Andrej Stancak

Claude: Molina was a communist agent suspect and was harassed by the low enforcement enough to tell anything it was wished from him. The forces we are speaking about are strong enough to hijack President's body and alter wounds, to capture visual evidence (films) no one ever saw later, to take all evidence to Washington, to plant compromising evidence on Lee Oswald, such as his wallet on the site of J.D. Tippit's killing, and many more. Oswald's setup started sooner than after the assassination, and things such as someone could say Oswald was in the doorway were a relatively small problem. It is the Darnell film which somehow escaped the censorship (to my knowledge it was not shown to the Warren Commission) and revealed presence of Prayer Man what caused a crack in the official version. To ask a witness if he/she has recalled seeing someone is a comparatively indirect evidence. A direct would be: "Look at this man in this still who was standing in the opposite corner of the doorway whilst you were also standing there. Who he was?" None of the witnesses has been asked this question. Mr. Frazier was shown the picture and asked and he just could not answer. Prayer Man stood even closer to him than to Molina. Mr. Frazier could answer: "This is certainly not a Depository employee" or "It was this and this person".

Bill: The question was not to look or not to look on Prayer Man (I can assure I looked carefully over many months) but to say if Prayer Man had his left leg bent in knee joint or not. What is your opinion?

Maybe I can answer with asking another question: could actually Lee Oswald stand as Prayer Man on the top landing in a pose such as in the backyard photographs with his left leg bent and forwards while resting on his right foot and slightly leaning to his right? I am not sure how many inches could this detract from his height but it is something which needs to be tested I spent a long time on reconstructing that man' stance few months ago, it is not that that difficult to combine the two projects. Sill some work ahead...

I wonder if anyone would agree that Prayer Man in this Darnell's frame has his left leg bent? I took a frame from the first frames in which the doorway start to appear and in which the people on steps still do not obstruct the view. My point is that if the left leg would not be bent and in front of Prayer Man's body, we should see a light spot corresponding to the heater. However, we do not. If the left leg is bent and the foot resting on the top platform, then we can assume that the right leg was straight, in which case this stance would be compatible to the "one-foot-up-one-foot-down" pose. This would be Poser11 reconstruction on Prayer Man's stance. It is not shown in exact Darnell's angle but it is close.

It is a bit unfortunate that neither Wiegman nor Darnell film offer a clear view of Prayer Man's legs, and we do not see actually the step below the top landing. Although, in the intitial doorway frames in Darnell's film a bend left leg can be assumed because if his left leg would be straight and perpendicular, we should see the white spot corresponding to the heater standing behind the glass door.

Bill: my proposition was actually that Prayer Man stood with only his right foot on the first step (the step below the top landing), and had his left leg bend in knee joint and resting on the top landing. You can read my earlier reconstruction of Prayer Man's height in Darnell here: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ or in my earlier posts in this thread (about April). I am currently working on a reconstruction of also Wiegman's doorway scene in which Lovelady appears taller than Prayer Man, and actually on 3D reconstructions of all doorway scenes (Darnell, Hughes, Wiegman, Altgens). So far, my reconstructions are consistent in Prayer Man being 5'9'' and standing with only one foot on the step below the top landing.

Sandy: a very good find of yours with aligning the horizontal dark strips in two Lovelady's pictures. In my view, this proves Lovelady's identity in Couch film beyond any doubts.

Bill: some people in the doorway either did not see Prayer Man (e.g., people at lower steps) or they did see him and were forced not to tell. Please consider Frazier: he was less than 3 feet away from this person and until today he did not disclose who the person was. And he always spoke kindly about Lee Harvey Oswald. However, he had a problem with curtain rods - do you believe Frazier's testimony about curtain rods? I do not, there were no curtain rods carried by Oswald on Friday morning. Frazier was close to be charged for assisting in the murder of President Kennedy, and it was not that difficult to convince him what he had seen and what not. Lovelady? He had a criminal history and the FBI (and the TSBD) had a firm grip over him. He actually admitted in his HSCA interview that there might be somebody behind him whom he would not know who he was. Shelley: he himself was probably an intelligence asset. Two ladies standing on the top landing, Paula Saunders and Sarah Stanton: we only have their briefest possible FBI testimonies with no possibility to ask further questions. They were not asked to testify under the oath. People were scared to death to testify against the official version which started to form just some 2-3 hours afrer the assassination, and later they also learned about what happened to a number of witnesses. And so, I am not surprised that no one admitted seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the doorway. However, no one has also told who Prayer Man was. Who do you think he was if not Lee Harvey Oswald?

