It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who says Da Vinci knew?!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:10 AM
(I have no idea where this thread goes...
It's not really about the book... It's about Da Vinci and the crazy theories...)

So I finally had some time to read Dan Brown's Da Vinci code. Now I understand what all the hype is/was about. Still I was a bit disappointed. There was not a single "new" theory or conspiracy Dan Brown presented to the reader. I've heard all the theories/legends/conspiracies before. Dan Brown only collected all of them, interweaved them with each other and presented it in an interesting roller coaster ride story. I'll give him that.

Yes most of it all is based on "facts" (although some facts are nothing more than conspiracies) but it's no more than assumptions. The big problem I have with it all - not so much the fictional story - but with the people who believe it to be true. And with all other "Holy Grail" treasure hunters. They all assume that Leonardo Da Vinci knew the answer. They see all these amazing secrets in Da Vinci's works and assume it to be 100% fact.

I've studied Da Vinci's works and history and I'm a HUGE fan of Da Vinci to say the least. To say that he was a master in everything would be an outrageous understatement. And what made him even more interesting is his pranks, jokes and strange sense of humour. Dan Brown made some appalling false statements about Da Vinci as if they were facts. I'll spend some time on that some other day...

The point is that everyone is reading these "secret codes" in Da Vinci's work. Although Da Vinci was without a genius with incredible insight, who said he was right? Da Vinci knew he was a clever man, and thought himself to be right about everything and everyone else was wrong. He was self-centred to say the least. His art is "littered" with his own personal agendas and personal jokes.

Everyone takes Da Vinci's "Last Supper" of an actual illustration of the Last Supper. So he painted a person who might or might not be Mary Magdalena. So he didn't paint any "cups" so there can't be an actual "Holy Grail" (i.e. a cup Jesus drank out of and shared wine with His apostles with...). Just because Da Vinci didn't paint one doesn't mean squad. He didn't feel it important for the scene. Da Vinci lived over a 1,000 years after the actual event. What did he know about it? His artistic interpretation. His personal agenda against the Church. There is little reason to believe that anything Da Vinci painted was real. He painted dragons yet no one believes him to have known actual dragons.

Sure there are many secrets and hidden meanings in Da Vinci's works, but personally I believe they all come down to Leonardo's personal opinion, politics, propaganda and silly jokes.

Dan Brown spoiled Da Vinci for me. I'm sure he meant it all as plain fiction, but everyone who jumped on the bandwagon just made it worse.

Show me a single fact that Da Vinci was ever member of any secret society - it doesn't even have to be the Priory of Sion. A single fact that Da Vinci knew anything about the Holy Grail... It's all bollocks, I say.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:06 AM
IMO, the whole line of studying Da Vinci's (or any of the other artists who's work is mentioned in this theory) is a bit of red herring, or a largely insignificant, if enjoyable, side-line to the matter at hand.

Have you read 'The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail', which in part inspired the Da Vinci Code?

It, itself can get bogged down in grail romance stories and artwork at times, but without the fiction as a wrapping and hardly any mention at all of Da Vinci's work.

According to the book, and their sources, Da Vinci was one of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion, one of many, not particularly singled out as a specifically important one throughout the ages.

I think Dan Brown simply read the book and weaved a murder mystery around the theme of the book, taking Da Vinci's work as a plot device for the book because it is a famous, iconic body of work, and many pieces are part of popular culture and known to all/most people - So it's kind of a hook to get people into the book - Clever marketing technique.

I've come to the working conclusion that the research and concentration on the Holy Grail theory of a Jesus/Magdalene bloodline is really only part of the story - a brief summary of my opinion is in this thread.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 06:48 AM
Dan Brown is a ..... annoying person. The books he writes are stupid, some codes are too simple (like in the one about the NSA code breaking people, forgot it's name). My RE teacher told my class that even if Jesus was married, then that's fine because it's normal for Jewish people to marry. This doesn't dismiss the spirituality side of things, Jesus is still able to be the God on earth. Anyway, it's too assuming about certain things.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:40 PM
Da Vinci code redefined

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 08:18 PM
Mashup, please elaborate! I would really like to hear why you have been affected by his books. I have, but in a way that none might expexct

Velvet...I have read both, and to a certain point I agree, although I would like to read more if I can

[edit on 20-5-2006 by irishmen3g]

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:03 AM
I'm not a Dan Brown fan, but I have read Da Vinci Code. I thought it was OK, but don't enjoy his style of writing.

Anyway, one thing that Mr Brown has achieved is to expose a lot of people worldwide to alternative possibilities - i.e. secret histories, mysteries and conspiracies.

It is fiction and he does make mistakes, but overall he has opened many peoples eyes.

With the recent publicity of his plagiarism court case, book sales have increased. Sales of Da Vinci code only went up slightly (probably because everyone has already read it!) but sales of Holy Blood, Holy Grail have increased dramatically, and that is another good thing in my eyes.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:14 AM
I thoroughly enjoyed his style of writing and i couldnt put the book down. I enjoyed using my imagination and visiting the old churches, the mortification, the Albino, i enjoyed it all.

Its only Fiction. I was able to separate facts from reality, and it was a great book!

I doubt if the movie can compare with the book.

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 09:17 PM
I don't think a lot of people understand this one point. Da Vinci was a cyphering hobbiest. However, especially by todays standards, they were simple at best. If you can find a copy of Comptons 98 Interactive Encyclopedia, therein is a song written by Da Vinci, in which he uses a simple letter-to-musical-note cypher he invented, to cypher a short letter (which he also wrote.) It may also exist in later versions of Compton's. Check it out. It's really quite pretty.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by Toelint]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:22 PM
I have read the NSA book, Digital Fortress and Deception Point. Both of which were somewhat disapointing reads. I could pretty much guess what was coming next. An I agree the code at the end of Digital fortress was pretty simple yet a room full of genuises take forever to figure it out.

However, I do appreciate the fact that Dan Brown opens up a world of conspiracy to folks who are not exposed to such things. ONe time I came home and was talking to my parents about the illuminati and what not, and they actually knew what I was talking about due to Brown's books.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:38 PM
but deeply annoying thing about Mr Brown in my opinion. In the book about the Vatican (again cant remember the name) he suggests a vatican guard takes a cell phone and to test it presses a button to get a dial tone. How can anyone with even a cursuary knowledge of 20/21st century tech get a dial tone on a cell phone? That one small lack of research turned me totally off Dan Brown as a credibile author - its a very minor point but to me just threw the writers credibility totally out the window. I do know the books are fiction - but pleeeese

posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 06:25 PM
Both of these two hombres, built encryptions, for the express purpose of defeating the excerable Inquisitioners, of the Catholic Church. To do this, they both defined blind spots, or Scotomas, and proceeded to capitalize on them.
Da Vinci is a real treat, using mirror writing in his codexes, self protrait (Mona Lisa), and probably the last supper artwork too.
With the proviso that any dyslectic would never make it out of the Scriptorium of a local abby, which was a prerequisite, to becoming an Inquisitor, da Vinci put something together that befuddled everyone until, I believe, circa 1920.
Normal folks, and that means inquisitors too, need a mirror to see into these puzzles. I believe, that there is a variety of dyslectic, who would automatically put individual figures, per the disputed Magdalene image, on the reverse side, of the central pivotal figure, but rest assurred, any dyslexia expressed by a guest, would have raised a red flagl PDQ, and Leonardo would have taken immediate action to isolate these folks from his encrypted work.
The credo is that Father Abbot, upon seeing a noviciate monk, copying a parchment backwards, would boot the young man, straight back to the swinefold, from whence he probable originated, anyways. Ergo, no dyslectic inquisitors!
Those scriptoriums were so rigid, that a drop of ink, on an original, would be faithfully copied, 400yrs. later, even though it was an obvious slip-up, to begin with.
Please recall, that Leonardo kept the Mona Lisa, close at hand, for most of his remaining days. There must be something in it that trips up dyslectics, as well as being the mirror image(self portrait) with the eyes looking straight back to the painter. To see the real image,(Leonardo, or at least as he fancied himself in the studio mirror), you need to observe this, reflected from a mirror, too.
So simple, such genius!

new topics

top topics


log in