2-6-10 *taken from previous version of my website in response to the criticsm that the faces aligning is coincidental.

One of the reasons for writing my book is to explain something I found. It's something that's innately controversial and almost un-believable. That the worlds greatest work of art by the worlds greatest genius is a painted homosexual love child - more or less. I came to this "theory" in a very specific and guided way. Meaning that I didn't just randomly think - oh the Mona Lisa is Da Vinci's painted daughter with his lover Salai. It was something that took me years to work up to. I started by comparing Da Vinci's self portrait to the Mona Lisa - which align and was discovered by someone else. She said it came to her in a dream.

This is the Mona Lisa (the image to the Left, and Da Vinci's Self portrait - (which was originally facing the right) and has been re-oriented and re-sized to align with the face of the Mona Lisa. You'll see the the middle image- which is the Face of Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa combined - is spot on. M3eaning that each face when superimposed on top of each other - are exactly the same.

I actually finished a whole, really bad book, about the Mona Lisa being Da Vinci as a woman. But for some reason that didn't make sense to me. Then I found that there was another painting that combined with the mona lisa - it was a painting of his lover Salai.

And it made me wonder why? Why would he intend for this to happen? Because, as you can see from the picture above, the face of Mona Lisa and the face of Salai definitely do combine. - Just look at it. Imagine that you were to combine any two faces, either painted or photographed - and the two pictures, when places OVER each other, not only combine and align, but crate a third image - from the two totally different images - looks even more real and animated than either of the combined images - alone.

For me that is pretty undeniable proof that this was his intentional. If the painting of Salai was painted BEFORE the mona lisa, then it would have had to be used as a specific and intricate .. mold I guess you could say to paint the Mona Lisa. The painting of Salai isn't even "officially" credited to being painted by Da Vinci. He only has 17 official paintings that have survived, the painting of Salai (Shown above to the left) isn't on that list. It's only relation to Da Vinci is that its of Salai - his lover of 25 years. I've actually received an email from someone asking to buy this painting for over 100million pounds (hahahaha), with an attached certificate from an art expert saying it was an authentic Da Vinci painting, dated to around 1495 -1900. Yet this hasn't made the news, when numerous other articles of a similar nature have. If a new Da Vinci painting was found, it would be headline news - as it has been, evident in the headline news this year for another "potential" da Vinci painting being "discovered."

The greatest argument against these two paintings combining intentionally is that it's a coincidence. Inferring that Da Vinci painted his portraits in the same pose, and that their faces are the same because he painted all faces the same. Or at least these two (or more.) And I would refute that premise by using Da Vinci's own words and countless examples in his art.

" ...The second essential in painting is appropriate action and due variety in figures, so that the men may not all look like brothers."

The second image is from the "Adoration of the Magi"

(You'll see his face in the lower right hand corner. )

This face is thought to be Da Vinci' himself including himself in his painting. Da Vinci drew faces from every conceivable angle possible.

He didn't draw or paint every face in the same proportion or from the same perspective. If you were to try to get any other of the faces he drew or painted to combine with the Mona Lisa - it wouldn't work. So to say that the reason for these paintings combining almost perfectly is because he used a facial template, that he painted all faces exactly the same is definitely false. My theory, supported by both quotes from his journals and the images i've created, is that he INTENTIONALLY intended for the faces in these paintings to combine. It's not a coincidence or a random thing, it's that he meant for them to do this. Which they obviously do.

In this drawing, which was by Da Vinci, you'll see three faces. Which is accompanied by the quote:

"Truth - the sun.

Falsehood - a mask.



Fire destroys falsehood - that is sophistry - and restores truth, driving out darkness.

Fire may be represented as the destroyer of all sophistry, and as the image and demonstration of truth; because it is light and drives out darkness which conceals all essence or sublet things.


Fire destroys all sophistry - that is deceit- and maintains truth alone - that is, gold. Truth at last cannot be hidden. Dissimulation is of no avail. Dissimulation is to no purpose before so great a judge.

