I've never said witnesses should be ignored. I've said their statements should be compared to the forensic evidence to see if they are corroborated or refuted. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. We shouldn't believe witnesses just because they tell a story we want to believe.
I don’t have a story I want to believe apart from what the evidence establishes happened. The only reason to believe the witnesses is because they could not have been all independently wrong. If they had said JFK kept smiling and waving after the first shot, I would have accepted that too. But in that case there would have been very different witness recollections as to where the first shot occurred, the shot pattern as well as a very different zfilm. And we wouldn’t necessarily be talking about it because
Oswald may have botched his next shots as he scrambled to set up the rifle on the boxes as the car moved away.
So what is the “forensic evidence” that rebuts the recollections of 25 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot (describing actions that are not seen in the zfilm prior to z193)?