Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

No, Backes. The version on the site of the Sixth Floor Museum looks the same as this:

And anyone who doesn't believe me can check it themselves:

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:32262

And I know it hurts, but try to think, Backes. 

WHAT YOU'RE CALLING THE "UNDAMAGED VERSION" IS WHAT THE SIXTH FLOOR HAS ON IT'S SITE. THEY HAVE A COPY OF A NIX FILM. THEY CONVERTED IT TO A DIGITAL BITMAP FILE, MAYBE THEY DID THIS "IN HOUSE" OR MAYBE THEY HAD A THIRD PARTY VENDOR DO IT, I DON'T KNOW.

That's "its site" you stupid uneducated moron. How many times do I have to tell you that? You don't know the difference between "it's" and "its"? Ask Professor Norwood; see if he knows. 

Or did you mean at their physical location, the actual hard film? If so, you shouldn't use the word "site" because "site" is used as an abbreviation for website. 

So, you're saying that any time an old film is converted to a digital bitmap file, it produces pixellations? Is that what you're saying?

Well, here's a clip from the 1939 Gone with the Wind converted to a digital bitmap file (it's on Youtube) and it is clear as a bell and sharp as a tack. Vivien Leigh looks as beautiful as ever.

Watch it. See for yourself. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrhNPS4nbmQ

So much for that stupid excuse. You're just plain stupid, Backes. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!