Thomas Graves

Steve, you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied. • At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced. • You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room. • Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me? Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room. [...] ...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all... [...] Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” Steve, A fact that has to be taken into consideration when critiquing the Lunch Room Encounter Story is that, in the story, Baker obviously had to let Oswald get away. Sean is trying to show that the lunch room encounter story, although flawed, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was to place Oswald significantly closer to the sniper's nest than the front steps, and to let him "get away" in a manner that was believable and therefore not bound to scandalize the Dallas Police Department. Truly's telling Baker that Oswald was a TSBD employee didn't exactly exonerate Oswald, but it did lower his "suspect status" so that, given the urgency of the situation, Baker could let him go. This seemed to be a reasonable thing to do, especially since the alleged encounter puts Oswald a full six floors below the place where Baker thought the shots had come from, and because Oswald appeared to be cool, calm, and collected. Although a Lunch Room Encounter Story was necessary in order to not only put Oswald reasonably close to the sniper's nest but also in a place that was a secluded part of the building where such a private encounter could realistically "happen", and although Baker had to let Oswald "get away," it would have been unrealistic for the fabricators to say, "Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and strongly suspected him of killing JFK, but decided to let him go" or "Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room but didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that he was breathing heavily and sweating profusely." or my favorite "Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and was trying to arrest him, but Oswald got away." The story they decided upon was much better than the ones above: "Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, which is not far from the north west stairs. Due to the fact that Oswald appeared normal and that Baker was told (by the accompanying) superintendent of the building that Oswald was an employee, Baker decided to let Oswald go so that Baker could continue on his way up to the roof to look for the sniper." Given the circumstances, it would have been unprofessional of Baker to arrest a cool, calm, and collected male TSBD employee for simply being in the 2nd floor lunch room by himself at the time (if indeed that's where Oswald was). In the story, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the lunch room, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a drain pipe or something, but Baker still had the roof to search. In the story, Baker makes the rational decision to let Oswald go because Oswald is only a low-level suspect and because Baker has much more urgent things to do. In short, The Lunch Room Encounter Story was very well done. It placed Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and let him get away, plausibly. --Tommy edited and bumped

Robert, Rhetorical question: Did Mrs. Reid, Eddie Piper, or Jack Dougherty leave the TSBD building a few minutes after the assassination? Sincerely, --Tommy

Richard, Good question. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, so I'll ask you instead: When did Truly realize that Oswald was no longer at the TSBD? Before or after he called Aikens? --Tommy

Devil's Advocate Argument: Truly changed his mind about Oswald's being a suspect due to the combination of Oswald's being seen on the second floor so soon after the assassination and the fact that Oswald left the TSBD so quickly after that. Comments? --Tommy

deleted double post; sorry Could a moderator please remove this one?

Steve, you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied. • At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced. • You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room. • Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me? Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room. [...] ...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all... [...] Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” Steve, Sean is also trying to show that the lunchroom encounter story, although fabricated, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was not to absolutely incriminate Oswald, but to place Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and, in the process, not exonerate him. Given the situation, It would have been unreasonable for the fabricators to say, "Baker suspected Oswald of killing JFK, but decided to let him go" or "Baker didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that Oswald was breathing heavily, sweating profusely, and reeking of gunpowder" or "Baker was trying to arrest Oswald, but Oswald got away." The facts are that Baker was escorted by Truly to the upper floors of the TSBD while Baker was trying to find the sniper who had shot at the President of the United States. Given the fact that Baker was the only policeman in the building at the time, it would have been unprofessional of him to arrest cool, calm, and collected TSBD employee Oswald for simply being in the lunch room (if indeed that's where he was). I mean, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the second floor lunchroom, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a pipe or a chair or something, but Baker still would have had the upper floors to search. Question: How many handcuffs did Baker have with him that day? --Tommy

