Lynda Carter ~ Colleen Camp Picture Debate - Page 2

**nailsfromthething** · February 23rd, 2008, 12:54 PM

Re: the authenticity of the Lynda Carter pic...

Pl@yboy can't reprint every single nude pic they have in their archives. In the 1980s Raquel Welch successfully stopped them using certain pics they had of her from an old photoshoot.

In the case of the Apocalypse Now photoshoot, the use of those pictures was as prop material for Zoetrope Studios, not for general usage in the magazine, and reproduction rights would not only have been split between the two companies but would be very different and far more locked-down than in the case of a nude-shoot intended for magazine distribution.

Like everyone else, I want the photo to be real, and after reading and viewing the material here, I am now leaning far more to the notion that it is than I ever have.

As a graphic artist I know that the ‘simple cut and paste’ procedures mentioned as explanation for the hand being obscured by hair in one shot and not in the other is absurd - the amount of work involved to make an adjustment like that is absolutely phenomenal, even today. In the 1970s it would have been an absurd effort.

What I see is that Zoetrope ended up with a nude shoot they couldn’t use because the actress had changed for the role, so they gave prints to a photographer and said 'Match that, using Coleen Camp'.

Let’s get one thing clear - the body section is NOT inverted (see pic): the collar of the denim jacket is more evident in the Carter pic, the right hand is less obscured by hair and the left hand is further back on the hip.

Sadly, even though they are two different pictures, there are so many similarities as to cause confusion: the ring on the model’s ring finger of the left hand seems identical, and more importantly, the body seems to be the same body – ratio of breasts to stomach, nipple size and position relative to breast, etc.

The one remaining hope is that, since we are dealing with a production company having spent money on a shoot and looking for a quick, cheap fix, that it was easier for them to put Coleen Camp’s face on ANOTHER of the Lynda Carter pics from that shoot.

This is something that will never be solved, IMO, until the exact pic containing Lynda Carter’s exact head-shot turns up in a possible ‘original’. Or unless Carter or Coppola fess up.

**nailsfromthething** · February 23rd, 2008, 01:11 PM

Additionally, when using Carter's reluctance to do nude work as a defence to say that she would never have done the shoot, consider this: she did do slight nudity in Bobby Jo and here we are talking about a necessary adjunct to long dialogue scenes in a major motion picture from the director of The Godfather. That's a quantum leap up from Wonder Woman, with the potential to change the course of her career.

TheBaron · February 23rd, 2008, 02:37 PM

Hi Guys,

Been following this thread with interest. Apologies if someone raised this point earlier in the thread, but when Lynda appeared in the 'I Posed For Playboy' movie, did she make any comment in interviews about whether she had - or would - pose for the legendary magazine?

Kudos to Greg for trying to reach Lynda herself for an answer. Being a pessimist, I suspect it will come back as a negative, but looking at the photo itself does not make me want to dismiss it as a fraud.

To me, this shot of Lynda does not seem to derive from the one of Colleen. It would be monstrously difficult to fake and you would probably need a direct 'dupe' of the original large format negative to do it (Playboy's shoots were often done on 5x4 sheet film).

Her face in the photo does look 'artificial', but I think it merely shows the traditional pin-up 'retouching' techniques to whiten the eyes and smooth the skin.

Saying all that though, I could be completely wrong.

Here's another thought, using our collective knowledge of 'Boob Physics 101', can anyone hazard a guess if the breasts in the shot tally with the ones seen in Bobby Jo?

No offence meant to posters on other side of this debate - not trying to 'troll' here, just hoping for clarity.

In the meantime why the hell can't some independent DVD house bring out a disc of Bobby Jo? It's maddening.

**gregj1967** · February 23rd, 2008, 08:04 PM

Thanks to nailsfromthething for lending his expertise to this debate! The technical knowledge regarding what is and what is not possible in photography and graphic art is key to this debate.

