Last Supper Hidden Images, Cont.








As I was putting together the visual guide to my book (Which is pretty much done) I obviously wanted to focus on the Last Supper since there are 15 million people out there interested! I explain how I came across the process, and noticed the hidden images. I've always known there were a LOT of things in the Last Supper, but my book was focused on the Mona Lisa. I was going to go back and do a different book on the Last Supper because I knew it would take a lot of work to go through the painting and see the different things inside. When this hit the news (by someone else) the article said Pepsi found a baby and templar knight in the paiting. I had noticed the baby - or at least the bundle the baby "Should" be in months earlier. I never noticed the Templar knight because I didn't know what a templar knight looked like! Like I said there are hundreds of images hidden inside that are made when the painting is crossed on itself. It's like trying to find waldo, but it's not waldo it's some random shit. haha But but this one really stuck out! It's not a templar knight, it's not a baby. It's a Templa knight holding a baby! You can see him looking down at the hand, which is exactly how you hold a baby! You can kinda see a baby in the upper right corner in the other hand that's there that's made out of half of the face of "mary" The Knight has what looks like a skull cap on, and his face looks really old. But it's very clear, at least to me. I'm going to make a drawing of it later.








The most interesting things, to me, about all of this is that the painting is almost completely altered from it's original state. If it was still intact, these images would be a lot more clear. But, it almost seems that this wouldn't be possible after all the restoration. BUT you have to remember that it took literally years and years and they dont just slap new paint on. They get tweezers and try to get it exactly as it was. There are pictures and paintings done of how it used to look. So although a lot of the details might be missing, the main themes would still be there depending on how accurate the restorers were.










BUT. Here is proof that someone, at some point, and for some reason, altered some details that tell a very different story.. One is from a really old book I found and the other is after the restoration. Notice anything about his wrists? This is Jesus we're talking about, the whole crusifiction thing - so it's not a fluke that there would be a hole in his wrist with blood pouring out into a cup! It was at the "Last Supper" that he said something like "This wine is my blood" so this shows Da Vinci taking that literally. Why would they change that? Notice in the newer version that it's been turned into a sleeve instead of blood and the hole covered up (crusifiction wound)


Interesting right? What else has been changed? Da Vinci all but created the idea of proportion in the human body. The Vitruvian Man things i based off of it. So it's obvious that he DIDNT paint "Marys" hands like this. Not only that but they look horrible and not real at all. For her hands to reach to that point on the table and cross they would have to be gorilla like and longer than her whole body. All the other characters are in proportion.. You might also notice that where the arm is suppose to come out of the robe, it's blank - so her hand just appears crossed in front of her without any arms. - That's obviously something that's been altered, but probably not by the restorers but very early on.








This is an early copy of the painting. You can see the hands in the same place, so that means they have been like that for a long time. But how were they originally? Well, notice the green thing that is directly where "mary" is looking down at. That's the "Baby bundle"





This is Mary from the "Virgin on the rocks" superimposed over Mary from the Last Supper. Their faces are almost the same, and have the same expression and are looking in the same direction. When she's superimosed, her arme now seem to be where they are supposed to be. You'll also notice how similar her hand is to the hand of Jesus to the right. There is another hand from the Virgin pointing to where the Baby bundle is. You can see from the early copy of the Last Supper that there used to be something similar in that spot, in green, that's been conveniantly left obscure. If this part was still intact, it would unlock more hidden images - the shapes necessary to combine with the mirroring to make more shapes.




In this one i've exaggerated the hands and neck to show what seems pretty obvious to me. You can see from the early copy, and even now after the restoration that i'm not making this up. It's just a small detain you might not notice until someone points it out. From far back it looks like the guy next to Mary is threatening her with his hand, kinda like a karate chop towards her throat. BUT when you look closer it's a totally different story. He's actually pulling back her top and pointing at an indentation where her ADAMS apple WOULD Be. You can also see he's making a "kissy" face towards her. If you want to say that, that's a man and this is just a weird coincidence, then it's just as controversial. Would you rather Jesus be married, or some of his apostles to be dressing as women? hmm But then again it's just one painting not a photograph! So all of this is conjecture to painted characters, not real ones.


Getting even MORE complicated and metephorical is this image. It's the Last Supper Mirrored on itself and moved to where the windows in the background align. They are used as markers - places where other images are unlocked when you align them in a very specific place. This would have been needed because this was probably designed to be seen with the naked eye and by crossing your eyes, not by 50% tranparency. That also means that one eye would take dominance over the other, and the image would look different and change as the image in the left eye, covered the right and visa versa. But this is still the same thing, but without the added effect created with the eyes themselves.




When the painting is mirrored on itself and the windows aligned, Jesus and Mary are superimposed on each other. You'll notice that they were both wearing red and blue on opposite sides of each other. Now when mirrored this way they align on the same side. Now they make a pyramid like shape, and you'll notice that both of their expressions are similar and they are looking at the very same place - where both the baby bundle now is AND where the blood was coming out of his wrist.... hmmm lets think about that for a little bit.


What is a does blood also represent? - a blood relative. The colors themselves are symbolic of new life. Red and blue are male and female. Green represents new life.



yeah... so that's what I was figuring out as I was putting together my visual guide.. Think what you want, but remember it's just a painting! It's hard to know what really happened 2000 years ago, but I bet you someone, somewhere does. I have a weird feeling that those who tell you that Jesus is making a second coming... have the most to loose by what he'll have to tell us about his life.. and i've always thought out of everyone to have witten something down, JESUS himself would have. Where's that? That I would like to read. Not to mention all the other chapters they left out of the bible.

My fortune cookie last night say: "You are about to make a most valuable discovery."

10 comments

Popular posts from this blog

1.2.1 - Shone

Mohenjo Daro

Nothing's real until you let go completely.