Definition: 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:`.
Input: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother?

Yes