Robert, OK, I see what you're saying. Good point. --Tommy

Robert, I guess you're asking how was it that Oswald could have closed the windowed vestibule door behind him without Baker's noticing that. Well, Baker did say in his WC testimony that that door might have been in the act of closing and nearly closed when he first noticed Oswald through its window. I think he's trying to say that he's not sure but that he thinks he remembers seeing it close the final inch or so. Mr. Baker. I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down. Mr. Dulles. Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you? Mr. Baker. I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time. Mr. Belin. You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498? Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Mr. Dulles. You mean you might have seen him as he was opening and going through the door almost? Mr. Baker. Well, to me it was the back of it. Now, through this window you can't see too much but I just caught a glimpse of him through this window going away from me and as I ran to this door and opened it, and looked on down in the lunchroom he was on down there about 20 feet so he was moving about as fast as I was. [emphasis added] Exhibit 498 is, of course, a photograph of the vestibule's outer, windowed door; the door through which Baker claimed he noticed Oswald. The more I look at it, the more confusing I find the whole exchange between Dulles and Baker. Confusing for one thing because I don't understand why Baker says that after he got the door open he could see Oswald "walking on down." One would assume that he's talking about getting the windowed vestibule door open, but if so, why couldn't he have seen Oswald "walking on down" by pressing his face up to the big window in the door rather than having to open it to see what Oswald was doing? Also, Dulles' use of the word "meanwhile" suggests that he's asking about the non-windowed door from the vestibule to the lunchroom, but the way Baker answers the question suggests he thinks Dulles is asking about the windowed vestibule door, which I think was actually the case, I just wish Dulles had said, "Was Oswald going through the (windowed) door when you noticed him" instead of, "Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?" One thing I am pretty sure of is that when Baker said, "Well, to me it was the back of it", he meant that he thought that he might have seen the "tail end" of the door-closing process (the "back of it") when he first noticed Oswald through the windowed vestibule door. --Tommy

Proof - at least for me... X indicates not-Y... Sorry, Bill, but this is thin gruel. At best your argument establishes that Truly & Baker's testimony is strongly indicative that Oswald was coming from the corridor to Baker's right. But it doesn't prove that scenario to the exclusion of all others. It doesn't disprove the scenario I laid out, for instance. It leaves Baker's first glimpse of Oswald ambiguous. The thing can be--and has been--argued both ways. And Roy Truly recognised that the incident exonerated Oswald? He did no such thing. [...] But the fact remains that when Truly opened that door at the top of the steps, he should have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door if he in fact did so. And he didn't. [...] Bill, How do you know that the door at the top of the steps was closed? Sincerely, --Tommy

Hi Bill I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’. The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be beside the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper? The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald. The chances of Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis. If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald. Now that’s what you would call exoneration. Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn. Regards - Steve Steve, I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because, Bill thinks, it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such an "Oswald-exonerating" scenario. But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it! --Tommy Hi Tom Yes I understand the premise of Bills point/argument but historical fact dictates otherwise. It does not exonerate Oswald and if it did/had we would not be having this conversation. The second floor lunchroom story (according to Sean) is the lesser of the two evils (for DPD/FBI) because whatever chance Oswald had of getting to the second or third floors was more likely than any he had of getting to the ground floor. So they simply morphed the story and thanks to a certain Jack Ruby the morph could go into overdrive and practically uncontested after Oswalds death. It is then reasonable to assume a "So what if some of the statements didn’t match up with earlier ones" attitude would then be introduced. And guess what, it obviously worked because Oswald is still ‘guilty’ and the ‘Second floor lunchroom encounter exonerates Oswald guide to the Galaxy’ book can and should be thrown out of the window. What person (Truly/Baker/Frazier/) in their right mind would stand alone and say anything that attempts (directly or indirectly) to exonerate Oswald after his death given that all the “evidence” (accumulated by the FBI/DPD) points to a “case closed” Oswald did it? Hmmm... I seem to recall someone tried that once? Steve I edited my post: Steve, I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario. But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it! --Tommy

Hi Bill I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’. The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper? The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis. If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald. Now that’s what you would call exoneration. Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn. Regards - Steve Steve, I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario. But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it! --Tommy

Bill, I'm just speculating here. To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker, but perhaps did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen, and, given the above, that it would also be plausible that, although Baker had caught a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window, Truly, in his haste, hadn't. --Tommy Yes, Tommy, I acknowledge that point - if Oswald had been the Sixth Floor Sniper he could have left the sniper's nest and arrived at the Second Floor lunchroom door in time to get on the other side of it and close it and make a funny face - wiggling his fingers in front of his nose at Truly as he came through the steps door - and there is a door there - and thus attracting Baker's attention as he arrived at the top of the second floor steps. But if he had, the DPD would have lifted his prints off the door nob of the door at the top of the steps as well as the door to the lunch room - but they didn't. And while I can imagine it, I don't think it played out that way. But if you read the post on the Oswald's Coke thread, and it should be repeated here - Jean Davison has identified the master script writer of the whole Second Floor lunchroom encounter - Alfred Goldberg - the DOD historian who wrote much of the Warren Report narrative, and requested the FBI obtain the last minute statements from Baker and Truly. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Bill, Even if they tried to find Oswald's fingerprints on those door nobs. they probably wouldn't have found them anyway (but would have a plausible reason for not finding them) because several other people, including Baker and Truly, had put their grubby mitts on said door knobs by the time they could have been "dusted." Official announcement: "Unfortunately, y'all, Oswald's fingerprints was smudged beyond all re-cog-nition when all them people opened them thar doors. But it don't matter none cuz we know he's a guilty son-of-a-gun any how!" --Tommy