Falsehood puts on a mask. Nothing is hidden under the sun. Fire is to represent truth because it destroys all sophistry and lies; and the mask i for lying and falsehood which conceal truth."

So in refutation to the idea that this happens coincidentally and there was not purpose or intent behind what i've found - I replied with this:

"First I'll start out by clarifying that I don’t take the Mona Lisa to be Da Vinci in drag, or as a woman. It's a painting of a imaginary woman that acts as a basis for other images that act as masks. You'll see three faces in profile. Two of real people, and then one that’s being held up as a mask. (the drawing above) If you were to change your perspective and look at them head on, you would see only one face. If you were to be able to see through them, then all three faces would combine into one composite face - made up of each. One in all, and all in one.

This is the Painting of Salai combined with the Mona Lisa - the two paintings put on top of each other. This image has been enhanced, but the original and unaltered image can be seen here, as well as animations

If you were to say, how could you see through a face or combine two faces into one, or three into one? I would remind you of the images of the Mona Lisa's face and Salai's face, and da vinci's self portrait superimposed over each other.

This could be done by crossing the eyes to make two images into one. Or by mirrors and transparent glass - projections etc. He made examples of this with light coming through a small window and it being projected onto a wall inside. Also evident in the camera obscura

As for the argument that it's coincidental that these faces combine, and it's because he used a similar pose for each character, and their faces are the same because of the phi proportional propensity (haha)

This is the phi proportional propensity of the human face. The image in the center is a computer controlled projection of the perfect face according to phi. Meaning, according to a mathematical proportionate face, this is what a perfect face would look like.

This assumption implies that faces, because all faces are of the same proportion based on our universal facial structure - would be the same when drawn or painted. SO the reason the mona lisa's face,and the face of salai, and da vinci's self portrait align - is because ALL faces align because they are designed based offf of a mathematical principal. Which i'll admit that Da Vinci knew about, and demonstrated in his drawing the vitruvian man. But is about proportion and not perspective or is an explanation for why these faces align. Because, in reality, even if proportional, are not idential. If you were to compare two radically different faces, this would show how the phi phenomena is not always identical, as it is in the images i have combined.

Thats like saying that, if you took two random pictures or painted both of these women in the same pose that their face would align perfectly with one another... - because Da Vinci painted all his portraits the same. BUT even if you took a picture or painted both of these women in the same pose - obviously their faces wouldn't align. Even if you tried really hard to take two pictures in the exact same way, there is NO way you could get their faces to align, unless you photoshopp-ed both, or designed both to do so. It wold have to be intentional for two faces to combine and align perfectly - which is my refutation to that argument. Coincidence??

To explore that further. I would ask you to do the same thing, on accident. Imagine you're a painter or a photographer. You're taking portraits of people who are sitting in the same position each time. Now maybe you decide to do this for convenience, or because you're particularly fond of that pose.

Say you're using two models. You put them both in the same general position and pose. Then after they are both done being photographed or painted, you compare the two portrait to each other. They would be similar because of the pose right?

And you say their faces would be similar because of Phi? But even in the same pose, they could have differently shaped noses, or more widely spaced eyes. Or a slightly different smile. Or a higher hair line. Etc.

So when looking casually at the two you could say they look similar, but are obviously not exactly the same because they are two different people. They could have been facing the camera slightly differently. With their heads turned at a different angle.

All of these images were my attempts to make my friends face align with the mona lisa. I took over 100 pictures with the intention of having her face align with the mona lisa. Not one was successful. I could get her eyes to align, or her mouth, or her nose, but never all together in one picture. For me to get her to align perfectly - as the paining of Salai and the Mona LIsa and St John The Baptist, and Da Vinci's self portrait do. Would require a very specific and difficult process. Meaning that If i wanted to make 4 faces combine perfectly, in the same proportion and from the same perspective, and being in the same pose I would have HAD to try to get them to do this. Even when I TRIED very hard to make another image to align perfectly with the mona lisa, I wasn't able to, even with a model that's very similar to the face in the Mona LIsa. If i would have tried to get my own face, which isn't similar to either the mona lisa or salai, or da vinci's self portrait, it would be impossible. How could i get my face, my nose, my mouth, my eyes to align perfectly with the mona lisa? I couldn't. My nose is a different shape, my eyes are a different shape, I dont have the same hair line, I don't have the same lips. I couldn't make them align perfectly unless I used some creative liberties to purposely make them align. Meaning I would have to alter my face, to align with Mona's face. It would HAVE to be intentional and something I intended to do.

