Great New Movie Spells out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man

[Thomas Graves]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Dear Robert,

Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc,

As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964.

Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now...

--Tommy

Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not?

Robert,

You don't seem to understand.

Evidently all of the 73 originals were signed. In Dallas. During the month of March, 1964, when the TSBD employees made their statements to the Dallas FBI. Evidently only the originals were signed, not the copies. But whoever typed up the copies did put "/s/" next to the person's typed name (and the date, and the location) at the bottom of the statement (all 73 of the statements), indicating that the original (from which the copies were made) had been signed by the person making the statement, and "witnessed" by the two FBI agents whom the person had made the statement to.

I'm guessing that the copies were probably made after the person making the statement had gone home for the day.

Why? Because those copies probably had to be typed up. D'oh.

Only five of those 73 original statements had to be corrected, for relatively minor mistakes. Those (5) corrections were made in Dallas, by the Dallas office of the FBI, and were initialed by the persons who had made those original, signed statements. Only the originals were initialed, not the copies. Once again, the copies were probably made after the person had gone home for the day. Why make them wait around to sign some copies when you already have their signature on the original?

I don't know where those original (signed, corrected, and intialed) statements are now. I'm sorry. My bad.

On the Internet (Mary Ferrell Foundation), all we are able to view are copies of the 73 statements, not the originals. We must assume that they are copies, not originals, because none of them show the initials of Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, or the other two TSBD employees whose statements had to be corrected for relatively minor mistakes.

I don't know how to put it more simply, Robert. You either "get it" or you don't. For whatever reason.

--Tommy

Edited December 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa,

Apologies on the delayed response. Had to visit a hospitalized family member who's the better part of a day's drive away. Just got back to cyberspace. You seem to be slighted that I have not shown the same kind of adoration for Sean's hallowed hoax hypothesis as you. And it's true that I don't esteem your opinion very much. I have read several of your posts over the past year and still do not see you rising above being an ROKC cheerleader. But your response is good, you are getting somewhere.

But you set up a false dichotomy between me & Greg. My beef is with the attacks & insults that are hurled daily from his forum, which has a long laundry list of people it disdains, on a continual basis. Especially those who express opposing views to that forum's consensus. That is disrespect, plain and simple.

You are misunderstanding my position if you don't think I sign on to Prayer Man. I did in 2010 and have never wavered. There is more about that, and a critique of the methodology of ROKC's study of Prayerman, in the beginning of Part 1 of my Rob Clark interview. Part 3, from 13:00- 32:15, discusses the lunchroom hoax issue.

http://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-88-inside-job-pt-3-final-with-richard

Baker was not going to night school studying to be an architect. He had a nickname with the force- "Mommason"- and was considered somewhat of a dope. Fritz, who assumedly read Baker's affidavit, does not exactly brim over with unequivocable assurance that Baker had in reality met Oswald on a stairway.

This is another of the negative data points assembled to construct the lunchroom hoax hypothesis. They all get assembled in the negative region of the x-y coordinate system. Hoaxers simply ignore data that doesn't fit in this negative region- the filmed Baker interviews, the will-call counter bump, WC Exhibit 3076, the lack of corroboration for Kent Biffle's news blurb, to name several.

This negative region is not the real world. Sean has seen the problem the Stroud document introduces since 2011. When you couple it with an understanding of the A & S and T & B timelines, it invalidates his hypothesis. This led him to discredit the Stroud document as just hearsay, and construct another fantasy- that T & B had taken the west elevator up- in order to salvage his lunchroom hoax fantasy. (see "Murphy's Postulate" at the end of my first lunchroom essay, which has a separate listing in the table of contents at the old ROKC site.)

The hoax hypothesis has yielded no results, save added confusion, in its 10+ years. It gives an imaginary confrontation between Baker & Oswald on the front landing. There is no substantiable evidence for this, just wishful thinking. It gives an imaginary encounter with "Spooky", i.e. the "3rd or 4th floor" man, who was "walking away from the stairway". It leads neophytes to believe Ira Trantham met Spooky and kept that hidden until his HSCA interview.

Believing the lunchroom incident happened gives these results:

1) the traditional critique, that Oswald was too calm to have just raced down from the sniper's nest

2) Howard Roffman's & Bill Kelly's point- that Oswald had to have entered from the direction of the central offices

3) A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom, which Sean conveniently ignored when I posted it at Lancer in 2011

4) If Sean's research about Adams hearing the cables is correct, the west elevator began its descent approx. 60 seconds after the assassination.