I think Bobbie Jo was shot in 1975 and released in 1976 (then re-released sometime after the debut of Wonder Woman). Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman debuted in the Fall of 1976 (there was a TV movie in 1975 with Cathy Lee Crosby as Wonder Woman) which means she no doubt spent much of the spring and summer of 1976 shooting the early episodes of the show. If she did do the photoshoot it most likely occured between BJ&TO and WW, roughly between mid-1975 and early 1976 is my guess.

Also thanks to The Baron for his comments and involvement. Since it will no doubt be a while before we get anything back from Lynda, does anyone else have anything to contribute to this discussion? Please jump in if you do.

headmaster · March 21st, 2008, 04:56 AM

Has anyone ever heard of Expose! magazine before? I can find no reference to this 'so called' mag anywhere. I smell a cover up that goes right to the top. Unlike the picture which is uncovered and topless. Either way - good work Woodstein. If only Deep Throat was available for comment...

**gregj1967** · March 21st, 2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headmaster

Has anyone ever heard of Expose! magazine before? I can find no reference to this 'so called' mag anywhere. I smell a cover up that goes right to the top. Unlike the picture which is uncovered and topless. Either way - good work Woodstein. If only Deep Throat was available for comment...

In fact I have heard of and seen copies of Expose magazine some time back. I actually declined buying a copy of the Lynda Carter cover issue some years ago which I now regret; I think the dealer was asking like $20-$30 for a copy which is why I turned it down. But that magazine did exist if only for a few issues I think.

I haven't had a chance to write to Lynda yet as I've been busy moving to a new residence, but once I'm settled into my new place I will compose a letter and mail it off.
I intend to include printed versions of the nude photo as well as copies of the pages of the Playboy article in which Colleen Camp makes referrence to her involvement, so anyone else contacting her might want to do the same.

**tertium** · August 5th, 2008, 02:02 AM

Well, here is my original post concerning the Colleen Camp/Lynda Carter photos. I did do quite a bit of work and I'd hate to think it was lost:

I have read and re-read the ongoing debate over the authenticity of the Lynda Carter/Colleen camp photograph. I would like to thank Gregj1967 and CTRFLD admirer for bringing many facts, opinions, and insights into this subject. However, instead of trying to engage each of their points, I tried to gather as much information about the topic as possible and then draw my own conclusion based on what was most probable. As both parties would probably agree, there is no way to ever completely know for sure. However, I do believe it is possible to draw a reasonable conclusion, based on what we already know.

Here is the photo in question as submitted by The Fake Detective and by CTRFLD admirer:

Swamp Rat from another forum provided me the full The Playboy article from October 1979.

Here is the relevant text to our discussion:

Though the transcript of Colleen’s interview reads “Linda Carter” it is obvious that she is talking about “Lynda Carter” and that the transcriber simply made a typo.

The second confirmation that Lynda Carter was attached to Apocalypse Now cast as a Playboy Bunny comes from the wonderland site dedicated to Lynda.

From an article in “Fanfare” Issue 1, Spring 1977:
“Her second film is not yet release: Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam war epic Apocalypse Now, filmed partly on location in the Philippines in the midst of nearly impossible weather conditions when typhoon Olga hit the island of Luzon...One group of actors and technicians were sequestered across the river, while Coppola and additional cast members, including Lynda, were with another group at Olongapo. For three days each gathering was totally isolated from the others ten miles away, not knowing if their colleagues were alive. Fortunately there were no casualties. During her two and a half weeks in the Philippines, Lynda spent most of the time slogging about in the mud clad in Army fatigues and combat boots, hoping with everyone else to get production underway again. Eventually Apocalypse Now resumed filming and she was able to complete her scenes, after which she returned stateside to start work on the first of eleven 60-minute Wonder Woman specials.”

Francis Ford Coppola eventually decided to scrap what he had filmed during this time period and reshoot. By that time Lynda was already doing Wonder Woman and unavailable. That is when Colleen Camp gets the nod as Miss May. Unless Coppola decided to do a major rewrite just for the casting of this one small role, we have to assume that Lynda’s filmed scenes were pretty close to what transpires to Colleen in the added scenes in Redux.

