Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.

Q: CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity? A: he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he innocent all along then?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: That's a regular Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. It's a split key format, for ergonomic purposes (read: prevents carpal tunnel or repetitive stress injuries of the wrist). It's considered one of the best split key keyboards, with nice heavy clicky action (for a membrane based keyboard). It (the whole series really) is consistently ranked as one of the best keyboards. It's an off the shelf product, not a specially designed prop. Source: looking at the one ten feet to my left.  <sep>  Q: What type of keyboard is Caden Cotard using? A: That's a regular Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. It's a split key format, for ergonomic purposes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what job does his character do in the movie?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie? A: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him  Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother? A: Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, when I watched I noticed a man that looked like Christian Bale sitting next to Borden, am I mistaken?

A:
Yes
****