RSS
 

Oh là là – Errol!

05 Jun

Is he ever a Perfect Specimen!
Is there a story which goes with is picture? There are very few pictures of Errol, if any, depicting him in this “oh là là” way!

— Tina

 
26 Comments

Posted in Main Page

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 
 

  1. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Somewhere in my files I have the article and bibliographic reference for this photo. When I have time I’ll pull it out (no pun intended). If my poor memory serves me right it was taken in a locker room after a tennis match. I forget the photographer’s name but it’s on the original caption. The un-cropped version is one of several authenticated Flynn nudes (or semi-nudes) circulating in the photographic underground. I have not seen this one un-cropped but I believe it does indeed exist. I have seen the Cuban photo of an unzipped EF mentioned by Earl Conrad (sorry, there’s nothing amazing about it), and the famous disheveled Flynn nude you can see simply by googling it. That’s the one a lot of people say is a fake but I maintain is authentic. And then there’s the infamous Gene Lester toilet photo. To this day people e-mail me about this stuff. I don’t answer those e-mails so maybe this post will give them hope for clarity of vision during their digital daydreams LOL!

     

  2. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 2:10 am

    The “nude” photo that uses this as the upper portion is faked. The anatomy along the torso is distorted.

     

  3. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 5:26 am

    I totally agree with Robert. The photo is a genuine fake!

     

  4. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Tom, I thought I'd save you at least part of the work as I have it as a scan on my computer, but have no reference:

    You were obviously right about the tennis match since they speak of him as “victor”. Interestingly, in the second picture, you can see his wedding ring again which gives the indication of the time when the photo was taken, plus the reference to “The Perfect Specimen”.
    As for the distortion: when you look at the original, you can see that Tina's version has been manipulated. Apparently, someone has cut out the lower picture and tried to cover this “cut out” section in the upper picture, but not very successfully. I would say that it is an authentic one – why not? When you raise your arms to such a position, even the most perfect body becomes “distorted”. I'm no expert in anatomy, but I would ask one further question: WHY, for heaven's sake, should the press back then manipulate such a photo? Why should they take the trouble to exchange a supposedly “perfect” body with the one you can see??? No boys, sorry, I can't see any reason unless you find a convincing one.

     

  5. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Yes that looks like the article. There are certainly a lot of fake photos out there and it’s not always easy to tell what is real. Doctoring photos before digital technology made it easy required a deft touch. There is a photo of Joan Crawford and Doug Fairbanks Jr. on a beach in bathing suits but Doug’s extended beer belly has been paint brushed out. That one cracks me up. I’m happy just to add digital hair to my shining round head LOL!

     

  6. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

    The example you gave is typical of “making it more beautiful” – but why should they make it more ugly here? I just can't see any reason??

     

  7. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Hi Inga;
    I found this picture on the Internet – don't know when, but I don't understand the comments. I can see from your picture that Errol is in front of the picture I posted, which is one picture placed on top of another. What is the fake? The top picture must exist as I found it.
    I have lots of pictures, most likely all of us have, in where Errol is photographed with a bare upper body. What is so difference with this picture? I am confused?
    I posted this picture only for fun and light conversation.

     

  8. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    OK, Tina, let's help your confusion.
    It seems as if YOUR picture was (digitally) cut out of the original magazine clipping which I posted.
    The person who did this then manipulated this cut out picture and digitally “drew” over the passage where the “second” Errol is in the foreground. This person probably only wanted the nude picture. I think that you can clearly see that YOURS has been manipulated.
    What our two gentlemen here infer is that the whole picture is a fake – which I don't believe. I think that the original is authentic and only yours has been worked on. They think that Errol's body looks different from other pics where he has a nude body. But I say that this “distortion”, as they call it, is due to the way he has raised his arm.
    Better now, Tina? If not, I will explain it again in German.

     

  9. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Thank you Inga, for the explanation – no need for German, I do speak English, maybe another set of eyes would help.
    I am looking at his raised arms as you point out, I fail to see any difference except that the picture is narrower and the hands are halfway missing, but otherwise they are in the same position.
    You are seeing something I just don't see. Basically what does it matter, I thought it's a nice picture of him – beautiful, young and strapping!

     

  10. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Tina, the manipulation was done in the lower part, towards his left hip. And our two gentlemen say that the whole pic is a fake because it looks a little strange… I think…

     

  11. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    No, Tina. What we're referring to is the infamous photo of Flynn completely naked, showing everything below the waist. The upper portion is this photo we see, plus what appears to be the rest of him southward. Perhaps some of you have never seen that photo, but if and when you do, you'll see that, as we two gentlemen of Pamplona claim, the picture looks to be a composite, and therefore—fake.

     

  12. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    AAAH – why don't you say this. I'm explaining my head off here… and am all wrong. But of course, ladies like us don't know what you were referring to! Never knew such a photo existed!

     

  13. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Hi Robert;
    Now, thank you for your explanation, which makes finally sense.
    No, I have never seen such picture you are describing with a lower half, just the one I posted and I posted it as I found it.
    I see now what was meant with manipulation of the picture.
    Take care,
    Tina

     

  14. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Not quite so Inga, please read Robert's explanation, which makes sense to me. That kind of manipulation adding obviously somebody's lower half to the picture is awful for anybody to do. That's malicious!

     

  15. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    OH YES – very naive the two of us. I could bite my a… for being so stupid!

     

  16. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    I am glad Inga, now that everything is explained I am glad I don't need any English or German lessons or a new set of eyes.
    We are just a naive pair and have not seen what other observed.

     

  17. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Wow, the things one can find out by just posting a simple innocent picture! This blog – I must say is most educational!

     

  18. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    What is made more ugly here Inga?

     

  19. Anonymous

    June 5, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    You are not alone Inga, we all have our good and bad days, like me with my remark “him being maybe the first time in Europe” – stupid – when I perfectly knew it was not so – just a thing done on the spur of the moment – without thinking for minute before writing it.

     

  20. Anonymous

    June 6, 2011 at 12:56 am

    That's nothing! the nude photos of Barney Witherstump at the First Annual Bernice Witherstump Memorial Pig Roast are classic!

     

  21. Anonymous

    June 6, 2011 at 2:06 am

    Hi Tom,
    It is nice to hear from you again, we really miss you! You should show yourself more often your input is vital! I will quote something out of your book in one of our Quiz questions, join in on the fun!
    Now you have me stumped, who is Bernice and Barney Witherstump?
    You see how good you are in putting a puzzle up to stymie us – at least me!
    All the best to you and Jan,
    Tina

     

  22. Anonymous

    June 9, 2011 at 12:19 am

    haha, the discussion on this post was some what quite entertaining to read! Personally the photo of Flynn with his bits and bobs out I think is a fake – but like Shamrock said in the first post about Earl Conrad mentioning it in his memoirs – Its Errol Flynn, there's bound to be a few around!

     

  23. Anonymous

    June 9, 2011 at 9:04 am

    I bet you – Tina and I are the only ones who have not seen this ominous photo!

     

  24. Anonymous

    June 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    haha, what are you suggesting (he types with 'pokerface' playing in the background) *jokes* – i'm sure someone will whip out on the web again or ebay at some point. :P

     

  25. Anonymous

    June 9, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Yes Inga, you me and all the ladies on this blog are left out on this joke and ominous fake picture.
    May that all be what ever it is, I don't believe that there ever was a picture taken of Errol completely nude!
    Bare upper body yes – bare lower body NO!
    If a lower body part was added to this picture it is a definite 100% fake.

     

  26. Anonymous

    June 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Dear Sam, that would be awful for anybody to do this!