If Lynda were cast as the Playmate, and if shooting was far enough along that she was actually over in the Philippines filming her scenes, then a Playboy centerfold “prop” would have had to have been produced as part of pre-production of the film. This “prop” played an important part in the set up of one of the cut scenes in the original Apocalypse Now but which was added in Apocalypse Now Redux. Here’s where Colleen’s “prop” appears:

Later the soldier in love with the image of the centerfold has a chance to have sex with her. But he first recreates the pose she had in the centerfold:

If Lynda was originally cast as the Playmate later portrayed by Colleen Camp, Zoetrope Productions would have needed the centerfold prop of Lynda to use before she left for the Philippines.

The only piece of information that I’m missing is the entire “Expose!” article in which the photo is claimed to be a painting. If anyone could provide that, please post it in its entirety here so everyone can have a chance to judge its merits w/o any conjecture or hearsay. However, even without that article I asked myself what made more sense.
1) A fly by night magazine gets a hold of a museum quality photo realistic topless painting of Lynda Carter in a similar but not exact pose as Colleen Camp in Apocalypse Now and the Playboy magazine. Then they publish the “painting” saying tisk, tisk to the perpetrator of the hoax.

Or
2) A fly by night magazine gets a hold of a “lost” prop from Apocalypse Now, several of which would have had to have been made and any of which could have been stolen during the chaos of the typhoon. Then they decide to publish the photo as a fake, but of course with the ol’ Fox News trick of using the “?” on the cover. As in, “Lynda Carter Topless Photo?” buy this magazine and see for yourself. By claiming it is a fake they can claim innocence in any lawsuit brought by Lynda or Zoetrope. They were only exposing the fake, not trying to profit off the illegally obtained photo. If Zoetrope or Lynda does file a lawsuit, a seemingly fake topless photograph of American’s sweetheart, Wonder Woman, now appears to be real. This creates huge publicity and the photo would obviously have been distributed much more widely.

By claiming it was a fake in the first place, “Expose!” magazine can sell the image while pretty much assuring them that they won’t be sued.

In conclusion CTRFLD admirer would you be so kind as to scan in this remarkable photo once more but at the highest resolution your scanner can muster. Because as of this moment, I do believe it is the best example of the only known real topless photo of the most beautiful woman who has ever lived. (Except for my wife of course.)

To gregj1967 I would like to express my gratitude for keeping this thread going for such a long time. Without you, this information would never have been brought to me and I would never have given that photograph a second thought. I don’t believe the issue of the authenticity of the photograph should be a win/lose situation. As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, there is no way to know with absolute certainty that the photo is real, only what is most probable. And the worst thing that can happen is that if you are wrong about the photo being a fake then we as a community now have a genuine fully topless photo of a goddess.

CTRFLD admirer I can’t thank you enough for bringing this to my attention. I have believed for the past 10 years that that photo was a fake, but I am now convinced that it was a brilliant example of hiding something extremely valuable right in plain site. Thank you very, very much.

MooseChuck · August 7th, 2008, 03:22 PM

There was an article/interview in I think it was High Society Magazine back in the 80s talking with the airbrush artist who created the fake Linda Carter Image using the Coleen Camp photo. The guys name was not printed and the Picture of him had wearing glasses and a clown nose.

**tertium** · August 7th, 2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseChuck

There was an article/interview in I think it was High Society Magazine back in the 80s talking with the airbrush artist who created the fake Linda Carter Image using the Coleen Camp photo. The guys name was not printed and the Picture of him had wearing glasses and a clown nose.

You've missed a bit of the discussion due to the deletion of many posts. But your infomation does add another little clue. The magazine was Expose I believe and they only had a few issues and dissappeared. I believe the High Society mag was the one that featured the Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw photos.

Do you remember anything else about the article or do you have a copy? Thanks.

**gregj1967** · August 7th, 2008, 09:39 PM

Fellas--I do have a copy of the issue of High Society featuring the BJ&TO pix with Lynda as Wonder Woman on the cover. I also have numerous issues of the HS publication Celebrity Skin which reprint those pix and add several more every time they re-present them. I posted at least one of those articles in its entirety some time back (including the text); I don't recall any interveiw with the airbrush artist, but I simply may not remember it. Unfortunately those magazines are in boxes underneath a whole bunch of other boxes that have yet to be unpacked after my move a couple of months ago, but I'll try and get to them soon and re-check the articles. Also--unfortunately--I DON'T have a copy of the Expose issue; I turned down one priced at around $20 several years ago at a comic convention which was obviously a mistake.