I could ask you to try to do the same. Try to take a picture of yourself in such a way that it would match up and combine perfectly with the Mona Lisa. Do you think that would be easy? Do you think you could accidentally take a picture of yourself that would? Or would you have to try really hard for it to happen? You would have to use the mona lisa as a basis for this picture. And you would be intentionally trying to make them able to combine. I tried to do the same thing myself using my best friend carrie as a model. She looks surprisingly like the Mona Lisa, and her face could possibly be used to demonstrate this. BUT I was TRYING to make her into the Mona Lisa - exactly. I was unsuccessful. I could get her eyes to match up, or her nose, or her mouth individually, but not her face as a whole. It was always off the mark.

Now we'll get to the idea that it's not coincidental and due to using the same pose. We'll say that he's trying to make these images, these two people, as exact as possible. So it's not a coincidence, it's intentional. And if that were true, which I do believe it was, the next question is why? Why would he do that. Go with the possibility that it was his intention for these three images to combine. Why?

That’s what part of my book is about and what I believe I discovered. He has a cryptic quote:

"if liberty is dear to you, may you never discover that my face is love's prison."

His face = His self portrait.

Love's prison = Salai & Mona.

This is a composite image of Da Vinci's Self portrait, The painting of Salai, and the Mona Lisa combined. I think this picture could easily be titled "love's prison"

It's 'liberated' by what I've discovered. Meaning that his love, which he had to keep hidden (cause it was with another man) and locked inside his works of art. His legacy, his "daughter." Hence my books' title :"Discovering Da Vinci's Daughter."

I believe that the Mona Lisa, and Salai, and his self portrait were intentionally created to combine together and display his true legacy - his daughter. But imagined, and painted, and hidden. Waiting to be "born" through, me!!! Or whoever would have eventually figured it out.

In my book I'm going to give much more evidence, besides the images themselves, which I thought would speak for themselves, but apparently they don’t to all.

M on a L is a = Mon Salai (anagram)

And as further evidence, and which deters from the dilemma of the faces aligning because of the same pose. There is another face that aligns, which is not in the same pose. has more of the story. But the painting "John the Baptist" by Da Vinci isn't really of John the Baptist

This is Salai.

This is Da Vinci's painting titled "John The Baptist"

. It's of Salai. Salai was used as the Model for this painting - who's face also aligns with the Mona Lisa.

And if you were to say, which I'm sure some say "He painted all faces the same." They obviously haven't seen the variety in faces and forms of the people in his art and drawings. The reason for the face of John the Baptist combining with the Mona Lisa isn't because he painted faces the same, it's that the models and incentive for each of the four images was for them to combine!

Put more simply, this was all done on purpose to tell this story. To discover and liberate his face/love from it's painted prison. He designed all of this, the titles, the images, as clues for someone to piece together. And each clue taken separately could be considered coincidental, but when they are combined together. To me, works and is the answer.

Could I be wrong? Of course! I'm trying to find the truth, not to support my theory. But I don’t believe that it's MY theory. I believe it's Da Vinci's deliberate and complicated plan. Like a riddle, or an intricate game. If you were to doubt that Da Vinci was incapable of something like this, would be doubting someone who's considered to be the smartest person out of everyone who's ever lived. If the greatest genius of alll time were to create a puzzle, you could be sure that it WOULD be complicated. As completely and opposite examples, the "Zodiac killer" wrote a note in code that no-one can yet de-code, and he's avoided capture. Or the Rongorongo written language from the Easter Islands.

