Post here your Elvis' pictures

Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:42 am

I've seen it before without Dick in it.

How did that happen then ?

Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:51 am

I've seen it before without Dick in it!

Which photo of Madonna are you referring to?? :wink:

It's true that the pic has been posted here before but lost in the transfer. Who posted it? Can it be retrieved? It would be interesting to compare.

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:07 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:FYI =>

The Bobby Dick -- who? -- photo is a fake. And the image where Elvis is kneeling is not from Burbank in June, but from November on the set of "The Trouble With Girls."

Almost all of these "rare" photos were published in one or more of Tunzi's books. Except for the fake!

DJC


I'm not enough of an expert to question the bigger guns in this forum, but would Elvis still have been wearing the leather wristband during the filming of "The Trouble With Girls"?

Axe

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:20 am

Yes :lol: He was quite attached to that and I also believe that this was Elvis' personal item that happenned to match the 68 costume by coincidence because there are one or two pics of him with it on prior to the 68 special being filmed or Elvis' participation in it.

Please don't take that as gospel as I am myself more of a catapault on here than a big gun so I am preparing to bow down with you. :wink:

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:39 am

Axe,

You could be right! Tunzi and DJC could be wrong. :wink: The sideburns do look longer in TTWG and the neck-scarf and wristband are consistent with summer '68.

Image

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:44 am

Delboy wrote:Axe,

You could be right! Tunzi and DJC could be wrong.

Could be, but unfortunately not. Note: the "wristband" in question is in actuality a watchband, said style being quite popular in 1968-69.

DJC

Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:08 am

Doc,

Why 'unfortunately'? No-one's out to catch people out, it's about ascertaining the facts. I would like to believe the 'Sunset' photo is real, but if not then fine! I haven't seen proof the Bobby Dick story is a fabrication. The TTWG photo again is questionable. There are several backstage photos from the '68 special but not many from the movie! If you have further info then share it. :D

Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:47 am

Delboy wrote:3) Why then would someone doctor a never before seen picture of Elvis and transpose it onto a sign advertising office space?

Answer: ego, and because anyone with Photoshop can do it.

The Elvis image might not be previously unseen, actually. I believe it was taken at the June press conference. If I can find the original, I'll post it.

Delboy wrote:The 'Funny Girl' argument doesn't hold up. It was an existing show and filming of the movie was complete. There's all sorts of reasons that advertising of the brand would be taking place in California.

What are you talking about?

Fact: in June 1968 the film was NOT completed.

Fact: its premiere was in New York in September, as I stated.

Fact: the billboard is advertising the film.

Fact: the image of Elvis is from June, the rest of the photo, billboard and all (if undoctored) can be NO earlier than late August or early September.

Thus, it's a fake.

Delboy wrote:Why 'unfortunately'? No-one's out to catch people out, it's about ascertaining the facts.

Right. And I've answered your question, more than once.

Delboy wrote:The TTWG photo again is questionable. There are several backstage photos from the '68 special but not many from the movie! If you have further info then share it.

Questionable?

How about the fact that Elvis' hairstyle and sideburns are completely different? How about the fact that co-star Marsha Mason is in the background? Those are two rather BIG clues.

If you acquire the Tunzi book with this photo in it, you will discover many more backstage photos from this film.

Delboy, trust the Doc!

DJC

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:14 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:Delboy, trust the Doc!

I haven't doubted your judgement in the past and don't intend to start now! I'll get my coat! :oops: :wink:

Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:27 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:How about the fact that co-star Marsha Mason is in the background?


Shouldn't that be the clincher to put an end to the debate?

That is unless Marsha was hanging around the NBC Studio in
June 1968 hoping to get a spot in the burlesque scene.

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:35 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Delboy wrote:3) Why then would someone doctor a never before seen picture of Elvis and transpose it onto a sign advertising office space?

Answer: ego, and because anyone with Photoshop can do it.

The Elvis image might not be previously unseen, actually. I believe it was taken at the June press conference. If I can find the original, I'll post it.

Delboy wrote:The 'Funny Girl' argument doesn't hold up. It was an existing show and filming of the movie was complete. There's all sorts of reasons that advertising of the brand would be taking place in California.

What are you talking about?

Fact: in June 1968 the film was NOT completed.

Fact: its premiere was in New York in September, as I stated.

