The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston sent a letter to the pilot with the services available and the fees for each service. In the letter the museum expressed that these results may not be either complete or conclusive.
The museum further expressed - "With regard to the dating of your painting, I am afraid that there are no scientific techniques for the absolute dating of a paint layer. Sometimes conclusions as to date may be drawn from the presence of certain pigments for the use of some of which terminal dates are known. I do not see however, how that would be applicable to a painting executed as recently as 1945, especially where the painting in question is done in a quite limited palette."
Although the Museum stipulated that their testing would not be able to provide complete or conclusive results, the pilot with his son, took the painting to Boston for evaluation on January 12, 1982.
In February 1982, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston completed their evaluation of the painting and submitted their report to the pilot.
After the pilot had received confirmation from Dr. Olga Preisner - the Curator of the Penn State University Art Museum - on August 24, 1981 - whom after performing a series of tests and performing a signature evaluation determined the painting to be - authentic without doubt - the pilot had the painting sent to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to be examined so that he would have 2 expert opinions that could confirm the authenticity of the painting for Sotheby's.
Unfortunately - the report was not what the pilot had anticipated.
The report came back with the determination that the painting was a forgery. The opinion of the examiner was that the painting was "virtually identical to the well-known and often reproduced lithograph by Picasso, with only a few very small differences. Of major importance among these is the difference in the date, which, coincidentally, differs only in the year, being identical as to month and day."
The report further stated "This painting was executed on a white primed canvas, to which customary ground layer has not been applied. Microchemical analysis of the priming showed the presence of mainly chalk with a little white lead.
On this canvas the outlines of the painting seem to have been set up, possibly with a pencil. In many places portions of this line can be observed through the microscope as emerging from under the black paint layer. Next, the lines delineating the scene seem to have been located, using a greyish-black paint with a bluish tone. This line can be observed to run around all figures. Finally, the black figures were filled in with a black paint, in a criss cross way. The various stages of development of the painting are quite clearly seen in the infra-red photographs. The outline, as well as the strokes filling the inner areas are clearly visible.
Review of Boston Report
None of the future art experts nor any of the future scientific examinations have agreed with any of the analysis given in the Boston Report. The pigment testing that was performed gave a completely different determination of the paint used - and none of the other examination saw pencil lines indicating that the painting had been "set up".
None of the other art experts were aware of the lithograph that had the date 10-3-55. And - the publication - as well as the "authorized" reproductions have the date 10-8-55 not 10-3-55.
Although the Boston Report - after future examinations and evaluations had been performed - seems to have zero validity - it is important because it shows why the pilot had to fight until his death - to prove that this report was wrong.