Thank you very much for the photo. That's one I don't think I've
seen before.

You said "From what I've been able to find out..."
Would you tell me please what your sources are, i.e. are these
photos mentioned in a book, on a website, or what?

I just like to pin things down when I can. Historical information
can become distorted and inaccurate so easily, if we aren't careful.

Thanks again,
:O)








--- In Lulu-In-Cyberspace@yahoogroups.com, olive_e_thomas
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> From what I've been able to find out they seem to be Brooksie as
is this
> image... Louise Brooks55
> <http://images.empousa.multiply.com/image/2/photos/3/orig/55.jpg?
enctoke\
> n=UmFuZG9tSVbkr3zSD,q88J8N2fJlvpK9aa,npyV4drG0tW5jBYPfLA==>
> --- In Lulu-In-Cyberspace@yahoogroups.com, "ytyt7ytyt7" <robert@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious about the provenance of two photos which appear to
be of
> > Louise Brooks, but as far as I know, have never been
authenticated
> > as really her, rather than a look-alike.
> >
> > Photo #1: Full-length of Louise in a dance position, her arms
raised
> > and her left leg raised. Not exactly a full-frontal nude, but
pubic
> > hair is visible.
> > Shown at http://thedarkwoods.free.fr/at%20home/nude.jpg
> >
> >
> > Photo #2: Full-frontal, with her arms slightly raised, and a very
> > long gauze strip flowing over her shoulders and down to the
ground.
> > Shown at http://silentladies.com/Brooks/pages/Brooks203.html
> >
> > Both photos appear to be of her, but it is my understanding
> > that film historians have not found confirmation that Louise ever
> > posed for any full-frontal nudes. All her other risque photos are
> > more discrete.
> >
> > Do any of you know whether these two photos have ever been proven
> > positively to be Louise Brooks?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>