Fact: the billboard is advertising the film.

Fact: the image of Elvis is from June, the rest of the photo, billboard and all (if undoctored) can be NO earlier than late August or early September.

Thus, it's a fake.

Delboy wrote:Why 'unfortunately'? No-one's out to catch people out, it's about ascertaining the facts.

Right. And I've answered your question, more than once.

Delboy wrote:The TTWG photo again is questionable. There are several backstage photos from the '68 special but not many from the movie! If you have further info then share it.

Questionable?

How about the fact that Elvis' hairstyle and sideburns are completely different? How about the fact that co-star Marsha Mason is in the background? Those are two rather BIG clues.

If you acquire the Tunzi book with this photo in it, you will discover many more backstage photos from this film.

Delboy, trust the Doc!

DJC


Great detective work Doc!

Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:37 am

Joe Car wrote:Great detective work Doc!

Trust the doc. He won't ever waste your time hurling expletives or arguing non-existent facts.

DJC

Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:28 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Delboy wrote:Axe,

You could be right! Tunzi and DJC could be wrong.

Could be, but unfortunately not. Note: the "wristband" in question is in actuality a watchband, said style being quite popular in 1968-69.

DJC


I know it's a watchband...but I also know Elvis wasn't generally one to keep wearing the same thing for too long.

How can you tell that's Marsha Mason in the pic? It looks a bit like Neil Young in the Polka-dot shirt, but we know it's not him.

And for the Funny Girl pic, it's not uncommon to promote a movie you think will be a big hit BEFORE the movie is finished. It may have been less common then than today to do advance promotion, but in 1968 Barbara was a fairly big star, and it makes sense that they'd have a billboard up before they finished filming.

Is everyone sure that main filming wasn't finished in June, leaving only scenery shots and post-production to do between June and September? If so, that might be enough to make the film company confident enough to go ahead with early promotion.

I'm not saying anybody's wrong, just looking for clarification.

Axe

Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:28 am

The watchband was a favourite for longer than usual and it remianed a Presley favourite - Lisa was seen wearing it in more recent times.

Rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 am

The Bobby Dick photos "ARE NOT FAKE". I knew Bobby 25 years ago when he was playing up in Lake George, He showed me the original photos back then. They are 100% real.

Re: Rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:37 am

Kingcandids wrote:The Bobby Dick photos "ARE NOT FAKE".

Correct. The second photo of Dick with Dolenz and Hendrix seems legit.

However, the first photo with Elvis Presley "IS FAKE".

DJC

Rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:55 am

Sorry drjohncarpenter, This time your wrong. Believe me. He took a few photos with Elvis that day. I have seen the original photos.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:44 am

kingcandids,

I emailed Bobby Dick to ask him about the Elvis shot and he did say his brother took a few shots that day. His story about being in the Bones/Howe offices seem to back up his story. It would be pedantic to ask him to further verify what he said but I believe the photo is a genuine one.

Rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:55 am

Oh, I know it's real. Like I said, I saw these back about 25 years ago, before everyone had computers with photo shop etc. Bobby was lucky enough to have met Elvis, and right away people want to say it's fake, well, it's real! Just way too many experts out there.

Re: Rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:41 am

Kingcandids wrote:Sorry drjohncarpenter, This time your wrong. Believe me. He took a few photos with Elvis that day. I have seen the original photos.

Unless Mr. Dick posts those other "photos" or you refute the critical points made above, your words are empty and meaningless. In other words, "your wrong."

DJC

Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:22 pm

Doc -

You wrote:
How about the fact that co-star Marsha Mason is in the background?


Did you mean Marlyn Mason ?

Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:57 pm

ColinB wrote:Did you mean Marlyn Mason ?

What would we do without you, Colin? Mar-lyn, right.

DJC

rare 68 special pics

Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:15 pm

Mr. Dick has nothing to prove, why should he post the other photos, so you can copy them? I don't think so. The photo is real and you are wrong. from this moment on, "your words are empty and meaningless". Why argue with someone who will not admit when they are wrong.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:37 am

Gang

you're all BS'ing each other again



please have a careful look at the shadows in the submitted pics



you better not mess with an antwerp male

goodevening

i.k.

Rare 68 special pics

Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:21 am

You can disect it all you want (Look at the shadows, etc) But you have no clue as to what you are talking about. It is actually very funny.