Creative Speculation

"Speculation is not evidence"

This from a man who earlier posted a claim that an explanation based on a theory is fact.

Here you strain to maintain differences of opinion are different from objective facts which are different from speculation and definitely not conclusions.

Or are you arguing that Connally was also struck at frame 207 and his reaction at frame 224 - which actually wasn't a "reaction" but simply a lifting of his shirt's lapel - was a "delayed" reaction which was the result of a passing bullet moving his shirt lapel after delaying inside his body for 17/18ths of a second? Or what exactly are you saying? Can you support your argument with corresponding eyewitness testimony as appears in the video in question? Or support it with anything? Or are you just winging it?

As to the second video, it absolutely makes the case just as was stated. There is witness testimony, corroborated by two separate accounts. These accounts are consistent over time, and backed up by specific markers. The Warren Commission decided instead to accept, if not help create, witness testimony which was inconsistent over time, and was inconsistent with concurrent accounts.What then is the scrutiny which you insist be withstood?

After assuming an arrogant and dismissive attitude, your actual understanding and grasp of the evidence is repeatedly shown as incomplete at best. That is, you don't really know what you are talking about, but have presumed some sort of authority which you clearly do not possess.