February 23rd, 2008, 02:37 PM	#13
TheBaron Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 38 Thanks: 759 Thanked 232 Times in 35 Posts	Lynda Carter debate Hi Guys, Been following this thread with interest. Apologies if someone raised this point earlier in the thread, but when Lynda appeared in the 'I Posed For Playboy' movie, did she make any comment in interviews about whether she had - or would - pose for the legendary magazine? Kudos to Greg for trying to reach Lynda herself for an answer. Being a pessimist, I suspect it will come back as a negative, but looking at the photo itself does not make me want to dismiss it as a fraud. To me, this shot of Lynda does not seem to derive from the one of Colleen. It would be monstrously difficult to fake and you would probably need a direct 'dupe' of the original large format negative to do it (Playboy's shoots were often done on 5x4 sheet film). Her face in the photo does look 'artificial', but I think it merely shows the traditional pin-up 'retouching' techniques to whiten the eyes and smooth the skin. Saying all that though, I could be completely wrong. Here's another thought, using our collective knowledge of 'Boob Physics 101', can anyone hazard a guess if the breasts in the shot tally with the ones seen in Bobby Jo? No offence meant to posters on other side of this debate - not trying to 'troll' here, just hoping for clarity. In the meantime why the hell can't some independent DVD house bring out a disc of Bobby Jo? It's maddening.

