This isn't that hard to understand, and I have to believe that even some of the people fighting me can understand it.
The film that Backes put up jumps from the frame on the left to the frame on the right. But, the frame on the left was taken by a photographer who was way behind the big cop as he presumably was about to turn through that door. You see that there is wall and a corner and a door. So, unless he was going to walk into the wall, he was going to turn through that door. And then, in the next frame, we are seeing him on the other side of the door coming out of it, and we're seeing his face. But that could not have been taken by the same photographer who was shooting him from behind, as seen on the left. So, it means two things. It means there was a splice there, where they put two disparate pieces of film together and ran it as one. And two, it wasn't even a splice from the same photographer. It's from a different photographer; one who was positioned to take it.
And that's disturbing in itself. It's a little bait and switch in itself. But, it's worse than that. Because: how could there be a photographer waiting on the other side of that door? I mean: the big cop and Oswald were leading the way. Were there reporters and photographers ahead of them? But how could there be? The big cop was leading the way. Only he knew where he was going. A photographer could only follow; he couldn't lead. So, how could a photographer have been positioned to capture that big cop's face as he went through the door?
So, I'm thinking that the frame on the right was not a continuation of the trek at all, that it was not in sequence, that it came at another time, and most likely was another doorway, and not this one.
But yet, it is also true that that was supposed to go over the radar. You were not supposed to notice that. You were supposed to think that it was all one continuous trek, and that the frame on the right followed the frame on the left like B follows A.
And that makes it a very, very corrupt thing.