Bill: I have difficulty to understand where are you heading with your posts. You clearly are well versed in Warren Commission report. However, I am not sure what is the point behind your repeated questioning of different points. The thread or question whether Baker did or did not run straight into the Depository building is only a spin-off of the main problem: Baker passed Oswald whilst Oswald was either still in the doorway or in the vestibule of the first floor (more likely). There is no doubt that Baker eventually reached the first floor, and ascended through the floors using back stairwell. It does not matter if he first ran to the east corner of the building and returned right away to the main steps or if he ran straight.The problem is that Baker had encountered Oswald at a place which exonerated Oswald as the assassin. As Oswald was to be framed, it was necessary to move this encounter to the second floor. By moving their encounter from the first to the second floor, small but telling mistakes have been committed (and revealed in this thread). Baker was couched in what to testify but on few occasions he failed to keep with the script. The bottle of Coke was a neuralgic problem till the end.

Bill: It is difficult to determine the exact length of Lovelady's shirt in Couch film because of poor signal in the area of Lovelady's buttocks. I have looked in detail on every possible picture or film frame to somehow understand the shapes and details of Lovelady's shirt as I needed Lovelady's figure for my 3D reconstruction of Wiegman's scene. I have not found any puzzle here. Lovelady wore a plaid, long-sleeved shirt, partly unbuttoned (with a slight asymmetry due to a larger white area corresponding to his white T-shirt on the left side), and sleeve collars also unbuttoned.

Now back to this ... explain how Lovelady's plaid shirt hangs so far down in the back than it does in the front? Bill: The shirt is the same Lovelady' shirt in Couch film, Wiegman film, Martin film, and Hughes film - both in the initial part of the film in which he is seen on the front steps facing Elm Street and in the final part of the film in which he looks into the doorway. And in Martin film, you can see that he has his left hand resting on his hip which lifts the front rim of the shirt. In Couch film, Lovelady's left hand appears to be stuck in his trouser's pocket or also resting on his left hip, which lifts the front part of the shirt. I would like to turn your attention on the bald spot on Lovelady's vertex in Couch film matching the exact same spot seen in Martin film. This bald spot, together with matching shape of shirt across films, leave no doubts that the person in Couch film is Lovelady.

Yes. Sorry, Bart, for misspelling your name.

I apologise to contributors of this thread and the Administrator for not posting my reconstructions of the Wiegman's scene at this stage. This is related to the amount of work which this entails and a limited time I can devote to this project.

Dear Bill: I experience a sort of deja vu whilst reading your recent posts. This thread turns around one specific human figure in the doorway which Mr. William Kelly found to bear unusual similarity with Lee Harvey Oswald. The thread was then joined by Sean Murphy who together with other researchers have basically refuted the veracity of Baker-Oswald second floor encounter some 90 s after the last shot. The story is more complicated than one would imagine, and also involves interpretations of Cpt. Fritz (FBI agent Bookhout's) notes, blatant discrepancies in Baker's testimonies, reasons for taking the very late testimony just before closing of Warren Commission's work, the possibility of even seeing Oswald through the window leading into a small vestibule (and another window), and other points. I would suggest that you familiarise with this research which may shake your trust in officer Baker's testimonies. I would do it just out of respect to this previous excellent research. Reading through many posts further back in this thread may take you quite a lot of time. You can also read two compendiums of this research, one in the book by Mr. Stan Dane: Prayer Man: Out of the darkness and into the light. https://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Man-Shadows-Into-Light/dp/1944205012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481836301&sr=8-1&keywords=Prayer+Man , and another in Mr. Kemp's essay: Anatomy of second floor encounter. http://www.prayer-man.com/anatomy-of-the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter/ . I would be very interested to read your opinions on the second floor encounter then.

Well, then the man visoring with both arms which Larry considers to be Lovelady is Joe Molina.

Sure, thanks for spotting my mistake.