Richard

No problems, I’m sure I would have been happy to wait longer for your response while you tended to sick relatives.

Baker was a trained police officer. Are you saying he was unable to tell the difference between a lunchroom and a stairway? His same day affidavit seems crystal clear that it was the stairs.

Fritz may stumble over saying Baker’s name (which is significant in itself) but he is clear that someone told him that Truly and Baker met Oswald on the stairs and that this was found to be incorrect by the investigation.

You can’t have it both ways with Baker. If he was not smart enough to know that he met Oswald on the stairs then how could he be smart enough to know that he met Oswald in the lunchroom?

He’s either an unreliable witness who can’t tell the difference between the stairs and the lunchroom.

Or his same day affidavit is the truth and Fritz’s statements about the investigation having to find Baker to be incorrect are also the truth.

Which is it?

Ahem Richard.

[Richard Gilbride]

Vanessa,

Just a pause before responding to your analysis. Here is the photo I found & scrutinized when Sean informed me of the entity he called PrayerMan. I immediately asked if he was praying for rain. And I saw a similarity in the tuft of hair & general outline of hair to conclude that Oswald was indeed him.

A shock to the system- and extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. I don't know enough about photography to contend Duncan's claim about buttons. I don't think the debate can be answered at that level. And I do consider Albert Doyle a perceptive inquirer and think he has a valid critique about- why didn't someone mention seeing him as they returned into the building? I'm interested in the content of his posts much more than his "handle". My CB handle in the mid-80's was "Dr. Who".

You can't have room for any arguments at all- particularly in this sound-byte world. I mean, the idea is, get this on the network news. You have 10 seconds to slam-dunk this to the nth degree.

My guess is Robert Groden is the man to enlist for getting a high-resolution scan of that 1st-weekend copy of Darnell that the Sixth Floor Museum houses. I would further guess that some kind of "Power of Attorney" would be served upon them to cut through the copyright litigation red tape, since the Darnell family owns the rights. Probably would need a copyright lawyer to get that.

And, don't be disappointed if the improvement in image quality is less than 5%, and much less than the 20% or so needed. Copies were pretty darn good in those days- just consult the Z-film alteration specialists. No sense getting too, too wrapped up in whether PrayerMan debuts next fall with his own weekly variety show.

[Vanessa Loney]

Vanessa,

I don't see how one can make a certain ID of anyone standing on the front steps from either Altgens 6 or the Darnell film. There are plenty of arguments as to ID, which is fine. I object to the certainty of ID.

Furthermore, FWIW, I think the elements comprising the front steps persons in Altgens 6 make no sense.

Mr Tidd

So you don't accept that is BW Frazier standing there despite all the evidence confirming that it is him including Buell himself?

[Thomas Graves]

Vanessa,

I don't see how one can make a certain ID of anyone standing on the front steps from either Altgens 6 or the Darnell film. There are plenty of arguments as to ID, which is fine. I object to the certainty of ID.

Furthermore, FWIW, I think the elements comprising the front steps persons in Altgens 6 make no sense.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Mr Tidd

So you don't accept that is BW Frazier standing there despite all the evidence confirming that it is him including Buell himself?

Dear Jon,

Let's take "Doorman" / Billy Lovelady as an example.

The only possible (although not plausible) reason anyone could deny that so-called "Doorman" in Altgens 6 is the same person as the balding, white t-shirt-wearing-under-his-outer-shirt Lovelady near the center handrail in Wiegman (leaning forward after the big-finned car has gone by in the foreground and is no longer in the frame) is to claim that those photographs and films were altered. But if you can accept the possibility that they were not altered, then, upon realizing that Altgens and Wiegman were shooting from wildly different angles to the front of the TSBD, you can come to the reasonable conclusion that "Doorman" and Billy-Lovelady-on-the-steps are one and the the same person -- Billy Lovelady -- (whose red shirt was captured on the front steps during the motorcade in the Hughes film, BTW).

Do you realize that Altgens was standing at a sharp angle to the front of the TSBD, way down on Elm Street, and that Wiegman's car was at a slightly less-sharp angle in the opposite direction? The difference between them combines to form something like a 70 degree angle, if memory serves. "Doorman" wasn't standing near the left wall and peering around the corner of the TSBD in Altgens 6. It only appears that way because of the sharp angle and the fact that "Doorman" (Lovelady) was leaning forward when Altgens happened to take his famous "Altgens 6" photograph. "Doorman" (Lovelady) was actually standing near the center handrail and leaned forward about the same time as the first shot.

