Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot was at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, as evidenced by the fact that:

1) Glenn Bennett (who said he saw a bullet strike JFK in the back after he heard a "firecracker-like" sound) started leaning far to his right around Z-150 to see around Dave Powers.

2) George Hickey started leaning over the side of the car and looking down at the pavement in Z-146.

3) Rosemary Willis glanced at the TSBD while she was running and looked in that direction after she stopped running.

4)  All five passengers of the limo quickly turned their heads (in different directions) between Z-140 and Z-150.

5) Mary Woodward said there were three shots, that the first shot sounded like a backfire, that JFK and Jackie turned their heads in response to it, and that the first shot missed everything. (JFK turned his head quickly to his left starting in Z-143; Jackie extended and accelerated her already left head turn to be captured in the Z-161 Robert Croft photo with a concerned look on her face.)

6) Etc. Etc. Etc.

Projecting?

You choose to ignore 90+% of the witnesses who heard 3 shots and are corroborated by 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest.

No, it doesn't.
You have chosen a single observation from a traumatised memory and have convinced yourself you see this in the Z-film.
You completely ignore 90% of what Connally actually said about that shooting.
But because you think it then it must be a fact.
You're completely delusional.

Zapruder corroborates Connally. That's what makes him credible.

History would suggest - the UFO field being one notable example - that governmental disinformation agents and cognitive infiltrators would be far more likely to be promoting self-evident wackiness like Prayer Man or Harvey and Lee than trying to defend and prop up the LN narrative. It's odd that CTers seemingly never grasp this reality.

I will confess, why the LN zealots feel compelled to zealously defend the LN narrative as though it were their religion is a mystery to me, but it certainly isn't because they have been recruited by the CIA; there may have been some of that in the early days, but not 62 years later. A wacky CTer would be a far more likely candidate. On the other hand, every area of weirdness including the JFKA is rife with true wackos whose true wackiness has nothing to do with being a disiniformation agent or cognitive infiltrator - so separating the faux crazies from the genuine ones poses a bit of a challenge.

This is why, I imagine, the LN zealots tend to be the ones suspected of being cognitive infiltrators; zealously defending the LN narrative isn't self-evidently wacky, but on the other hand identifying a motive for this level of zealotry is rather difficult. To pick on John C since he started this thread, he claims to be a devout LNer who finds all this CT stuff beneath him, yet he haunts the forum like almost no one else. Why? Maybe he's being paid to do so, ya think? Some of the CTers here would fit the more likely profile of a cognitive infiltrator - but maybe they're just genuine wackos, ya think? Yep, it's a challenge.

At the Ed Forum, I always thought the CIA could not invent a better cognitive infiltrator than Dr. Niederwacky - a licensed psychiatrist who nevertheless spouts jaw-dropping nonsense about almost every topic while accusing anyone who disagrees (including little old me, for God's sake) of being a cognitive infiltrator! He has almost single-handedly destroyed the Ed Forum. He probably isn't one, but that's what a cognitive infiltrator would look like.