Actually, the stance and and the position of arms of this tall man in Willis (Carl Lewis) is very similar to what the man standing at the front western corner of the doorway in Wiegman's film shows. So, Carl Lewis after all. Larry Rivera may be in error in a number of other points. Larry claimed that Frazier stood in the lower east part of the steps whilst Frazier is consistently seen on the top landing, and he also testified to stand back there in the shadow. Larry also attributed Lovelady's identity to the man in a white shirt shielding his eyes with both arms (most likely Otis Williams), whilst we see Lovelady quite clearly in Wiegman's stills.

A puzzling issue, indeed. Whoever of these two gentlemen stood at the front western corner of the doorway, he was a tall man sized 6 feet. This is my reading of this man's body height from a 3D model aligned to Wiegman's stills. He wore a light-coloured shirt. The man I was considering as the one standing at the front western corner could be the tall one seen in Willis' picture:

Well done to you, Bart, and well deserved. The Anatomy work is an important and very factual analysis of the 2nd floor encounter. This is basically the theoretical part of Prayer Man's discovery.

Brian, your game is always the same. Your subjective beliefs and perceptions are presented as the only correct ones, and you are the authority which decides what is correct. It is a mean but effective strategy because it grants no end - you will continue doing this on everyday basis until researchers get tired and your ill-minded views on Prayer Man will be seen dominating the EF. You are not interested in any truth - you already know the truth: Sean Murphy's research must be destroyed. May I ask you to present the original frame (not a GIF) which proves that Prayer Man stood on the top landing. I do not now what is Part 1 or Part 2 of someone's GIF, how they were produced and overlaid. It will be again an endless string of posts just to understand what picture of those rapidly changing but overlaid in a GIF you would like to discuss. This is also part of your game: to confuse things as much as possible. I have to object against your new misinterpretation of my statements which you employ so often: "As Mr Stancak stated here, that direct comparison shows that Prayer Man is at least 7 inches shorter than Frazier, disproving the Oswald as Prayer Man claim." Only the apparent height difference between Prayer Man relative to Frazier was 9 inch (not 7 as you claim), not between their actual physical heights (5'9'' against 6', respectively). This height difference was due to the real difference between their body heights plus the height of one step minus a tiny effect of perspective. So, my view cannot be taken as supporting your view. I hope you can understand it, and if not, that somebody helps you to understand. Is it really that difficult? Have you considered the possibility that Lovelady stepped down one step in the last frames of Wiegman's film? This is the reason why I request the full original frame bacause only such frame would allow us to study the relative locations of Prayer Man and Frazier in relation to some fixed fiducial points (e.g., corners or similar, door frame, other people). This would also reveal if Lovelady was on the same step throughout all frames or he descended in later frames. I think this point has already been addressed and resolved earlier in this or the main Prayer Man thread. I will explain the exact location and body orientation of Prayer Man and other figures in the doorway in some of my future posts after I complete the reconstructions. The slow part is to model the individual characters and to import them into Sketchup without losing details in human models. There is a clumsy way to import from Poser11 into Sketchup in which the intermediate file changes the colours and reduces some of fine details. This requires another toolbox which would allow to repaint the 3D figures and adjust their clothing. For instance, to model Mrs. Maddie Reese in her long and open coat is a nightmare. My progress is not that fast as I would wish, however, my experience is that rather than to show an incomplete work and let it be battered, it is better to first complete the work and then to post. Thus, I will not comment on details of Prayer Man's body orientation as it will be a claim against claim - an endless and time consuming discussion without any resolution.