"Doorman" was ... Billy Lovelady and "neither of them" (LOL) are to be confused with "Prayer Man."

That's a completely different kettle of fish, can of worms, however you want to put it, Jon.

"You can lead a horse to water ... "

--Tommy

Weigman GIF

Hughes clip / Credit: Gerda Dunckel (Click to enlarge.) It's interesting to note that red-shirted Lovelady appears to turn his head around to his right and look at somebody (Prayer Man?) behind him.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Robert Prudhomme,

I've followed with interest your argument that there's nothing to prove Marion Baker entered the TSBD. I think it's an interesting argument given that Baker changed his story over time; Baker and Truly likely knew how to play ball; and although TSBD employees (I think more than one) said they saw a police officer in the TSBD shortly after the last shot was fired, none of these employees identified the police officer as Baker.

As the movie maintains, I don't believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter occurred.

Nonetheless, I'm loath to leap to the conclusion that Baker didn't enter the TSBD. That certainly could be his purpose judging from the Darnell film.

I agree with you completely that FBI reports are not "testimony" in the legal sense. In the law, testimony is given by a duly sworn witness, in court, before a judge, and is subject to cross-examination. FBI reports, as you maintain, fall far short of testimony in the legal sense. Furthermore, as you maintain, there are good reasons to believe at least some of the FBI's JFK reports were misrepresentations by the FBI. Very good reasons.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Thank you, Jon!

--Tommy

Edited December 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Vanessa,

I don't see how one can make a certain ID of anyone standing on the front steps from either Altgens 6 or the Darnell film. There are plenty of arguments as to ID, which is fine. I object to the certainty of ID.

Furthermore, FWIW, I think the elements comprising the front steps persons in Altgens 6 make no sense.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Mr Tidd

So you don't accept that is BW Frazier standing there despite all the evidence confirming that it is him including Buell himself?

Dear Jon,

Let's take "Doorman" / Billy Lovelady as an example.

The only possible (although not plausible) reason anyone could deny that so-called "Doorman" in Altgens 6 is the same person as the balding, white t-shirt-wearing-under-his-outer-shirt Lovelady near the center handrail in Wiegman (leaning forward after the big-finned car has gone by in the foreground and is no longer in the frame) is to claim that those photographs and films were altered. But if you can accept the possibility that they were not altered, then, upon realizing that Altgens and Wiegman were shooting from wildly different angles to the front of the TSBD, you can come to the reasonable conclusion that "Doorman" and Billy-Lovelady-on-the-steps are one and the the same person -- Billy Lovelady -- (whose red shirt was captured on the front steps during the motorcade in the Hughes film, BTW).

Do you realize that Altgens was standing at a sharp angle to the front of the TSBD, way down on Elm Street, and that Wiegman's car was at a slightly less-sharp angle in the opposite direction? The difference between them combines to form something like a 70 degree angle, if memory serves. "Doorman" wasn't standing near the left wall and peering around the corner of the TSBD in Altgens 6. It only appears that way because of the sharp angle and the fact that "Doorman" (Lovelady) was leaning forward when Altgens happened to take his famous "Altgens 6" photograph. "Doorman" (Lovelady) was actually standing near the center handrail and leaned forward about the same time as the first shot.

"Doorman" was ... Billy Lovelady and "neither of them" (LOL) are to be confused with "Prayer Man."

--Tommy

Weigman GIF

Hughes clip / Credit: Gerda Dunckel (Click to enlarge.) It's interesting to note that red-shirted Lovelady appears to turn his head around to his right and look at somebody (Prayer Man?) behind him.

Bumped for Mr. Tidd

PS I believe Lovelady moved closer to the center handrail a few seconds after this clip.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Richard Gilbride]

"The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway."

Vanessa, I cannot agree with your assessment that it seems "crystal clear" that Baker's affidavit implies that the encounter took place on the stairs, i.e. As we reached the third or fourth floor (of the building)... One may look through the lens of the lunchroom incident not having occurred, or having occurred, with equal ease here.

Baker was not the sharpest tack in the drawer, and even as a "trained police officer" initially wrote a statement that the lunchroom was on the "second or third floor", 6 months after his testimony, which included a couple re-enactments.

I view Fritz through the lens of being a conspirator. Baker worked in Traffic & Security, not Homicide. The person who first told Fritz about Baker very likely was Homicide's Marvin Johnson (XXIV p. 307 p. 2 line 4) who wrote a report that included a synopsis of Baker's affidavit, including (line 11): On about the 4th floor Officer Baker apprehended a man that was walking away from the stairway on that floor. Again, this can be taken either way, for or against the lunchroom incident- but nothing of necessity says we have to incorporate it into the hoax column.

