames?

Roy Truly, whose office on the first floor near the front entrance was the scene of the display and handling of Warren Caster's newly-purchased rifles on Wed Nov 20, told the FBI that Caster, after showing his rifles, took them back out the front door. But Caster told the FBI on Dec 5, 1963 that those rifles entered further into the building, to Caster's office on the second floor where they remained the rest of that day until Caster took them out to his car after work around 4:30 pm and drove home with them (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96522&search=roy_truly+rifles#relPageId=73&tab=page). How did Truly, superintendent of the TSBD, get that detail mistaken--of being oblivious to two rifles having gone further into the building instead of exiting the building? Further, Truly said that was the only time he had ever seen a firearm in the TSBD. This was two days before the assassination--rifles openly entering the building! Today, knowing a presidential motorcade would be passing by in two days, most people might be cautious about being seen bringing a rifle into an office looking out over the parade route just before a president's arrival, even for the most innocent of reasons, simply because it could be misunderstood. Did such a consideration cross Caster's mind that day? Or, since deer hunting season was just beginning and if Texas had the reputation for guns then that it does today, would that just not occur to an average person then?

) 

[Mark Tyler]

On 2/20/2021 at 9:49 AM, Greg Doudna said:

But a point you mentioned earlier seems very significant, when you noted a difference in position of the sun shades on that window between the photo above, taken at about the time of the final shots at 12:30 pm, and the James Murray photo at 12:42 pm, indicating that someone was in Caster's office who was not Caster, in those minutes. If they were not a shooter, then the reason surely would be to watch the motorcade, just as Sarah Hughes alone in the room next to Caster's office watched the motorcade (that is the window in your final photo above with blinds fully raised--Sarah Hughes said she was at that moment standing behind those glass panes even though it is not detectable by the camera). From a written statement of Sarah Hughes, March 20, 1964:

The statement from Carol Hughes is curiously terse with very few useful details.  Here is a floor plan that I found which helps orientate things somewhat:

I think the door marked "PRIVATE" leads to the small room we are discussing.  I assume there are some wall partitions missing between the offices, and toilet areas?

On 2/20/2021 at 9:49 AM, Greg Doudna said:

In the copy of the Wiegman film below, starting at :08 there is a distinct horizontal line of light just below the top of the dark area below the shades. It is visible only partway across, from the right edge to mid-pane but not to the left edge. What is that? Is it a flourescent ceiling light that has just been turned on? Starting at :09 that line of light (a ceiling light?) becomes progressively blocked at the left end in the middle of the pane, "shortened" in length--is that due to movement of a human head or body blocking it from the camera's view? Or is there some other explanation for that line of light and its changes in the film frames?

It could well be a ceiling light.  The photo below gives us a slightly clearer view as the photo is a higher resolution and the top part of the window looks clear (if you download the image and zoom in you should see what I mean):

The comment states that it was taken between 12:30 and 13:00 (which makes sense as the police cars seem to be swarming in):

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=37&page=4

Based on this and the changes in the window I would definitely say someone was in the room.

On 2/20/2021 at 9:49 AM, Greg Doudna said:

How did Truly, superintendent of the TSBD, get that detail mistaken--of being oblivious to two rifles having gone further into the building instead of exiting the building? Further, Truly said that was the only time he had ever seen a firearm in the TSBD. This was two days before the assassination--rifles openly entering the building! Today, knowing a presidential motorcade would be passing by in two days, most people might be cautious about being seen bringing a rifle into an office looking out over the parade route just before a president's arrival, even for the most innocent of reasons, simply because it could be misunderstood. Did such a consideration cross Caster's mind that day? Or, since deer hunting season was just beginning and if Texas had the reputation for guns then that it does today, would that just not occur to an average person then?

It does seem a strange coincidence that rifles were being brought into the building just two days before the assassination.  On the other hand, as you say, a generally permissive attitude towards guns might explain the casual nature of this event.  Here in the UK if I was to take a couple of rifles to work somebody would probably call the police and have me arrested!

[Mark Tyler]

On 2/19/2021 at 8:23 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I've just watched the interview on YouTube of Patti Paschall posted by Vince Palamara. Like quite a few witnesses. She says bang.... bang-bang to describe what she heard. I haven't heard any witness say bang... bang... bang. Their are two issues highlighted by this. One is that people would not likely describe shots spaced by two seconds are more as bang-bang. The second issue is that the lone gunman theory requires the shots to be pretty equally spaced to fit the extant film sequence/amount of Elm Street available. 

Indeed Eddy, any witness saying bang-pause-bang-bang is not consistent with the modern lone gunman theory (shots near Z150-Z220-Z310).  I also really struggled to find any witness who said they heard the Z150 shot, and I find the Zapruder film absent of any obvious sign of gunfire before Z190.  For example I would have assumed the secret service agents would have started to spin around well within 2 seconds of hearing a shot, but they don't start moving noticeably before Z195 (when a few of them start turning to their heads rightwards before they disappear out of frame).

Some witnesses refer to equidistant shots, such as Malcolm Couch or Pierce Allman.  Couch is especially helpful because he says the whole shooting lasted 10 seconds and the first shot occurred just after turning onto Houston Street (15-20 feet along he said), which was documented by the Hughes film in it's last clear frame before the camera was switched off (Couch was in the silver car on the left):

This point is about Z190, and for reference here is Z150 about 2 seconds before:

Robert Hughes, who took this film, didn't hear the shot Couch heard as he said the first shot he heard was about 5 seconds after he switched his camera off, which matches Couch's second shot which he said was fired 4-5 seconds after the first (probably somewhere soon after Z280, i.e. Z190 + 5 seconds).  This example highlights how some witnesses didn't hear the first shot that others did, but we can still use their testimony for the other shots they do describe hearing, and manage to match things up with what we all see in the Zapruder film.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Thankyou for your post Mark. I don't understand your last sentence. I don't think you are saying the Zapruder film is the standard, but neither do I see much point matching shot testimony to  the Z film: 'Bang pause bangbang doesn't match", shot not heard by some (around Z150), followed by three shots doesn't match. Shot from the front to the throat, weak shot to the back, shot(or shots) to the head doesn't match(or at least not the Warren Report). Possibly worst of all is shot at Z150 (must have missed by a lot, injuring Tague?), shot around Z220(magically got through Kennedy's neck bones with no trace etc etc etc) and Z313(Caused bizarre momentary flash, caused bizarrely explained/unexplained reverse lurch by JFK).

 

Watch Patti Paschall, her statement of "bang....bang-bang" is entirely casual. It doesn't relate to a direct question and she doesn't appear to realise the signficance of what she says. The other witness I can remember on camera, again saying this, was one of the witnesses in the room directly below the snipers nest. From what I have read on ballistics I think these witnesses may have heard two shots (The 'bang-bang' in fact being one bullet exiting the muzzle (one bang) and then braking the sound barrier (second bang)., but that isn't very plausible.