Brian: Please find here my comments yo your queries: Q1. "I asked Mr Kamp to answer my response to his last post, he did not. 1) I asked you first Mr Stancak. I asked you to please identify what you consider to be Prayer Man's hair as shown in Kamp's posted Darnell image. You did not do so and responded by asking me to do computer image outlining that you yourself showed an unwillingness to do. It is my opinion that you are refusing to do so because of your awareness that any attempt you make at outlining what you consider to be hair on Prayer Man will prove my point. Your move here relieves you of having to account for what your own ROKC teammate saw so clearly that he was able to draw arrows to it. 2) It is not true that I am the only one who can see it. Duncan MacRae drew a fairly adequate outline of the woman's hair seen in Darnell. He did so by following the dark mass I am pointing out that was clear enough for him to draw an outline around. There are many others who admit it looks like a woman. Yourself included in this thread. A woman would possess the long hair I am pointing out. " A. I have not promised to you or anyone to draw any contour around Prayar Man's hair because it would be just a guess. We see Prayer Man's hair line in the front part of the head, and that fits well with Oswald's hair line. The back of the head is in the dark area of the doorway where the signal is low. I would not be able to draw the hair line in the postero-lateral quadrant with full confidence. We can argue about what you or others see ad infinitum - it clearly leads nowhere. I admit that people may attribute different interpretations to my interpretation if a particular detail is blurred. Q2: " Wrong. The Davidson 2 part gif I will post separately shows Prayer Man with 'his' shoulders in line parallel to the front face of the landing. For Prayer Man to have one foot on the step and one on the landing is not a position any human would hold for too long. Human behavior would make that individual step down completely on to the step and not leave one foot up on the landing while going through all the motions Prayer Man's arms are doing. It is important to note that Prayer Man's height never changes in all available images. " A: It is difficult from the noisy Wiegman's image (the dark part of the doorway) to reconstruct exactly the course of the shoulder line. Should Prayer Man stand with both his feet on the first step, his left shoulder and left forearm would be lit by the sun light. I only see very tiny spots of light on the upper lateral aspects of Prayer man's forearm. This can be achieved if his left forearm parallels the line of the shadow cast by western wall. Therefore, although Prayer Man's shoulder line was aligned more with the plane crossing the glass door in Wiegman's still, the pattern of shadows can only be achieved if PM's trunk was still slightly rotated towards his left even if he stood with his right foot on the first step. These are minute details which is difficult to explain and even more difficult to believe without spending hundreds of hours on the doorway model. Prayer Man did not stand in the doorway for too long. It may have been seconds of Wiegman's film and maybe less than two minutes after (covering also Darnell's period). He was allegedly seen by Occhus Campbell in the small storage room close to the the first floor stair about two minutes after the last shot. Thus, standing with one foot up and one foot one step down was not strenous at all. Q3: "Second, you never answered my height argument. It proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald by your own example. If we hypothetically allow Prayer Man to be standing with one foot on the step we can draw a line from the top of Prayer Man's head over to Frazier and he comes up to about Frazier's chin (7 inches shorter than the top of Frazier's head). Since we know the Depository steps are 7 inches tall that would mean when Prayer Man stepped up to the landing he would be equal in height with the 6 foot tall Frazier - as a person who was 7 inches shorter would do if he rose up one 7 inch step. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9, and could never be equal in height with Frazier, this scientifically proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by itself. In the Gilbride posts we showed that Darnell's camera is at an approximate 20 degree angle or so to the portal. You still fail to grasp the basic point that your claim that Prayer Man is standing on the step commits him to a specific spot that is well forward on the landing (to the point of being on the step). Gilbride already posted that Prayer Man's head is in line with the aluminum frame. When you make a geometric triangulation of Prayer Man's position in the portal according to those landmarks he turns out to be too far from the wall to be leaning with folded arms. He would also have to be intersecting the sun plane at that position. Since he is not that proves that Prayer Man was always on the landing since his height doesn't change. Once you prove Prayer Man was on the landing then a direct height comparison with Frazier makes him well too short to be Oswald. Mr Stancak, please answer what I have written in your next response. " A: Please have a look on my 3D reconstruction which I posted on November 7. The height difference between the top of Frazier's head and PM's head was 9 inches. This height difference is accurately reproduced in my model. PM stood actually on the first step below the top landing, in no situation did he stand on the top landing. It was only his left foot which was on the top landing, however, this does not affect the relative height of Frazier and PM. PM did not stand on the top landing and therefore he could not reach with his head to the top of Frazier's head. My model tells exactly what we see in Darnell's still. Prayer Man stood at the line of the front of the top landing, which means really in the front part of the top landing. I know it sometimes may look that he was back there close to the glass door, but he was not. An easy way to understand this aspect is to look at the distance between the red brick column in the western wall in front of the top landing: Prayer Man's right elbow joint is very close to the brick column. This could not be achieved should he stand in the back corner of the top landing. Should he stand at the back of doorway, there would be no light reflection on any part of PM's body because his body would be in the shadow cast by both the western wall and the ceiling; however, we see the light reflecting from the right hand (as a minimum). Q4: "Simply refuted by looking at MacRae's stabilized animation of Prayer Man in the portal. Is it still posted on the Education Forum? After seeing the movements Prayer Man is making it would be impossible to have one leg down on the step and bent. MacRae's animation showed a person who was standing flat-footed with both feet on the landing." A: Please provide data, I have not seen any animation of that sort. Q5: "I'm sorry Mr Stancak but you show a lack of skill in analysis because even if your bent leg theory were true if Prayer Man were standing with a bent leg on a step that was 7 inches lower than the landing when he straightened that leg out and rose to the landing he would then be even taller than Frazier only proving my point even more.You're not answering the point of the 7 inch step. Please answer it. If what you are saying is true then when Prayer Man rose to the landing he would add the height of the 7 inch step and therefore be too tall to be Oswald. Do you understand this basic point? " A: I understand the point well and have explained it in on many occasions. Prayer Man effectively stood on the first step (as far as his height is concerned relative to the top of Frazier's head) with his right foot, the left was on the top landing but this did not change the apparent height of PM. Q6: "Credible analysis would realize that Prayer Man's hand is glowing in Wiegman because it is on the edge of the sun plane. If you observe Darnell carefully you can see Prayer Man's hand is not glowing (though it is brighter because of sun exposure). What that means is Prayer Man has pulled back from the sun plane, just like Mr Stancak surmises when he says Prayer Man was making way for people coming up the stairs. The only place for Prayer Man to pull back from the sun plane is the landing according to Mr Stancak's own description. Once you establish Prayer Man is on the landing in Wiegman, and realize his height never changes in all images, it proves Prayer Man is standing on the landing in all images. " A: Where is the credible analysis? Who decides if an analysis is credible - is it you? The contrast between the shadowy and light areas of the doorway was pretty sharp. We speak about pulling back an inch and the impact of the shadow changes abruptly. It is difficult to visualise which is the reason why I contruct models. Q7: "Again Mr Stancak, if you consult experts you will find they will confirm that black and white images contain spectral frequencies and data. Black and white are technically colors. I consider your above reply a deliberate oversimplification designed to avoid my arguments that the color tones in the lowest dark band on Prayer Man's hair and the top of his head, where we know there is hair, match because they are part of a visible cohesive mass. They will also match Frazier's hair that we know is hair. " A: Black and white light indeed have a frequency content because the light is in essence an electromagnetic medium. However, we are not reading in a photographic analysis directly the frequency spectra but only the values of R-G-B channel in colour pictures or a value of grey channel in black and white pictures. I have explained that just reading or observing the level of grey in a black and white picture does not tell you anything about the identity of colours of underlying objects if two distant pixel would show identical values of grey. Q8: "Your 'cursor' argument is a gross oversimplification designed to get around the high tech spectral color analysis an expert would apply to the image and narrow down the range of possibilities for what it is. That expert would quickly agree that the dark band you are saying you don't see (even though Kamp drew arrows to it) is part of one cohesive mass that constitutes hair and is proven so not only by the naked eye but by color frequency matching as well. " A: What expert? Please bring on your expert. Please, show me one "spectral color analysis" of a black and white picture. Q9: Your reference to the work of members of ROKC should be addressed directly to the Authors of particular threads/posts.

