Backes, you see that time there? It says 1 hour, 5 minutes, and 53 seconds.
And now, just several seconds later, it switches to this:
It's just 3 seconds later in the film. From 1:05:53 to 1:05:57. It was run together as if it were one continuous flow of action. The movie is Four Days in November, and you can see it here.
So, they did this. I pointed out that they did it. And nobody pointed it out before I did. I am the first person on Earth to have noticed it, and I am the first person to have written about it. You responded to me. I didn't respond to you; you responded to me.
I called attention to it because it's fraud. I knew right away that that middle clip was something different- that it had no connection to Oswald's arrival at City Hall. That's why I pointed it out. I didn't need you to tell me anything.
So, the second image in this collage is dissociated with the first image in this collage. Backes admits that. But then, Backes thinks it jumped back to the proper footage, that the third image is associated with the first one. No. They are three disparate images. #2 is unrelated to #1, and #3 is unrelated to #2 or #1.
All three of those frames are completely disassociated. They were sewn together like a quilt. Backes admits that it's true of the middle one (he has no choice). But, he thinks they went back to the Buck film with the third one. They didn't. They painted a shirt partially onto Oswald at a time when he had been reduced to just a t-shirt.
And why'd they ever leave the Buck film? Or the film of Buck's competitor? Why did David Wolper insert a totally unrelated clip into his movie, Four Days in November? I said: Why did David Wolper insert a totally unrelated clip into his movie, Four Days in November? What need was there to do that? What defense is there for him having done it? Wolper is as bloodied as you are, Backes, and that is pretty damn bloodied.