Submitted by David Phillips, Oct 3, 2007 19:27

This is spot on. We have been investigating the "authentication" of this painting. Why, if Horton and Biro are so sure of the fingerprints, will they not allow an expert other than the mysterious retired RCMP Turcotte (who insists on remaining low profile and cannot be reached) to examine this overwhelming evidence? In fact, Fine Art Registry (www.fineartregistry.com) has been investigating Biro (who also cannot come up with any credentials as a fingerprint examiner) via another painting on which he also found THE SAME alleged Pollock fingerprint as the one he claims to have found on the back of the Horton painting. You can read the preliminary reports here http://fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/press-release-07232007.php and you will see the direction this investigation is taking. This fingerprint evidence is extremely fishy. The movie is a joke. Any art buyer in their right senses seeing that movie would run a million miles from the painting. I mean it really is so tacky, it's amazing that Volpe thought it would help sell the painting. We have the full details of his plan to set up a group which would sell paintings "authenticated" entirely by Biro. It's quite a clever plan but required a bit more confidence than anyone would be willing to place in it. Anyway, it's refreshing to read Ronald Harris's article and to know that not everyone in this world is so gullible as to be taken in by this nonsense. Whether the painting is or is not a Pollock, this film simply makes a mockery of the subject of authenticating art and actually gives forensics a very bad name.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.