August 5th, 2008, 02:02 AM	#17
tertium Vintage Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 355 Thanks: 1,430 Thanked 11,852 Times in 354 Posts	Well, here is my original post concerning the Colleen Camp/Lynda Carter photos. I did do quite a bit of work and I'd hate to think it was lost: I have read and re-read the ongoing debate over the authenticity of the Lynda Carter/Colleen camp photograph. I would like to thank Gregj1967 and CTRFLD admirer for bringing many facts, opinions, and insights into this subject. However, instead of trying to engage each of their points, I tried to gather as much information about the topic as possible and then draw my own conclusion based on what was most probable. As both parties would probably agree, there is no way to ever completely know for sure. However, I do believe it is possible to draw a reasonable conclusion, based on what we already know. Here is the photo in question as submitted by The Fake Detective and by CTRFLD admirer: Swamp Rat from another forum provided me the full The Playboy article from October 1979. Here is the relevant text to our discussion: Though the transcript of Colleen’s interview reads “Linda Carter” it is obvious that she is talking about “Lynda Carter” and that the transcriber simply made a typo. The second confirmation that Lynda Carter was attached to Apocalypse Now cast as a Playboy Bunny comes from the wonderland site dedicated to Lynda. From an article in “Fanfare” Issue 1, Spring 1977: “Her second film is not yet release: Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam war epic Apocalypse Now, filmed partly on location in the Philippines in the midst of nearly impossible weather conditions when typhoon Olga hit the island of Luzon...One group of actors and technicians were sequestered across the river, while Coppola and additional cast members, including Lynda, were with another group at Olongapo. For three days each gathering was totally isolated from the others ten miles away, not knowing if their colleagues were alive. Fortunately there were no casualties. During her two and a half weeks in the Philippines, Lynda spent most of the time slogging about in the mud clad in Army fatigues and combat boots, hoping with everyone else to get production underway again. Eventually Apocalypse Now resumed filming and she was able to complete her scenes, after which she returned stateside to start work on the first of eleven 60-minute Wonder Woman specials.” Francis Ford Coppola eventually decided to scrap what he had filmed during this time period and reshoot. By that time Lynda was already doing Wonder Woman and unavailable. That is when Colleen Camp gets the nod as Miss May. Unless Coppola decided to do a major rewrite just for the casting of this one small role, we have to assume that Lynda’s filmed scenes were pretty close to what transpires to Colleen in the added scenes in Redux. If Lynda were cast as the Playmate, and if shooting was far enough along that she was actually over in the Philippines filming her scenes, then a Playboy centerfold “prop” would have had to have been produced as part of pre-production of the film. This “prop” played an important part in the set up of one of the cut scenes in the original Apocalypse Now but which was added in Apocalypse Now Redux. Here’s where Colleen’s “prop” appears: Later the soldier in love with the image of the centerfold has a chance to have sex with her. But he first recreates the pose she had in the centerfold: If Lynda was originally cast as the Playmate later portrayed by Colleen Camp, Zoetrope Productions would have needed the centerfold prop of Lynda to use before she left for the Philippines. The only piece of information that I’m missing is the entire “Expose!” article in which the photo is claimed to be a painting. If anyone could provide that, please post it in its entirety here so everyone can have a chance to judge its merits w/o any conjecture or hearsay. However, even without that article I asked myself what made more sense. 1) A fly by night magazine gets a hold of a museum quality photo realistic topless painting of Lynda Carter in a similar but not exact pose as Colleen Camp in Apocalypse Now and the Playboy magazine. Then they publish the “painting” saying tisk, tisk to the perpetrator of the hoax. Or 2) A fly by night magazine gets a hold of a “lost” prop from Apocalypse Now, several of which would have had to have been made and any of which could have been stolen during the chaos of the typhoon. Then they decide to publish the photo as a fake, but of course with the ol’ Fox News trick of using the “?” on the cover. As in, “Lynda Carter Topless Photo?” buy this magazine and see for yourself. By claiming it is a fake they can claim innocence in any lawsuit brought by Lynda or Zoetrope. They were only exposing the fake, not trying to profit off the illegally obtained photo. If Zoetrope or Lynda does file a lawsuit, a seemingly fake topless photograph of American’s sweetheart, Wonder Woman, now appears to be real. This creates huge publicity and the photo would obviously have been distributed much more widely. By claiming it was a fake in the first place, “Expose!” magazine can sell the image while pretty much assuring them that they won’t be sued. In conclusion CTRFLD admirer would you be so kind as to scan in this remarkable photo once more but at the highest resolution your scanner can muster. Because as of this moment, I do believe it is the best example of the only known real topless photo of the most beautiful woman who has ever lived. (Except for my wife of course.) To gregj1967 I would like to express my gratitude for keeping this thread going for such a long time. Without you, this information would never have been brought to me and I would never have given that photograph a second thought. I don’t believe the issue of the authenticity of the photograph should be a win/lose situation. As I mentioned at the beginning of my post, there is no way to know with absolute certainty that the photo is real, only what is most probable. And the worst thing that can happen is that if you are wrong about the photo being a fake then we as a community now have a genuine fully topless photo of a goddess. CTRFLD admirer I can’t thank you enough for bringing this to my attention. I have believed for the past 10 years that that photo was a fake, but I am now convinced that it was a brilliant example of hiding something extremely valuable right in plain site. Thank you very, very much. Last edited by Sam Spade; February 9th, 2009 at 06:34 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 23rd, 2008, 12:54 PM	#11
nailsfromthething Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 939 Thanks: 5,557 Thanked 39,554 Times in 1,165 Posts	Re: the authenticity of the Lynda Carter pic... Pl@yboy can't reprint every single nude pic they have in their archives. In the 1980s Raquel Welch successfully stopped them using certain pics they had of her from an old photoshoot. In the case of the Apocalypse Now photoshoot, the use of those pictures was as prop material for Zoetrope Studios, not for general usage in the magazine, and reproduction rights would not only have been split between the two companies but would be very different and far more locked-down than in the case of a nude-shoot intended for magazine distribution. Like everyone else, I want the photo to be real, and after reading and viewing the material here, I am now leaning far more to the notion that it is than I ever have. As a graphic artist I know that the ‘simple cut and paste’ procedures mentioned as explanation for the hand being obscured by hair in one shot and not in the other is absurd - the amount of work involved to make an adjustment like that is absolutely phenomenal, even today. In the 1970s it would have been an absurd effort. What I see is that Zoetrope ended up with a nude shoot they couldn’t use because the actress had changed for the role, so they gave prints to a photographer and said 'Match that, using Coleen Camp'. Let’s get one thing clear - the body section is NOT inverted (see pic): the collar of the denim jacket is more evident in the Carter pic, the right hand is less obscured by hair and the left hand is further back on the hip. Sadly, even though they are two different pictures, there are so many similarities as to cause confusion: the ring on the model’s ring finger of the left hand seems identical, and more importantly, the body seems to be the same body – ratio of breasts to stomach, nipple size and position relative to breast, etc. The one remaining hope is that, since we are dealing with a production company having spent money on a shoot and looking for a quick, cheap fix, that it was easier for them to put Coleen Camp’s face on ANOTHER of the Lynda Carter pics from that shoot. This is something that will never be solved, IMO, until the exact pic containing Lynda Carter’s exact head-shot turns up in a possible ‘original’. Or unless Carter or Coppola fess up.