The "snack bar" description for the location didn't get introduced until Truly spoke to the FBI that night. So you're putting the onus completely on Baker, 52 years after the event, that he's not smart enough to tell the difference between a stairway and a snack bar. With no allowance for Baker's characterized modest-ranged intelligence, or his having been out to Parkland and Love Field. Ever had a brief mental lapse while sitting down to compose something?

Fundamentally, I go back to the analogy I presented of placing data in the negative region of the x-y coordinate system, versus the positive region. Some of the evidence has to be bent way out of whack in order to fit into the negative region. I cited the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, and the lack of corroboration for Kent Biffle's story. Let's also include the close comparison between Oswald's wedding ring left behind & Baker forgetting to mention Oswald in his first-day affidavit. In the final analysis God only knows why, and it's worthless as a definitive indicator.

I'm embarrassed for the promulgators of the hoax hypothesis, who have so much emotionally involved in being right. Brilliant people are a dime a dozen in JFK research. Correct people count for the most. The truth is most often found in the mundane, and there's no reason here to have to believe in "sexed-up" evidence. The whole back-and-forth has been productive over the years, but I'd rather not see the hoaxers dig in like Japanese soldiers on the Philippines still fighting WWII in 1950. I remind you that it will be more painful for you, when your illusion shatters, the longer you hang on.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Dear Robert,

Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc,

As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964.

Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now...

--Tommy

Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not?

Robert,

You don't seem to understand.

Evidently all of the 73 originals were signed. In Dallas. During the month of March, 1964, when the TSBD employees made their statements to the Dallas FBI. Evidently only the originals were signed, not the copies. But whoever typed up the copies did put "/s/" next to the person's typed name (and the date, and the location) at the bottom of the statement (all 73 of the statements), indicating that the original (from which the copies were made) had been signed by the person making the statement, and "witnessed" by the two FBI agents whom the person had made the statement to.

I'm guessing that the copies were probably made after the person making the statement had gone home for the day.

Why? Because those copies probably had to be typed up. D'oh.

Only five of those 73 original statements had to be corrected, for relatively minor mistakes. Those (5) corrections were made in Dallas, by the Dallas office of the FBI, and were initialed by the persons who had made those original, signed statements. Only the originals were initialed, not the copies. Once again, the copies were probably made after the person had gone home for the day. Why make them wait around to sign some copies when you already have their signature on the original?

I don't know where those original (signed, corrected, and intialed) statements are now. I'm sorry. My bad.

On the Internet (Mary Ferrell Foundation), all we are able to view are copies of the 73 statements, not the originals. We must assume that they are copies, not originals, because none of them show the initials of Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, or the other two TSBD employees whose statements had to be corrected for relatively minor mistakes.

I don't know how to put it more simply, Robert. You either "get it" or you don't. For whatever reason.

--Tommy

Have you or anyone else in the public actually ever seen one or more of the 73 original signed statements, Thomas?

[Thomas Graves]

Have you seen the initialled copy that Ms. Sanders initialled, Thomas? I should think it, if it is the original report you think she might have signed, should still be on record somewhere, considering how valuable this signed piece of evidence would be.

The normal procedure would be, assuming signatures were required on FBI reports, to re-write the report, and have Ms. Sanders sign the corrected report. Without seeing the initialled report, we are still left with nothing. If you look at the page previous to the one you linked to on the Mary Ferrell site, you'll see this is precisely what the FBI did with Virginia Barnum's statement.

Just wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Dear Robert,

Of course I haven't seen the (one and only one; signed, corrected and initialed) Dallas FBI original. It's probably "tucked away" somewhere in the National Archives, the Dallas FBI office, the National FBI office, or the Dallas Municipal Archives, etc,

As are Barnum's, Arnold's, Reed's, and Stanbery's corrected and initialed original statements. Not to mention all of the 68 other signed (but uncorrected and therefore not later initialed) original FBI statements taken from TSBD employees in March, 1964.

Maybe they've even been routinely destroyed by now...

--Tommy

Considering how rigid the FBI was about most things, why do you think some corrected "statements" were signed, and some were not?

Robert,

You don't seem to understand.

Evidently all of the 73 originals were signed. In Dallas. During the month of March, 1964, when the TSBD employees made their statements to the Dallas FBI. Evidently only the originals were signed, not the copies. But whoever typed up the copies did put "/s/" next to the person's typed name (and the date, and the location) at the bottom of the statement (all 73 of the statements), indicating that the original (from which the copies were made) had been signed by the person making the statement, and "witnessed" by the two FBI agents whom the person had made the statement to.