Bill, I'm just speculating here. To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen. And perhaps they did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door for the simple reason that it would be more plausible to have Baker catch a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window (which Truly, in his haste, had missed) than to have Baker, who was in a rush to get to the upper floors, make, on a whim, a silly detour on the lowly second floor to the lunchroom, and just happen to "discover" Oswald there. --Tommy

On the interret, a Jerry Mings claims that Roy Emory Hargraves was his brother. He says that Roy's biological name was Toy Emory Mings and that Toy / Roy spent time in the Arizona prison system where he got some tatoos. He also says that Roy's nickname was "Doc," which stood for "Department of Corrections." http://jmings.blogspot.com/ Strangely, this Jerry Mings (b. 1/12/45) doesn't appear in this Mings genealogical list, but the above poster, Don Warren, (Mings) and a Toy Emory Mings (b. 1940, d. 2003) are listed as brothers: http://www.genealogy.com/users/m/i/n/Vondell-N-Mings/FILE/0001text.txt Hint: To find Toy Emory Mings in this long list, press "Control" and "F" simultaneously, and then type in "Toy" in the search box that pops up. --Tommy

[deleted] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray, Is the camera still inside the case, or is the case empty? It looks like the measuring chain is connected to the near end of the case. --Tommy Tommy, I don't wish to be unkind, but in both of my above posts, I said under the case. With a Minox, the chain is attached to the camera thru' the end of the camera case. It is never attached to the camera case itself. Ray, Well, I don't mean to be unkind either, but I did edit my post before you posted this. (See post # 4.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fast-forwarding to the present, here's an even newer comment!: I think you're mistaking the graphic design of that part of the linoleum floor for the camera body. And here's a new question, too!: If, as you say, the chain is always connected to the camera, then what's the star-shaped piece of metal on the end of the case for? Thank you, --Tommy

[deleted] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray, Sorry, but I don't see the camera under the case, and it looks like the measuring chain is connected to the case. --Tommy

A few questions for anybody to answer: 1) Most people have one or two favorite soft drinks. (Mine happen to be 7-Up and Hires Root Beer.) Question: Did Oswald have a favorite soft drink / pop / soda pop / soda / "coke" with a small "c" / "moon pie" / etc, etc? If so, what was it? Dr Pepper, by any chance? (FWIW, it's my understanding that Dr Pepper started out in Waco, Texas during The Depression.) 2) Is it true that, in his book, Bugliosi claims to have been told by an elderly former employee of the TSBD that there was a Dr. Pepper machine in the first floor "lunchroom" (domino room?) ? 3) Did "Coca-Cola" machines back-in-the-day dispense only "Coca-Cola," or other "soda pops" as well? I haven't read The Bug's book and I'm not really interested in doing so; I just now picked up this first-floor Dr Pepper machine tidbit on somebody's blog site. And yes, I realize that there was a "Coca-Cola" machine in the second floor lunchroom. There's a Warren Commission photo which shows it. --Tommy

Thanks Chris, Yes, I was aware of that. But in his recent presentation, Wecht apparently talked about Oswald's taking two "marksmanship tests," and said that Oswald "failed" the first one and got "the equivalent of a C-" on the second one. I'm claiming that Oswald passed both of them. Actually, not only did Oswald pass both of them, but he did a little bit better on the first one than on the second one! Sincerely, --Tommy

Thanks for posting this, Bill! Now, the reporter has Wecht saying that Oswald "failed his first marksmanship test in the U.S. Marines." Is that really true? I'd never heard that before. If so, was it a qualification test? Important to keep the facts straight, yes? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Oswald passed both of his marksmanship qualification tests. Also, I don't know that's it's been firmly established that the shots were fired in a span of "5.6 seconds" and that Connally was hit "1.5 seconds" after Kennedy was hit. Yes, I realize the important thing is that however long it was between the first and the second shots, it was quicker than the alleged 2.3 seconds required to eject a casing, chamber a new round, and fire that MC rifle. Otherwise, I agree with a lot of what Wecht says. --Tommy

