Your problem is you lack common sense. I don't know how I can help you out there.

It is common sense to base conclusions on the evidence. It is common sense that one should guard against making conclusions that conflict with the evidence based upon what they think is happening in equivocal parts of the Zapruder film.  Your spidey sense of why people are turning their heads in the zfilm is not evidence and is certainly not common sense.

Yes.  Total insanity.

"In early March 2020, he advised the general public against wearing standard masks, primarily to preserve critical supplies for healthcare workers and because widespread asymptomatic spread was not yet clear."

Fauci’s Mistake on Masks Was Driven by Bad Economics, Not Uncertain Science
https://www.cato.org/commentary/faucis-mistake-masks-was-driven-bad-economics-not-uncertain-science

Do you think COVID was some kind of hoax?

COVID killed 15 million people.  Of course it was real.  A question like that attempts to deflect from legitimate questions about how it originated and the incompetent response from Fauci.  Initially Fauci gave multiple reasons for not wearing masks including a lack of evidence that they were effective.  And the masks that 99% wore were useless and even then, they could take them off to eat and drink in public.  Laughable.  If they were necessary to stop the spread of COVID, why aren't we still wearing them?  Even at crowded events.  COVID is still around.  So are a lot of other deadly contagious diseases like the flu.  But Biden and the Dems waved a magic wand after the 2020 election and it all went away.  Do you still wear a mask?

I can't understand how anyone can think Tomlinson (or Wright) could positively identify that bullet. He finds a bullet on a stretcher, gives to the chief security officer at the hospital (Wright), and then is shown a bullet months later. How can he say it's the same bullet? All he can say is it "looks" the same. It's impossible to identify it. Not positively identifying it is not "refusing" anything.

In 1966, Tomlinson was interviewed by a private researcher (Raymond Marcus) who asked him about the bullet. Here, in part, is what he said.

Marcus: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.
Marcus: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?
Tomlinson: Yes.
Marcus: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
Tomlinson: Yes, I believe they did.
Marcus: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?
Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

"Appeared to be the same one." What more could Tomlinson say? As he admitted in the interview, he only "glanced" at it before giving it to Wright.

Is this evidence for that bullet? It is to me. Proof? No. Strong evidence? No. But certainly evidence. Can I prove this discussion took place? No. Can I prove he saw the same bullet, that it wasn't switched? No.

The complete Marcus/Tomlinson interview is here: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

I'm assuming you're talking about the moment JFK is shot for the first time causing his fists to go up to his throat. The question is, if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD, which shot is this - first, second or third?
IMO the shot that caused JFK to raise his fists to his throat occurred at z223. The opening post of this thread is an assertion that no shot took place before z207. Less than one second after this (z223) Kennedy is hit. This leads me to conclude the first shot fired from the TSBD is the one that hits Kennedy in the throat. Quite a number of "ear-witnesses" describe a pattern to the shots - shot, pause, two shots closer together. If this is the case the second shot must be the head-shot with the third shot coming shortly after that.

I just noticed this zombie post from 6 years ago. You seemed to be less emphatic about your denial of an early first shot miss. You seemed more sensible back then.

As I pointed out in the thread about Clint Hill, the 9 occupants of the follow up car gave us 9 different versions of the shooting either in their reports or testimony. This demonstrates just how unreliable human memory can be even with trained professionals like Secret Service agents. It also shows how you can make a case for just about eny scenario you want based on the witnesses you choose to believe. It's why I take uncorroborated witness accounts with a grain of salt.

Twelve Questions for Andrew Mason.

1) Did Oswald fire any shots?

2) If so, how many?

3) Who, if anyone, did he hit?

4) In which Zapruder frames did he hit them?

5) Where was the other shooter located?

6) Did he or she hit anyone?

7) If so, in which frame(s)?

8 ) If Oswald fired only one or two shots, who planted the extra shells in the Sniper's Nest?

9) Did Oswald fire CE-399?

10) If not, who fired it with his rifle, who planted it, and how did it get so strangely deformed?

11) Was Oswald "patsied"?

12) If so, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the patsy-ing, the planting of evidence, the shooting, the planting of more evidence, the getting-away, the altering of films, photos, and x-rays, and the all-important (and ongoing) cover-up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

Where, oh where, is Andrew Mason?