Lynda Carter ~ Colleen Camp Picture Debate

[eyetoy]

It's fake IMO. If you need to build a case for it being real, i can understand that...but get real with the debating thing. If there's a doubt,...it aint so until the fat lady (proof) sings

[wonhung]

I've seen Lynda Carter refered to as Linda Carter on 1000s of occasions, as I've also seen Stephanie Powers and Racquel Welch Oh and not forgetting the much loved Sophie Loren. Can't base a case on mispelling or typos. It either is or it isn't Ms Carter. Only circumstantial evidence exists either way.

You can look at the picture & see similarities with the subject in question. Yes the breasts are about right, Yes the nipples are about right. Yes the body type is about right. Is it her? I don't know anymore than I know That the nude picture of Maureen McCormick is really her, even tho' she said it could be on Howard Sterns show when asked about it.

The physical evidence only shows it could be her. The other evidences show it might be her. Without rehashing old arguments neither camp has any real evidence to support thier stances. So the best that could be said is that it ................might be her. Until she comes out and says its not or vice versa

[Quincy ME]

I love a mystery and this definitely qualifies. Maybe I can add something new to it by taking a different approach. Firstly, I am a graphic designer and use photoshop for photo manipulation on a daily basis. I’ve tried to apply a little forensic analysis and although I can’t say that the photo of Lynda is real, I can at least point toward the 2 pics being of 2 different women.
I have attached my images below.
After looking at the side by side photos in an earlier post we can see that the only relatively fixed point of reference is the chair. I think it is fair to say that the chair is the same chair in each photo and it was probably a prop in the photographers studio. We can use this chair as a way of calibrating the two photos to the same scale (The Colleen photo is obviously zoomed and cropped more than the ‘Lynda’ photo).
I have scaled the Colleen photo so that the corner of the chair matches exactly with the Lynda photo. I have coloured the chair blue and red respectively for clarity. So now it appears that the heights of the 2 models is different. This is even more apparent in the side by side photo now that they are scaled the same. If this website is to be believed http://www.celebheights.com/s/C.html , Colleen is 5ft 2.5” tall and Lynda is 5ft 10” tall so this height difference could make sense.
Of course if the 2 photos are both of Colleen she could be in high heels in one pic and not the other and unfortunately there is no definate way to know that. We also have to assume that the position of the model relative to chair is similar in each photo and I think we can say that it is give or take an inch.
Interestingly when I overlay the newly rescaled photos and align their faces (rather than the chair), the size of head and position of eyes, nose, hairline etc matches exactly. The breasts and body do not match up positionwise which again suggests it is two different models and not the same one standing on a box.
So to summarise, I think the 2 pics are of 2 different people of different heights. If someone could find out the height of the model called Linda Carpenter then this might answer that question too. If it turns out that she was similar in height to Colleen then the ‘Lynda’ photo has every chance of being genuine.

Separately here are some things to consider:
The jeans of the 2 models are definitely different. This makes sense because the denim shirt is only draped so the size would not matter. The jeans would have to fit because 2 models of different heights could not wear the same pair.
The fingernails of the 2 models are different unless they are falsies in one photo.
The cleavage is different in the 2 pictures unless explained by the slightly different posture..

But the few things that nag me are:

Both right arm/hands show a ring and thin gold chain which look very similar. (Would someone go to such lengths to recreate a photoshoot?)
To me Lynda Carter’s head just looks slightly wrong. I can’t put my finger on it but it seems turned at an unnatural angle.
The lighting on Colleen’s hair looks natural and correct but somehow doesn’t on Lynda.

http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?..._123_453lo.jpg
http://img173.imagevenue.com/img.php..._123_559lo.jpg

[headmaster]

Originally Posted by Quincy ME

If someone could find out the height of the model called Linda Carpenter then this might answer that question too. If it turns out that she was similar in height to Colleen then the ‘Lynda’ photo has every chance of being genuine.

According to Wikipedia she's 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m).