I'm guessing that the copies were probably made after the person making the statement had gone home for the day.

Why? Because those copies probably had to be typed up. D'oh.

Only five of those 73 original statements had to be corrected, for relatively minor mistakes. Those (5) corrections were made in Dallas, by the Dallas office of the FBI, and were initialed by the persons who had made those original, signed statements. Only the originals were initialed, not the copies. Once again, the copies were probably made after the person had gone home for the day. Why make them wait around to sign some copies when you already have their signature on the original?

I don't know where those original (signed, corrected, and intialed) statements are now. I'm sorry. My bad.

On the Internet (Mary Ferrell Foundation), all we are able to view are copies of the 73 statements, not the originals. We must assume that they are copies, not originals, because none of them show the initials of Carolyn Arnold, Mrs. R. E. Reid, Pauline Sanders, or the other two TSBD employees whose statements had to be corrected for relatively minor mistakes.

I don't know how to put it more simply, Robert. You either "get it" or you don't. For whatever reason.

--Tommy

Have you or anyone else in the public actually ever seen one or more of the 73 original signed statements, Thomas?

You just don't "get it," do you, Bob.

Answer: No, I haven't Bob. But based on what I've already tried to explain to you on this thread, I can be reasonably deduced that all of the originals were signed. And that five of them were later initaled, by the persons who gave them, for some minor corrections.

Does the fact that I haven't seen them somehow "prove" that they were not signed?

I give up.

--Tommy

Edited December 8, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert Prudhomme,

I've followed with interest your argument that there's nothing to prove Marion Baker entered the TSBD. I think it's an interesting argument given that Baker changed his story over time; Baker and Truly likely knew how to play ball; and although TSBD employees (I think more than one) said they saw a police officer in the TSBD shortly after the last shot was fired, none of these employees identified the police officer as Baker.

As the movie maintains, I don't believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter occurred.

Nonetheless, I'm loath to leap to the conclusion that Baker didn't enter the TSBD. That certainly could be his purpose judging from the Darnell film.

I agree with you completely that FBI reports are not "testimony" in the legal sense. In the law, testimony is given by a duly sworn witness, in court, before a judge, and is subject to cross-examination. FBI reports, as you maintain, fall far short of testimony in the legal sense. Furthermore, as you maintain, there are good reasons to believe at least some of the FBI's JFK reports were misrepresentations by the FBI. Very good reasons.

Hi Jon

I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I'm not saying Baker never entered the TSBD. I'm merely saying he did not enter the TSBD quite as early as we have been led to believe, perhaps by as much as several minutes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thomas

In other words, the answer to my question is "no", isn't it.

Are you so naive that you cannot see what a perfect setup this would be to alter the statements of the witnesses interviewed by the FBI?

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas

In other words, the answer to my question is "no", isn't it.

Are you so naive that you cannot see what a perfect setup this would be to alter the statements of the witnesses interviewed by the FBI?

Bob,

I'm sorry that my "take" doesn't fit in with your grandiose theory.

I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to buy into it.

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy Graves: if Baker & Truly were on the 2nd-floor landing while Adams & Styles were somewhere on the 3rd-floor landing, was there enough time for Truly to get inside the lunchroom before he could be seen by Adams & Styles, given that Truly had apparently continued straight ahead and started walking up the stairs to the 3rd floor, and then, realizing that Baker was no longer behind him, gone back down and entered the lunchroom himself?

Truly testified he "was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me." He absolutely had time to get into the vestibule, and then mosey up to the lunchroom doorframe (with the vestibule door automatically closing a few seconds after he proceeded through the vestibule doorframe), before the young ladies arrived on the 2nd-floor landing.

I don't think that it matters much whether Truly ever realized the young ladies were just up ahead of him. I strongly suspect he was laying a trap for Baker- that he knew Oswald was at the vestibule door, and that Baker would most likely find that suspicious, being that deep in the building, far from the parade.

Truly's plan for a quickly-arriving cop was to get him in the lunchroom while the west elevator descended, and it worked to perfection. But Baker was so fast in his response, 15 seconds faster than anticipated, that Truly was forced into hyperdrive. This "perfection" may seem like circular logic, but more closely resembles a well-designed football play. Their mad dash to the freight elevators & 2nd-floor landing was over and done by as little as 50 seconds after the head shots.

Thanks, Richard.

--Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

deleted

Edited December 8, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme