There could be a couple of things at work here.
You know how easy it is when you've got an idea, to eagerly seize on any and every piece of information that seems to validate the point of view you've adopted, and to dismiss or somehow devalue anything that supports a contrary position?
And consider the amount of money and organisation that's obviously behind this now. And the fact that the promoter is a district school painter - is it his money or is someone else providing the funds and marketing?
And then this piece out of the newspaper report:-
Quote:For years, he tried to get them officially verified, taking them to experts at the Smithsonian Institution, the Getty Center and others, but no one would venture to authenticate them.
Three years ago, he met Beverly Hills entertainment lawyer Peter, who assembled a team of experts to review the negatives. Unquote:
An "entertainment lawyer" was able to assemble a team of "experts" who are able to do what the Smithsonian and others would not? Just run that past me again.
To me it's starting to sound like there's a mixture of obsession and contingency funding by a group of investors lined up by the "entertainment lawyer" who have found some less recognised but willing "experts" to provide some basis of authenticity. It even makes me wonder if the "experts" aren't also in on the contingency arrangement. Like, if this thing flies you'll each get a percentage but if it falls over then you'll get travel expenses only. Or something like that arrangement.