Thanks for posting this, Bill! Now, the reporter has Wecht saying that Oswald "failed his first marksmanship test in the U.S. Marines." Is that really true? I'd never heard that before. If so, was it a qualification test? Important to keep the facts straight, yes? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Oswald passed both of his marksmanship qualification tests. Also, I don't know that's it's been firmly established that the shots were fired in a span of "5.6 seconds" and that Connally was hit "1.5 seconds" after Kennedy was hit. Yes, I realize the important thing is that however long it was between the first and the second shots, it was quicker than the alleged 2.3 seconds required to eject a casing, chamber a new round, and fire that MC rifle. Otherwise, I agree with a lot of what Wecht says. --Tommy

David, Reporter: "Did you kill the President?" Oswald: "No, they're taking me in because I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" --Tommy

of course... Fife-man... The short guy behind the policeman on the right is Truman Capote's misguided and confused double, pretending to be a JFK Assassination "researcher"...

Is that Barney Fife with three stripes, motorcycle helmet and glasses? Sure looks like him. Rest ashored, I now feel more confident that the crime scene is secured. Is that a wire going up to his hear? That's must be from where he gets his instructions. And Where's Andy? And I love the Conspiracy Theorists debunking the Conspiracy Theory and a Lone Nutter debunking the debunker. That's teamwork. Chin strap. Of course, I stand corrected once again. Thank you Robert. And the top on the right looks like Dan Ackroyd and that's Hunter Thompson behind the cop. No it isn't. It's Truman Capote.

Bill, FWIW, I remember reading somewhere that Oswald's favorite soft drink was Dr. Pepper. Yes, I am aware of the fact that Duke Lane (or somebody) pointed out that back in the early '60s, especially in the South, many people called any kind of soft drink "a coke." I'm consoled by the fact that you have as many questions about it as I do. Good post! --Tommy PS: Based on the way Prayer Man is holding his hands, I think he's holding a pair of binoculars, not a "coke" bottle.

He and Lovelady are just at the 'island'. In a second or two they will turn around and notice Baker and Truly at the TSBD front entrance. Sean, OK. In his WC testimony, Shelley said that they ran out "on" (onto?) the island, but in the clip it appears that he and Lovelady are walking down the middle of Elm Street Extension, towards the railway yard / parking lot. At the very end of the clip, it looks like Lovelady starts running in that direction, leaving Shelley behind. Thanks, --Tommy Edit: I watched it frame-by-frame as my old computer was downloading the clip at a slowish wi-fi "hot spot," and I noticed that when the sun shines briefly on him a couple of times, one can see that the shorter, "Lovelady" figure has a white collar. Which leads me to believe that this isn't Lovelady after all. Tommy, Can you post the frame (or frames) where you believe you detect a white collar? There are numerous white artifacts that flash on the clip in the vicinity of Lovelady and the man next to him, and also on the TSBD in the background. That would explain why the white spot only appears "briefly on him". I believe that is probably what you are seeing. Richard, If somebody could radically slow down that part of the GIF (with the big red circle) which shows the two men approaching and passing the traffic sign, I think everybody could see what I'm talking about. I don't know how to do that, or if it's even possible for me to do it. I might be wrong but I don't think what I'm seeing is a film artifact for two reasons: 1) it's well-placed to be a white shirt collar, and 2) it's visible twice. (IMHO, if it were an artifact, the chances of that happening would be astronomical.) The only reason I noticed the twice-occurring "collar" was because my nine-year-old laptop was taking a long time to download (or whatever it's called) the gif yesterday at a crowded wi-fi coffee house, and, having nothing better to do, I obsessively watched the two guys "walk the walk" (very slowly, like "frame-by-frame" if I was watching a film) for several minutes. It was then that I noticed both of the manifestations of the "collar." The first "collar" is much more noticeable than the second one, especially at normal speed. If memory serves, the second "collar" occurs after "Lovelady" has passed the sign pole, but now I'm not sure about the timing. I hope to be proven wrong. IMHO, the two guys resemble Lovelady and Shelley physically, and except for the "collar," the clothes they're wearing are consistent with what we know they were wearing that day. But even if it is L. & S., why aren't they on the "island," like Shelly said in his WC testimony? Sincerely, --Tommy