Brian: I am familiar with your posts on the topic via a personal message from a senior member of EF, and through my subsequent review of your posts at one of the threads on JFKassassinationforum. Your style of posting is simply unacceptable. I do not understand moderators' reasons for letting you posting. 1. I cannot see any female hair in Prayer Man's figure. Only you can see it. Isn't it strange? Please draw a contour around the "female" hair, maybe it helps others to see it. And it may also help you to understand that it just cannot be done. 2. The one-foot-down-one-foot-up solution explains how a man 5'9'' could stand in the doorway at Prayer Man's location. It is a better solution than any other solution, i.e. a solution postulating a woman standing at that particular spot. I have not fabricated any evidence with my model as everyone (except you) perceives the difference between a model and the reality. It is not possible for me to arrange a photographic session at Dealey Plaza using manikins of exactly the same heights as the people in Darnell/Wiegman scenes. A re-enactment of the scene would be the ultimate proof of my hypothesis. "Squared" shoulders: I am not sure what does this mean and how does it refute my hypothesis. Please, explain and demonstrate, and please do not hide behind other people's work. As far as Prayer Man in Wiegman's frame is concerned, Prayer Man stood at a very similar location in Wiegman as in Darnell (almost identical) and also with one foot down and one foot up. Prayer Man just rotated slightly towards his left in Darnell to allow the people who were returning to the building to enter. It is difficult to understand the relationships between various human figures just by looking on a Wiegman's frame because most of the frames are quite severely tilted to the left (from a front view) (thus lifting up Lovelady who stood close to the central rail), and there is also the factor of perspective - Lovelady was slightly closer to the camera than Prayer Man. Thus, your claim that Lovelady's height relative to Prayer Man's head excludes Prayer Man being 5'9'' is untenable. Prayer Man stood effectively one step below Frazier because his left leg was bend in the knee joint, and the body weight rested on his right leg. As far as the apparent body height of Prayer Man is concerned, it would be similar to the situation in which he would stand with both his feet on the first step below the top landing. Thus, your argument that Prayer Man should reach almost the height of Frazier is not justified. I would be very interested in seeing your proof which you passed on Mr. Gilbride: "We already refuted the one step down claim months ago when Gilbride posted my proof that, by body proportion, Prayer Man's legs would have to be too long in relation to the rest of his body to be on the first step down." Please, do not hide and demonstrate. One of the reasons for employing Poser11 is to model the Prayer Man's body by maintaining the anatomical proportions between individual body parts (please see the Poser reconstruction below). "Mr Stancak you are just re-posting material that was refuted long ago. I see your one step down claim as a contrivance forced by good evidence. " Please, show the good evidence. I have explained my reasons for not showing any new models at this stage. However, I am posting at least my current Poser11 reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance and few other details. The shadows and the exact body orientation can only be achieved at a later stage in SketchupPro. : 4. Your colour tone argument is a nonsense. We do not have any "colour tone spectra" in Darnell's still - only shades of grey. Thus, one can just navigate with a cursor to a particular spot on a picture and read directly the value (0-255). This value of grey is a summary value resulting from narrowing down the colour information (three channels) onto a grey continuum, and from the amount of light it receives. If you see that two pixels in a black-and-white pictures have the same grey value, it does not mean that the colours of the associated objects were identical. In contrast, objects of the same colour but illuminated differently would show a different value of grey. If you wish to continue the debate, please supply all the evidence you mentioned in your posts and which I have asked for in this post.

