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."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Unbelievable. You clearly haven't got a clue.
Derek Bair said…
Guess not! Too bad I quit my day job
Anonymous said…
well well.. really nice work.. i just wanted to ask why the pictures are mirrored before they are superimposed when you are talking about crossing your eyes to see something? because then you only have to move both sides (sure depends on where your lookin) on top of each other..and not mirror them. nice work again.. greets TK
x_tarek@hotmail.com
Derek Bair said…
There are two ways (at least that i'll get into here) to unlock the hidden images.

One is to cross your eyes within a single image of the painting. You would cross the characters from one side of the table - to the other. The other would be to duplicate the entire painting and place two copies next to each other and combine them by crossing your eyes. Then you can combine the entire painting with itself - not just one part within itself.

Then the same applies but the copied image is mirrored - so you have the painting as it normally is with a copy of it mirrored next to it. Then you would cross it with your eyes and unlock a different set of hidden images.

It's hard to imagine the imagination and design that would go into making a painting capable of this. Especially at wall size, but Da Vinci did spend 4 years on it. It's also evident that he was very versed in mirroring since he wrote mirrored.

Another question that comes up is how anyone could have unlocked the mirrored images without a computer. Da Vinci would have anticipated photography and actually experimented with it via the camera obscura, which I believe he used in the creation of the Mona Lisa and the Shroud of Turin.

Or someone could always paint a duplicate of the Last Supper - then another copy of it but mirrored. OR actually using a real mirror of some kind. OR an optical device of some kind - like glasses that mirrored what you saw.

I also think Da Vinci was able to mirror things in his mind. Think Dyslexia, or at least what most people consider dyslexia to be. Our eyes actually see everything in reverse and upside down and its our minds that re-orient them, so it seems like it would be possible to control this with enough practice.

So basically I think he designed the painting to be "de-coded" with an anticipation for future technology or someone with his visual abilities.

Another thing to consider is that the crossing of the two images might have been designed to be done with the human eye (by crossing them) and we're seeing a slightly distorted image when it's done on a computer at 50% transparency. Our eyes pick and choose what's overlapped. Da Vinci understood the nuances of the human visual system and there is probably a better effect when it's seen naturally. Obviously this is easier said than done though! It's very difficult to control your eyes enough to cross them properly. Try to cross your eyes and then slowly un-cross them at a specific speed and stopping at certain spots. It's very hard and takes a LOT of practice. Most people wouldn't have the patience or time to develop that ability, which accounts for why it's taken so long for someone to notice the effect in Da Vinci's art. It's pretty inconceivable to most.

I mean who would think to cross their eyes while looking at a painting from 500 years ago, let alone mirror it on itself? I grew up looking at stereograms and then eventually started to mess around with photoshop which then led to all of this.

I'm still working on a way to explain it better, so check back soon!
Anonymous said…
I have two points to make:

1. THe Mary from "Virgin of the Rocks" painting is the Virgin Mary ( Jesus's mother) the "mary" from the Last Supper would have to be Jesus's mother for it to be accurate with continuity.

2. In all actuallity the "Mary" in the Last Supper is John the Apostle. Renasance painters often feminized the appearence of men, and John was a victim of that.
Derek Bair said…
2 points too

1. Both "Mary's" don't have to be the exact same person. Mary - Jesus's mom, and Mary- his female disciple are obviously two different people. The point is that they were designed by the same person, in the same way, and happen to be nearly identical in each painting. Why would da Vinci do this, if it's suppose to be a man?

2. He didn't "Feminize" the painting of John, he intentionally made it/her/him to be displayed as a woman. if you look closely at the man to "john's" left, he is pulling back "john's" shirt, pointing to an indentation where his Adams apple should be, and making a kissy face.

For thousands of years people were told Mary was a whore and covered up her true legacy. She had her own gospel and was really Jesus's most trusted and loved disciple. She was suppose to be in charge of his church after he died.

There is no proof of them having a child together, but there is plenty to show she was a lot more than a whore. And, if da Vinci knew this, (Which he obviously did) then it makes sense that he would include her in the painting of Jesus and his disciples, since she was one of them.
Anonymous said…
If you look at a picture of the original, you will notice a really funky looking shadow on the wall to the right of Jesus. When you flip the image and stack them, you see this image repeated on both sides. It creates a two figures on either side of Jesus with skulls for heads, both looking down at him. Then, directly above Jesus' head on the wall, you will see what looks like a sad, downturned face with a crown of thorns. That one is a lot harder to see than the skulls.

I don't know, you probably noticed this if you've been working on it. But I thought I'd point it out just in case.

And do you have any idea what the meaning is for the disembodied hand?

And I think that the "Mary" in the painting did mean Mary Magdelene. It makes sense. He painted this in a way that, by flipping them, you really do see a sort of mother-father-child image. However, I don't agree with it. Da Vinci might have thought Jesus was married with a child, but I think that if he was, it would have been mentioned in the Bible. This was painted by a person that could easily have been mistaken in his beliefs.
Anonymous said…
Check this, it seems there are more hidden images in the paintings of Leonardo LINK
ya...... You are on right track bhaiya (hindi for big bro) . May u be on verge of discovering what many secret societies have tried to hide and great da vinci hid it geniously ...
Anonymous said…
this is actually really cool stuff. theres much more described in the Da Vinci Code by dan brown :) it might be usefull to you

Popular posts from this blog

Velociperception & Ainan Celeste Cawley

Salvator Mundi (The Savior of the world) by Leonardo da Vinci? (Update)

What did Leonardo da Vinci Look like?