What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?
Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.
Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?
How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.
A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.