Q: What is the full name of the person who takes a train to Chicago?  Answer the above question based on the context below:  On May 19, 1927, after waiting for a week for the rain to stop on Long Island, New York, pilot Charles A. "Slim" Lindbergh tries to sleep in a hotel near Roosevelt Field, before his transatlantic flight from New York to Paris. His friend Frank Mahoney guards his hotel room door from reporters. Unable to sleep, Lindbergh reminisces about his time as an airmail pilot. Flying to Chicago in winter, "Slim" lands his old de Havilland biplane at a small airfield to refuel. Despite bad weather, he takes off, unaware that heavy snow has closed the Chicago landing field. Lindbergh bails out in a storm after running out of fuel. Recovering mail from his crashed DH-4, he continues to Chicago by train. A salesman tells him two airmen just died competing for the Orteig Prize for the first nonstop flight from New York City to Paris. Lindbergh calls Columbia Aircraft Corporation in New York from a small diner at the Lambert-St. Louis Flying Field. Quoted a price of $15,000 ($220,000 today) for a Bellanca high-wing monoplane, "Slim" lobbies St. Louis financiers with a plan to fly the Atlantic in 40 hours in a stripped-down, single-engine aircraft. The backers are excited by Lindbergh's vision and dub the venture Spirit of St. Louis. When the Bellanca deal falls apart because Columbia insists on selecting the pilot, Lindbergh approaches Ryan Aeronautical Company, a small manufacturer in San Diego, California. Frank Mahoney, the company's owner and president, promises to build a suitable monoplane in just 90 days. With Ryan's chief engineer Donald Hall, a design takes shape. To decrease weight, "Slim" refuses to install a radio or other heavy equipment, even a parachute, and plans to navigate by "dead reckoning". With no autopilot function Lindbergh cannot sleep during the flight. Workers at the factory agree to work around-the-clock to complete the monoplane in less than 90 days.
A: Charles A. "Slim" Lindbergh

Q: What were the items that some of which may have been fraudulent creations by Reinhold Vasters?  Answer the above question based on the context below:  In a collection of Renaissance metalwork Benvenuto Cellini (1500–71) represents the ultimate attribution, as his genuine works as a goldsmith are rarer than paintings by Giorgione.  In his 1902 catalogue Charles Hercules Read mentions that many of the pendants had been attributed to Cellini, but refrains from endorsing the attributions.  A small silver hand-bell (WB.95) had belonged to Horace Walpole, who praised it extravagantly in a letter as "the uniquest thing in the world, a silver bell for an inkstand made by Benvenuto Cellini. It makes one believe all the extravagant encomiums he bestows on himself; indeed so does his Perseus. Well, my bell is in the finest taste, and is swarmed by caterpillars, lizards, grasshoppers, flies, and masques, that you would take it for one of the plagues of Egypt. They are all in altissimo, nay in out-issimo relievo and yet almost invisible but with a glass. Such foliage, such fruitage!"  However Baron Ferdinand had realized that it was more likely to be by Wenzel Jamnitzer, goldsmith to the Emperor Rudolf II, to whom it is still attributed.  Another piece no longer attributed to Cellini is a large bronze door-knocker, with a figure of Neptune, 40 cm high, and weighing over 11 kilos.One category of the bequest that has seen several demotions is the 16 pieces and sets of highly decorated cutlery (WB.201–216).  Read dated none of these later than the 17th century, but on the British Museum database in 2014 several were dated to the 19th century, and were recent fraudulent creations when they entered the collection, some made by Reinhold Vasters.  Doubts have also been raised over a glass cup and cover bearing the date 1518 (WB.59), which might in fact be 19th-century.  Eight pieces of silver plate were redated to the 19th century by Hugh Tait, and some of the jewellery.
A: highly decorated cutlery

Q: With which superhero does Grayson appear to have a negative history?  Answer the above question based on the context below:  While no cohesive plot is apparent from the vignette style of the trailer, it can be pieced together that Batman has been murdered, and his killer remains at large. Dick Grayson is long since retired from his superhero days and raising a family with to his wife Barbara Gordon. After his former mentor's death, however, he decides to resume his crime-fighting days as Robin. Remarkably, Grayson does not take up the Nightwing identity. The filmmakers said they chose this because many people outside the comic book community are unfamiliar with Nightwing and they wanted to appeal to a wider audience.Commissioner Gordon is aware of Grayson's secret identity and assists him by supplying official documents. In addition, Gordon provides the voiceover narration at the beginning of the trailer. The head of the investigation into Batman's death is indicated to be Chief O'Hara, a character from the 1960's Batman TV series, who apparently also knows Grayson's identity (noting that Grayson's "crimefighting days are over") His role is suspicious since he strongly wants Grayson to not become involved, even to the point of aligning with Selina Kyle/Catwoman to eliminate Robin and shouting at reporter Clark Kent that he wants "him [presumably Grayson] out of the equation!" O'Hara is also seen rolling up his sleeves, preparing to assault an angry captive Gordon.  Grayson is aware of Superman's secret identity; he addresses him as "Clark". Superman apparently is also motivated (obviously from O'Hara) to discourage Grayson's return to crimefighting and three angry confrontations between the characters are shown, in and out of costume. Grayson is also angered to violence by the sight of a Superman comic book, suggesting a strongly negative history between the two. Other comic books also appear of characters from the film, including Wonder Woman and Catwoman. Fiorella used his own comic book collection for this scene.
A:
Superman