Timelines of individuals and images. And this includes Wiegman's timeline and his filming of the JFK Limo still being on Elm St.

And why does that matter?

You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...

You are asking diversionary questions...

The original will show the plaid pattern exactly as Larsen showed it...

You can see the plaid pattern in Sprague...You can't in the other image...

 
So, just in case I'm not understanding your reply...
...when I ask, how can there be more detail in the washed out and less detail in the clearer image, your reply is that we can see the detail in the washed out image and we can't see the detail in the clearer image...
You are clearly struggling to understand what is happening here.
It is impossible for the washed out image that has far less detail to show more detail than the clear image that has more detail.
The only way this is possible is for the washed out image to be manipulated/doctored/faked.
It's the only way.
Do you understand this very simple principle?

Can someone explain to me why any of this matters?

    Timelines of individuals and images. And this includes Wiegman's timeline and his filming of the JFK Limo still being on Elm St.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/this-is-how-the-kennedy-assassination-actually-unfolded/vi-AA24beTn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDBBAN&cvid=6ac3d82aee6245dfb67324114522f194&ei=17

Although the title of the above video indicates this is about the JFKA, the clown doing the narration spends most of the video talking about the history of security measures for presidential motorcades and little time on the JFKA. Only the first 45 seconds and the time from about 10:00 and 12:00 are devoted to the JFKA. During that brief time, the narrator makes several dubious statements, the most glaring is that the Secret Service should have inspected every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. This statement is laughable on the surface. Does this bozo have any idea how much manpower would have been required to do that and how long it would have taken. And what good would that have done? Even if the Secret Service had inspected the TSBD earlier that morning, how would that have prevented Oswald from shooting JFK? The only way that would be effective is if personnel had been deployed on every floor of every tall building along the motorcade route. That literally would have taken a small army to secure every possible sniper location along the route. Not only would that have been required in Dallas, but in every other city JFK rode in a motorcade during his roughly 1000 day presidency. The claim was made by a guy who was trying to sound smart, and failing badly.

For most of our country's history, power has coalesced around two major parties although in the early years they were more loosely organized factions than political parties. We had the Federalists Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison. Washington did not identify with either party and opposed the creation of political powers. Adams identified as a Federalist and became their only elected president. The Federalists all but disappeared after losing the 1816 election to Monroe. For much of the 1820s, power was concentrated around two men, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Although elected in 1824 as a Democratic -Republican, Adams' supporters became identified as the Adams Party and the opposition as the Jacksonians. After Jackson's election in 1828, that Jacksonians became formally know as the Democratic Party which it remains to this day. Following Jackson's reelection in 1832, the Adams Party morphed into the Whigs. The Whigs were a force for about a quarter century electing two presidents and having two others ascend to the presidency following the death of the Whig president. In the 1850s, the Whig Party split over the question of slavery with the northern Whigs becoming what would be known as the Republicans and the pro-slavery Whigs breaking off into minor parties. Presumably most of these would eventual become Democrats. Beginning with the 1860 election, our two major parties have been the Democrats and Republicans. There have been a few third parties that have gained enough support to influence presidential elections without every winning one. George Wallace was the last third party candidate to win electoral votes in 1968 representing the American Independent Party.

I see a potential for another schism and realignment of the major parties as a possibility with anti-MAGA Republicans joining with moderate Democrats to form a centrist party. For that to happen, there would have to be a leader who could bring those two factions together into a political party. Right now, I don't see such a leader. If that were to happen, I think we would still have two major parties. The most likely scenario would be the centrist party to replace the Democratic Party with the far-left socialists becoming a fringe third party. Who knows which group would retain the title of the Democratic Party. Most likely, that would be the centrist party. It would be the result of rank-and-file Democrats taking back their party from the radical left. Again, that would require a leader and most of the current Democrat leadership preferring to kowtow to the radical left rather than opposing them.