February 23rd, 2008, 01:11 PM	#12
nailsfromthething Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 939 Thanks: 5,557 Thanked 39,554 Times in 1,165 Posts	Additionally, when using Carter's reluctance to do nude work as a defence to say that she would never have done the shoot, consider this: she did do slight nudity in Bobby Jo and here we are talking about a necessary adjunct to long dialogue scenes in a major motion picture from the director of The Godfather. That's a quantum leap up from Wonder Woman, with the potential to change the course of her career.

February 23rd, 2008, 08:04 PM	#14
gregj1967 Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon USA Posts: 1,215 Thanks: 65,413 Thanked 48,084 Times in 1,169 Posts	Thanks to nailsfromthething for lending his expertise to this debate! The technical knowledge regarding what is and what is not possible in photography and graphic art is key to this debate. I think Bobbie Jo was shot in 1975 and released in 1976 (then re-released sometime after the debut of Wonder Woman). Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman debuted in the Fall of 1976 (there was a TV movie in 1975 with Cathy Lee Crosby as Wonder Woman) which means she no doubt spent much of the spring and summer of 1976 shooting the early episodes of the show. If she did do the photoshoot it most likely occured between BJ&TO and WW, roughly between mid-1975 and early 1976 is my guess. Also thanks to The Baron for his comments and involvement. Since it will no doubt be a while before we get anything back from Lynda, does anyone else have anything to contribute to this discussion? Please jump in if you do.

March 21st, 2008, 04:56 AM	#15
headmaster Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 58 Thanks: 83 Thanked 1,382 Times in 51 Posts	Has anyone ever heard of Expose! magazine before? I can find no reference to this 'so called' mag anywhere. I smell a cover up that goes right to the top. Unlike the picture which is uncovered and topless. Either way - good work Woodstein. If only Deep Throat was available for comment...

August 7th, 2008, 03:22 PM	#18
MooseChuck Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7 Thanks: 3,931 Thanked 29 Times in 6 Posts	There was an article/interview in I think it was High Society Magazine back in the 80s talking with the airbrush artist who created the fake Linda Carter Image using the Coleen Camp photo. The guys name was not printed and the Picture of him had wearing glasses and a clown nose.

August 7th, 2008, 09:39 PM	#20
gregj1967 Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon USA Posts: 1,215 Thanks: 65,413 Thanked 48,084 Times in 1,169 Posts	Fellas--I do have a copy of the issue of High Society featuring the BJ&TO pix with Lynda as Wonder Woman on the cover. I also have numerous issues of the HS publication Celebrity Skin which reprint those pix and add several more every time they re-present them. I posted at least one of those articles in its entirety some time back (including the text); I don't recall any interveiw with the airbrush artist, but I simply may not remember it. Unfortunately those magazines are in boxes underneath a whole bunch of other boxes that have yet to be unpacked after my move a couple of months ago, but I'll try and get to them soon and re-check the articles. Also--unfortunately--I DON'T have a copy of the Expose issue; I turned down one priced at around $20 several years ago at a comic convention which was obviously a mistake.