|
|
Post by cleglaw on Jul 28, 2007 9:05:15 GMT
New "Last Supper" theory MILAN (Reuters) - A new theory that Leonardo's "Last Supper" might hide within it a depiction of Christ blessing the bread and wine has triggered so much interest that Web sites connected to the picture have crashed. The famous fresco is already the focus of mythical speculation after author Dan Brown based his "The Da Vinci Code" book around the painting, arguing in the novel that Jesus married his follower, Mary Magdelene, and fathered a child. Now Slavisa Pesci, an information technologist and amateur scholar, says superimposing the "Last Supper" with its mirror-image throws up another picture containing a figure who looks like a Templar knight and another holding a small baby. "I came across it by accident, from some of the details you can infer that we are not talking about chance but about a precise calculation," Pesci told journalists when he unveiled the theory earlier this week. Websites www.leonardodavinci.tv, www.codicedavinci.tv, www.cenacolo.biz and www.leonardo2007.com had 15 million hits on Thursday morning alone, organizers said, adding they were trying to provide a more powerful server for the sites. In the superimposed version, a figure on Christ's left appears to be cradling a baby in its arms, Pesci said, but he made no suggestion this could be Christ's child. Judas, whose imminent betrayal of Christ is the force breaking the right-hand line of the original fresco, appears in an empty space on the left in the reverse image version. And Pesci also suggests that the superimposed version shows a goblet before Christ and illustrates when Christ blessed bread and wine at a supper with his disciples for the first Eucharist. The original Da Vinci depicts Christ when he predicts that one among them will betray him. |
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jul 30, 2007 1:45:55 GMT
It wouldn't be difficult to do, if I understand well what is talked about... It's to take the picture, flip it of side like to get a version that's from a mirror (top down or left-to-right) and then putting it over the original so we see the two through, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Jul 30, 2007 4:01:13 GMT
I think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jul 30, 2007 11:25:17 GMT
OH MY GOD IT'S TRUE!  AND IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, YESTERDAY I DISCOVERED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE WHILE I WAS READING MACBETH. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 30, 2007 12:51:04 GMT
Good job, Hec! I could never read the whole of MacBeth! ;D
Seriously, it's all a bit... interpretative, isn't it? Superimposing the thing on itself like this creates so many shadow images you can read almost anything into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jul 30, 2007 14:59:11 GMT
Sorta like diggin up bones.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jul 31, 2007 1:30:23 GMT
So it can be true. Wonder if Da Vinci would be amused or infuriated by aspects like that of the phenomenon that he and his works are the object of...
|
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jul 31, 2007 7:34:46 GMT
Really? I love Macbeth. It's my favorite of Sheakspere's works. Anyway: So it can be true./quote] Of course not. If you change, twist, skip letters and use creative mathematics you can pretty much find a hidden meaning in any painting, book or historical monument but that doesn't mean they truly have it. In this case, it's a clear reference to the many times debunked and ridiculous theory that served as the basis for the entirely fictional Da Vinci Code. There is no doubt that Leonardo was perhaps one of the smartest men who ever lived. There is no need to find inner meanings in his works to appreciate his genius. (personal pet peeve: Saying "Da Vinci" is like refering to Elliot as "From England". It's not a surname, it states only the place he lived as a child) |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2007 10:50:59 GMT
(I was kidding about MacBeth. I prefer Hamlet, which is pretty surprising as I had to study it at school, but I've actually read most of Shakespeare's plays at one time or other)
Hec is right about hidden meanings in things, IMO. It's always possible to find them if you go looking, whether they are there or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jul 31, 2007 23:05:41 GMT
"It can be true;" it is in this guy's eyes and those of the ones clinging to the hypothesis. And it doesn't need to have been intentionally made by Leo to be so.
A lot of wasted passion, there, IMO...
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Aug 1, 2007 3:06:09 GMT
u mean it's like when i thought that girl was smiling at me, she actually didn't? u guys sure spoil a lot of things in life for me. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Aug 3, 2007 7:02:14 GMT
If you take the number of people in the superimposed Last Supper, you get 26. Then if you substract both Jesuses and the number of times it was superimposed, you get 23!!!! Oh my gosh, 23! Obviously there's a hidden meaning here! Lets dig deeper. We take the name Leonardo Da Vinci. There are 15 letters in his name. Then, if you add again the number of letters in his actual name (just Leonardo), which is 8, you get 23 again! Ohnoes! Then, if you take just Da Vinci, it has 7 letters. Then you add the number of times it has been superimposed, and you get 8. You multiply that by the amout of times the number of diciples are multiplied if the image is superimposed, which gives you 16. 1+6 is 7, which when you add to 16 gives you 23!!  Anyhow, I wanna see the movie The Number 23. I should go rent it.  Killerzzz |
|
mobbie
Chaosite
Lalala
Posts: 906
|
Post by mobbie on Aug 4, 2007 1:25:37 GMT
Killerzzz Owning! 'nuff said |
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Aug 4, 2007 4:30:10 GMT
Killerzzz Owning! 'nuff said I know, I'm like, a theological/mathematical genious or something, eh? Secrets of the univers, look out! ;D (jk) Thankee, amigo. A conversation Leonardo had in his later years (I swear its tru, I went back in time myself to check it out -- seriously) François I: Yo, Leo, whazzaaa? Leonardo: Hey, Frankie, 'sapn'n homes? François I: Man, whats that? Leonardo: What this? Its my new work. I call it the "Mona Lisa". François I: Man, I can, like, see deep into your soul and emotions in this painting. Like, the portrayal of the male and female halfs of the person, both representing the halves of your personality is absolutely stunning. Leonardo: ... Dude, its just some chick I made out with in the street yesterday. François I: The different elevations of land behind Mona Lisa indicate the superiority of the female half over the male half. Amazing. Leonardo: Different elev... Aw f**k! I screwed up the freaking background! Well, I'm too damn lazy to redo it. What did you say my hidden meaning was again? True story. Really!  Killerzzz |
|
mobbie
Chaosite
Lalala
Posts: 906
|
Post by mobbie on Aug 4, 2007 20:41:03 GMT
Believe ya killerzzz, i mean, you´re like, old, so you gatta know |
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Aug 5, 2007 10:14:49 GMT
ROFL Killerzzz, you sure know how to make us laugh ;D For all we know, this could have happened like you said ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Aug 5, 2007 19:50:11 GMT
It was asked of a painter why, since he made such beautiful figures, which were but dead things, his children were so ugly; to which the painter replied that he made his pictures by day, and his children by night.
This joke has been attributed to Leonardo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Aug 5, 2007 21:15:44 GMT
Oh Cleg, you've sure been missed around here! Great joke!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Aug 16, 2007 11:30:26 GMT
|
|
