Mary Woodward said there were 3 shots and the 1st shot missed everything

[Tom Graves]

Not only do you have no evidence that he is not already reacting well before z226, you would have to be suffering from dementia or acute tunnel-vision to be confident that JFK is not reacting well before.

English, please.

[John Corbett]

I just gave you a sample of the evidence that the first shot occurred after z186 and before z202 in the previous post!!

No you didn't. You gave us your FUBAR reasoning for what you believe and it doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is no hypothesizing needed. 

Apparently no evidence needed either.

Just read the evidence.  You need evidence to prove the contrary.

I don't need evidence to prove the contrary. I don't need to disprove what you have never proven.

All you can offer is your spidey senses about why you think people are doing things in the zfilm. That is not evidence.

Sworn testimony is evidence. The Z-film is evidence. I combine the two and apply reason and common sense. You should try that sometime.

[Tom Graves]

JFK begins to drop his hand and turn forward by Z-193. We can't tell if he's still waving at that point. He isn't waving after Z-198. (translated into understandable English by T. Graves)

If he'd already been hit by Z-193, wouldn't his arm have been rising, not lowering?

[Andrew Mason]

English, please.

There is a difference between believing something is true based on some of the evidence, and a belief based on no evidence while being confident that the contrary evidence cannot possibly be true. The first is just a difference of opinion about which evidence is more reliable. The second puts you in la-la land.

[Andrew Mason]

If he'd already been hit by Z-193, wouldn't his arm have been rising, not lowering?

Why?

[Tom Graves]

There is a difference between believing something is true based on some of the evidence, and a belief based on no evidence while being confident that the contrary evidence cannot possibly be true. The first is just a difference of opinion about which evidence is more reliable. The second puts you in la-la land.

When do you believe JFK was hit?

When do you believe JBC was hit?

Since eyewitness/earwitness testimony is notoriously unreliable (especially in a virtual echo chamber like Dealey Plaza), how does the Zapruder film, and only the Zapruder film, support your beliefs as to when JFK was hit and when JBC was hit?

[John Corbett]

There is a difference between believing something is true based on some of the evidence, and a belief based on no evidence while being confident that the contrary evidence cannot possibly be true. The first is just a difference of opinion about which evidence is more reliable. The second puts you in la-la land.

You seem to be of the opinion there are multiple truths and it is a multiple-choice exercise. There is only one truth of the JFKA and all other theories are simply false. Oswald was the assassin and he carried out the assassination in only one way. Once that way is determined, it is pointless to consider there are alternatives. Your scenario is simply bonkers and undeserving of serious consideration.

Tom Graves and I are in agreement that there was an early missed shot but we have a sharp disagreement as to how early that shot occurred. Since there are only clues and not definitive proof of when the first shot occurred, I can recognize that there is a possibility that he could be right and I could be wrong. I can't give your scenario that same consideration. There is no possible way you could be right.