Pat's posting here is surely one of the most absurd I have ever read on GCA. I also think it's part of the reason that so many people, when I travel, ask me, in effect, "what's with those GCA nuts?"
Has anyone here, including Pat Mucci, bothered to even look at the photos in question? For a major indictment, the evidence is simply wrong. First of all, the "evidence" starts with page 54, not 55. Second no woman is actually shown playing golf. There are photos of a single woman, obviously the same woman, seen on the 2nd tee (p. 54) and the 5th tee (p. 56), in front of the 7th green (p. 57, if you squint and look closely) and on the 8th green (p. 58) She's not playing golf. She's standing there, towel (or perhaps a scarf, but probably a towel) draped over her right shoulder, holding a club, facing a man, who is playing golf (at least on the 2nd, 7th and 8th holes, but he's not yet playing on the 5th tee). She's wearing a full-length coat, one which appears to be even heavier than the standard woman's golf garb for the era. At no point is she playing golf. At most, you can conclude she's watching him play golf. He's shown swinging three times. She's never shown playing.
Maybe she's a caddie. Maybe she's taking a walk with him. Maybe she's his mistress and they consummated their affair in "Hell's Half Acre" and she brought a beach blanket along to keep from getting dirty. I don't know. You certainly can't tell a thing from the images. You can't conclude a thing about a woman playing.
How such flimsy evidence provokes the indignity, moral outrage and certainty of the ensuing post(s) is one of the enduring mysteries of GCA - or maybe just of Pat Mucci. The kindest thing I can say about Pat's outage is that it's the stuff of a junior d.a. at a grand jury. But it would never make it's way into a trial. A judge would toss it as insufficient evidence.