Just one more case in which witnesses observing the same event describe it differently. BFD. It doesn't change the fact Oswald gunned down Tippit and there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.

there is no way to explain the available evidence without reaching that conclusion.

Of course there is. You just don't want to know about it.

                           
                    D'oh! ......... D'oh! ......... D'oh!

               Are you familiar with the word "sarcasm"?

Never heard of it.

Regardless, are you familiar with the phrase "Tinfoil-Hat JFKA Conspiracy Theorist"?

Makes sense.  Zapruder started filming because the loud 140 dB sound that he heard, but immediately forgot, prompted him to start filming.  The fact that he started filming there is proof of a shot half a second earlier.  Why didn't I think of that? It's so obvious.

You seem to be suggesting that Zapruder intended to start filming a second or two later than he did.

Why in the world would he do that?

He'd already paused filming for 17 seconds between Z-132 and Z-133, so he knew he had plenty of film left.

He resumed filming at Z-133 when he saw that the limo had straightened out and was coming towards him, not because he was "triggered" by Oswald's first shot half-a-second earlier -- which shot, blending in with the roar of four Harley-Davidson motorcycles, he possibly mistook for a firecracker or a backfire.

D'oh! ......... D'oh! ......... D'oh!

Assassination researcher Gary Mack testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1994 that he had been told by an executive in Kodak's Dallas office that a woman in her early 30s with brunette hair brought in film purported to be of the assassination scene while they were processing the Zapruder film.
According to Mack, the executive said the woman explained to federal investigators already at the film processing office that she ran from Main Street across the grass to Elm Street where she stopped and snapped a photo.
Mack said that he was told by the Kodak executive that the photo was extremely blurry and "virtually useless" and indicated that the woman likely went home without anyone recording her identity.
A similar account was given by Kodak technician Jack Harrison.
Mr Harrison claimed to have developed a color film for a brunette woman in her 30s or 40s on the day of the assassination.
He recalled that the picture had good exposure but was out of focus and considered useless.

    I do Not see a designation as to Who or What Govt Body ended up with possession of this "VIRTUALLY useless" photo. What was "virtually useless" in 1963 would probably Not be "virtually useless" 10 yrs later. And they Know this.
    On a good copy of the Current Zapruder Film, the "Bright Gold" reflection coming off of the Babushka Camera is unlike any reflection that I have seen that day. Do we know for a fact that the Babushka Camera was Not a Movie Camera?

What about "the images"?

You're supposed to locate the supposed images taken by an unknown woman some 60+ years ago. It's not up to the person making the claim to prove the existence of any images. Or find the name of the person, et cetera. No, it's up to you to find them and explain what happened to them.

Meanwhile, the person making the claim makes *no effort* on his own to track down his question.

Conspiracy 101: Make a claim, do no research on his own to examine the claim, and then demand the claim is proven wrong.