Brian, your comments read as a word salad if you know what I mean. The science-like phrases with which you fill your naive and entirely wrong views cannot hide a complete lack of substance in your posts. Now I see that you play the same game with Darnell's still which you played with Wiegman's frame few weeks ago. You find a dubious detail in the darkest spot of the doorway, in the shadow and behind Prayer Man's head, and then claim that it can only be a female hair. Naturally, you are also the judge. If someone cannot see what you see or is just cautious in his/her interpretations and admits uncertainty, you employ your offensive, arrogant and repulsive style which I hoped would never be seen again on the Education Forum. Bright people are usually very cautious and frequently admit uncertainty. In contrast, dumb people are always very self-assured because they do not understand the complexity and the conditioned and subjective nature of the things. Brian, are you certain or uncertain about your observation of alleged female hair behind Prayer Man's head? As far as the height argument is concerned, you may know that Prayer Man's height (=Oswald's height) was 5'9''. Prayer Man stood with his right foot on the first step below the top landing, and his left leg rested on the top landing. This possibility has been discussed earlier in this thread, and you can also read about the height estimate on my blog: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ I have prepared a more advanced visualisation of Prayer Man using Poser11 and SketchupPro16 which allow to model more precisely the details of Prayer Man's posture, and to test it by overlaying the model with Darnell's/Wiegman's stills. I will post it on "Oswald leaving the TSBD?" thread in due time once it is finished to my satisfaction. In the meantime, please find here one snapshot from an earlier version. You need to find some stronger argument for your view of Prayer Man being actually a woman than a would-be female hair behind Prayer Man's or impossible body height. None of your points holds. P.S. I do not expect any apology from you as your agenda with Prayer Man on this forum is not to be fair, polite, objective and collegiate, but to trash Sean Murphy's research which you hate so badly.

Ahoj!, Děkuji mnohokrát. Poté, co žije v České republice po dobu sedmi let (v Brně), myslím, že máte pravdu. -- Tommy PS Let us not forget that one of the members of INTERPEN was named Edmund Kolby, and also that the CIA had a cover company called Double-Chek Corporation! Hello Tommy, noted. I keep writing in English so that all forum members understand me. Please drop me a PM for a chat.