Yeah, Sam, but they probably got in for free. Maybe by promising the theater owner to sign autographs for the 2 or 3 people who did see the movie. (I don't know what a movie ticket costs in the US so I cannot break it down into a number of paying spectators).

In any case, I wonder if they now feel better than everyone else having dared or bothered to see a movie that nobody else wanted to see. Or if they feel stupid for being the only ones in the world who have wasted their money to see it. Most likely they don't care.

Would be neat if they could form a group and have reunions with screenings. Maybe a small biannual convention with stars present. Which gives me an idea for a screenplay for another bad movie.

I would also love it if someone gave me that car. So I could sell it and get money for a less hideous vehicle.

I love it when the people at my local café make a perfect heart or some abstract swirls that can resemble anything depending on your imagination, but this is just annoying. I know it isn't really unhygenic, but I wouldn't like someone poking around in my coffe for a long time even if it was the same person who just made it. Especially not if I was impatient to get the first sip of delicious coffee.

Everyone who has lived in a cold place (me: Norway) knows that if you just manage to relax completely, then you stop feeling cold. It takes some concentration but there are no ancient mysteries involved. An the steam rising from the sheets... that is what happens if you put a wet sheet around your naked body and step out into the cold. It happens to everyone and has nothing to do with the control of body temperature.

These monks used to levitate and walk through walls as well, until the invention of photography.

As a kid I had seen pictures of clansmen and I thought they looked GREAT! Imagine having a costume as cool as that! My mother seemed not to share my enthusiasm and constant drawing of hoods and burning crosses. But I was daydreaming about having those robes. Only much much later did I learn that they actually had an agenda as well and weren't solely about dressing up. What a bummer.

Sure is a lot of people playing in that "unique style". ;) I don't know... I think it is impressive as hell, but it somehow leans more towards being a novelty than memorable music. I'm probably just jealous.

One would think they would make something a little bit bigger and cooler when they have this much time to do it. Something with many levels and scary empty corridors.

The bible has always been a book filled with cheesy magic tricks. In todays world of actual scientific information being available to most people, it seems that those who are dead set on teaching their children about old time religion just have to take it one step further and... cheat. Smoke and mirrors.

And lighter fluid in the hands of creationists... it warms my heart to see that some of these bible clutchers have finally figured out a way to combust themselves out of the gene pool.

Yes! Freaks! Stone them!

This article really is a lot of nonsense, isn't it? I mean... I love a good DaVinci codeish yarn as much as the next guy, but this one isn't even the least bit reasonable.

First of all, Van Gogh wasn't in Brussels in 1886, allthough he was in Antwerp, (which I understand is only about 30 miles away) being too broke to even take a short ride in a taxi.

Van Gogh was 33 years old in 1886 and obviously much younger than the man in the photo, even by 19th century standards of aging.

The article also states that prior to this, Van Gogh's self portraits "did not have a strong sense of realism" whereas "subsequent self-portraits were as close to photo-realism as impressionist paintings could be". This is not so. He was always able to do naturalistic studies, but his personal style (obviously) evolved more later in life, bringing him if anything further away from a naturalistic approach.

"If this newly found photograph does indeed turn out to be of the adult Van Gogh, and if it could be proven that optical projection was used by this great impressionist, the implications could change art history". M'kay, but where does this talk of projection come into it? Wouldn't he be a lot more likely to just hold the photo in his hand and look at it? That's what I would have done. The older duch painters used another much simpler method of transfer by simply drawing a grid on the original sketch and then an identical grid on the canvas into which one could then manually copy the contents of each small square without worrying about the overall form being off.

What kind of projection system would he have used? One that could illuminate and enlarge a non-transparent photograph onto a canvas. It would have to be a closed light-sealed system working in a dimly lit room. How could poor old Vincent afford anything like that?

It is quite possible that Van Gogh tried using a photo as a source for some experiments. His friend Gaugin painted Tahiti women back in france from photographs shot by some other guy. Contemporaries like Degas often did the same. The simplest explanation for why Van Gogh would have used a photo to paint his mother is that she was living in another part of the country and he was likely to have had a photo of her with him.

He is a lot less likely to have had a photo of himself tho. Like I said before, Van Gogh was very poor. And he was an unusually ugly man, unlike the man in the photo.

I think the "forensic" evidence in this case is a desire to discover something in a thrift store. To be able to contribute to art history's view of European painters without leaving the old neighborhood in Massachusetts. (Or do something complicated like studying). And to be able to sell it later on e-Bay. The guy in the photo really doesn't even look that much like Van Gogh.