"Rongorongo (pronounced /ˈrɒŋɡoʊˈrɒŋɡoʊ/ in English, [ˈɾoŋoˈɾoŋo] in Rapa Nui) is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. It cannot be read despite numerous attempts at decipherment. Although some calendrical and what might prove to be genealogical information has been identified, not even these glyphs can actually be read. If rongorongo does prove to be writing, it could be one of as few as three or four independent inventions of writing in human history"

So you could just imagine that someone who was much more intelligent and universally literate, in both Italian and French as Da Vinci was - combined with his giftedly genius mind, could devise a complicated and seemingly indecipherable riddle/ code. Which, like the Rongorongo glyphs that seem to be un-readable, were written by someone who COULD read them. So if you were to think of all thats been stated above to be some type of mystery, as the un translatable writing of Easter Island, as someone who's just become fluent in that previously un comparable language. I am the translator, the person who just so happened to come across and decipher the Rosetta stone of Da Vinci.

I think, because of his sexuality. This is kinda like a haha, I fooled you. The most famous work of art in the anti-homosexual world, ends up being a gay love story.

And as much as I would like to think - what a waste of time, love sucks. I realize that I'm still a little jaded and bitter about love, BUT when I'm in love's good graces, It seems to be the perfect picture to paint. Or song to sing, or poem to write, or romantic comedy to film. The majority of art is focused on love, and loss, and revenge, and the human condition.

So maybe, possibly, I'm right. I guess I was looking for enough proof to convince almost anyone, to make it more "factual." But I could have all the evidence in the world, and there would still be some that wouldn't accept it, because they don’t want to. They'll deny it because of it's implications, or absurdity. The greatest genius and work of art in the world can't be gay! Gays are evil. That can't be real, it's too complicated, you're reading too much into something that's not there.

But everything new, that defies convention and what the experts say is isn't, is met with denial. People don’t want to be wrong, or to be proved wrong - especially the "experts". So they'll deny it.

But for others, and the vast majority of people who contact me and comment on my theories are very accepting and encouraging. Which is great! Not because by someone else agreeing makes it true, but because it validates all my hard work.

Comments on my book/ work:

"What does it all mean, I don't know yet, but that made me decide to contact you who may really be the best Da Vinci expert in this age if not the reincarnated Da Vinci himself" - Teemu

"..your book really fascinated me a lot (as the topic was very different and new for me)...Well i have started reading your book and i am liking your research...." Deepika Mehta

"I find your work to be outstanding. I too think that you are just dangling on the precipice of a greater discovery." - Mark


2008-10-20 23:14:46

I had the same theory some time back. When I saw Salai as the Baptist portrait I was instantly convinced that this is Mona Lisa. Now the "Mon Salai" theory has given me some hopes. Keep up the good work.


2006-12-27 04:16:51

That's just...odd. Also interesting, fascinating, and probably true.


2007-10-26 09:48:14

You are doing great work. when i thought i could so'lve' the mystery i never thought it might be this, but u bet me to findin a good the'ory so well done and congrats. i think you're on the right track and if you keep it up you will certainly figuire out the mystary.

well done

Woody82: Nov 15 2006, 07:31 PM "Very interesting read, and a good theroy probably try to get a hold of his book when and if it gets released. But been looking over his website took a while to read all the steps but combining Da Vinci and The Mona Lisa combine to near perfect and that of sali? combines with that of the Mona lisa.

Really good theroy and i recomend anyone reading over the website it's well worth it brings it into more light. "

mfrmboy: Nov 16 2006, 12:37 PM "Your web site is very a very good read ! I hope to see more from you in the future ! I think you are on the right track ! Will be looking for your book ! "

Carrieola Nov 17 2006, 03:23 AM "This it truly, truly intriguing" "Online

"I dig his work a lot... If we don't 'know' what we don't see, then how can we 'know' that we don't see it? If we don't open up to the possibility of 'new vision'.I tip my hat to him and he inspires me to look again also..."

1 comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

What did Leonardo da Vinci Look like?

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