[Mad_Hatter]

It's fake IMO. If you need to build a case for it being real, i can understand that...but get real with the debating thing. If there's a doubt,...it aint so until the fat lady (proof) sings

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And frankly, I don't think there's any doubt. But I still say the case against it- based on some unknown artist saying he was told it's a fake by another artist (better known as "hearsay" in the legal profession), is doubtful at best. To me, proof goes both ways in this case, and I've yet to see convincing proof that it's a fake (especially since the Fake Dick proceeded from the POV that it was a fake and set out to "prove" it), when it's well known that Lynda was on this movie before some typhoon ruined the set. Damn typhoon! The odds that the centerfold shot was taken are too high to ignore.

Anyway, to each their own.

I can’t put my finger on it but it seems turned at an unnatural angle.

I read in an issue of American Photographer on Pompeo Posar that the typical style of the time was body turned one way, head another, eyes to the camera. True, Colleen is more head on, but her head is still turned and body turned at a lesser angle. A lot of PM shots look "unnatural" in their poses- somewhat contorted... As one comic on the Tonight Show said years ago, "The Flying Wallendas in their heyday couldn't match poses like those!".

See below for an example of body this way, head that way used back then:

[TheBaron]

Somebody brave needs to contact whoever maintains the PB archive. They should know for certain whether they have this shot of Lynda.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by TheBaron

Somebody brave needs to contact whoever maintains the PB archive. They should know for certain whether they have this shot of Lynda.

If it was real it wasn't actually a Playboy shoot so they wouldn't have it in their archives.

[caboosier]

Originally Posted by TheBaron

Somebody brave needs to contact whoever maintains the PB archive. They should know for certain whether they have this shot of Lynda.

A brave man would be the one who asks Lynda herself.

[ballerman]

I'll do it _ Just give me her number!

[Rthomas61]

Skip this if your only interest is the pictures because this just discusses her involvement with the actual movie. I'll have to admit that I'm frustrated by not being able to tell if Lynda Carter actually ever was filmed for "Apocalypse Now." I'm not sure if she ever even arrived on the set. I am confident she was contractually signed for the movie.

A few things that "bug" me.

1) The quote from Colleen Camp doesn't make sense to me.

She says, "Actually, I think I'm psychic. At first, Linda [sic] Carter was cast in the Playmate role. Playboy did a centerfold shot with her, the whole bit. But seven months later, a typhoon had destroyed all the sets and Linda couldn't continue because of Wonder Woman, I guess."

Typhoon Olga came in mid-May of 1976. Colleen Camp saying "seven months later" implies Apocalypse was shooting in the Fall of 1975 and that didn't happen. Also, Carter had about a month for Apocalypse in the Spring of '76 but not the previous Fall. In order to have been shot for the film, she could have gone to the Philippines following a 4/12/76 game show appearance and shot before Typhoon Olga's mid-May destruction.

2) Info from the "WONDERLAND: The Ultimate Wonder Woman Site" on page 5 of this thread is full of inaccuracies. It states in part, "Lynda went to the Philippines ... It was a disaster. Coppola had a heart attack while filming ... Lynda spent two weeks in Olongapo, stranded with her group in the mud and the rain due to typhoon “Olga,” while the rest of the crew was unable to contact them. After the typhoon, they were "rescued" and she was able to finish her scenes though they never were used in the final version."

In fact, Coppola didn't have a heart attack while filming Apocalypse Now although Martin Sheen did but not until the next year. Lynda couldn't have possible shot for the film after Olga hit because its wind and water destroyed the set and work was officially shut down on 5/26/76. If she "spent two weeks in Olongapo" stranded it's tempting to say that she never made it to the set at Iba but this account is so inaccurate it shouldn't even be printed let alone drawn as a source.

Lynda Carter had signed in 1975 a 3-year TV contract with ABC television unconnected to Wonder Woman. These contracts were hardly lucrative but would pay the bills. Lynda's been overly dramatic when she's said that she was about to run out of money and have to go home but then Wonder Woman was picked-up. In fact, she was very busy from the Summer of '75 through the '75-'76 Winter. It's somewhat unusual for someone who has a contract with a network like Lynda Carter to go work on an outside movie but Wonder Woman hadn't been picked-up in the '76 Spring and her actual filming would have lasted about 2 days. Of course, Hollywood is like the military for its lower echelon soldiers, "hurry up and wait" is the order of the day. So, her filming might have needed her to stay in the Philippines for weeks. I believe she left with the rest of the filming crew in May but unlike them, never returned.