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.


Last Supper, Not Mary, My proof

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:07 AM
Click here again :

Look above the first desciples head, the one to the left. Leonardo Da Vinci is a master painter and he has hidden the holy grail in textures in the wall. You can argue all you like that the figure is a woman, but the holy grail is not her, it's the chalice that is indeed in the painting.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:13 AM
I am pretty sure that it is just the dude's hat.

In all honesty though I didn't even notice that till you pointed it out.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I didn’t have a solid opinion as to the sex of the John figure before I started, I now believe it to be a male because of the work I’ve done.

It is a male!!
They are all male because this is a Rennaisance religiously commissioned piece of art! No girls. There is no way we can tell by body and gender characteristics because they will be male at the core.

Yes, he used models for quite a few things and quite often, however, he did not use them in the same way artists these days use them.

Right. I do understand the ways of DaVinci and his contemporaries. They learned the nude male and then they dressed the nude male with male or female attire according to who they were. Except the Mona Lisa, of course (and perhaps others) which was a commissioned portrait--that was a much more proper situation. But why do you think there was so much rumoring of buggery and what-not back then? Because it was only acceptable for males (mainly) to be the artists and so therefore only men could be models--and when the new anatomical understandings came up, they all strived to make the most perfect rendition of the human body that they could. The Sistine chapel, though, is considered by many the crowning glory of that age in Art---primarily due to the section with 'Adam' but the whole thing was praised as superior and unprecendented.

He did not have 13 people seated at a table for years on end.

duh! But he did have planned and formed models for each one sketched out before he did the frescoe. They had to, because of how quick frescoe must be to get it right.

True, I’ve repositioned the face but I haven’t changed it, the measurements and proportions are still the same as you can see in the diagrams.

#1 why do it in the first place?
#2 how do you know?
You never saw the face that DaVinci painted-only the painting. And you can only see that scene through DaVinci's intended perspective because that is how he created it.

More of what he perhaps meant in these characters is invested in their positions and relationships with one another. That's a big part of this period of art - you know this.

The difference between the male and female face in artistic proportions is quite subtle but very noticeable.

There is no such thing as 'artistic' proportions. Proportions are proportions because they are units of combination. 'Thinner and daintier' is not proportional in description.

1 : 2 and 2 : 3 are proportions. The Vitruvian 'woman' might be shorter in stature, but her measurements will follow the same rules of geometry that the man's will, right?
Or wrong?

When compared side to side the females head is generally smaller but the distances between reference points is generally the same percentage as in the males.

Then right, right?

As for the body there are many more differences.

These subtle differences that you describe after you wrote this are things that could apply to a woman or a very young man--no more than 20 at the most--these types were the only 'women' these guys could paint for the church guys. So

Everything I’ve read has shown DaVinci to be a wise, rational, and deliberate man.

Sure he was. What I said about what I have learned from reading about these guys and the church guys back then doesn't make them anything but what they were--and this includes scientists, too--Galileo just wrote noble and tactful letters, though.

There were many true geniuses in one small area in a small space of time. And they were on the same playing field as the RCC at the very end of the dark ages. These guys helped bring some light to us, too, not just Gutenberg and Luther, et al...

He was compensated quite well for works such as the Last Supper

Where do you get that? They were treated very shabbily by the Vatican.

I don’t believe DaVinci knew any special secrets about the story of Jesus.

Well if it was ever possible that any other mortal could have, and I believe the Apostles did and many many I don't DaVinci certainly could have known some things that only the Holy Spirit could tell a man...did he paint them in his paintings? Not on purpose, I don't think. If he felt anything about God He kept it to himself so we cannot say at all. He did love science and art and as a genius obviously the Spirit was in him but that doesn't mean he knew it and if any manner of things were the case---we would still not know.

If DaVinci painted a female into the last supper than I would think he did it as a joke.

But we'll never know for sure because they are all males! And the clothing is not different than the rest--even Jesus has girlish looking feet in this painting (no one washed his feet, did they?)--so who knows by way of just looking?

A lot of the things you say make sense except you don't seem to understand the ways of the people in Florence and Rome back in circa 1500~that which we do know makes it clear that there is a lot of engima about craft and work of the period.
I thought you said you knew about these things...

[edit on 6/7/2006 by queenannie38]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Faust
Click here again :

Look above the first desciples head, the one to the left. Leonardo Da Vinci is a master painter and he has hidden the holy grail in textures in the wall. You can argue all you like that the figure is a woman, but the holy grail is not her, it's the chalice that is indeed in the painting.

You've posted this once before. When you zoom in on the supposed "holy grail", it is obvious that there is nothing there. It is not even in the shape of a cup. Also, look at the center columns of the walls receding into the background. The coloration and design feature are evident in those as well. There is no grail hidden in the Last Supper. Unless, of course, it is right there on the table.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:40 AM
Queenannie, I believe we're suffering from some form of misunderstanding. I don't understand why you feel the need to debate with me if we both agree that it is in fact a male. Going qoute for qoute is a pain and a waste of time so I'll respond to you in paragraph form instead so forgive me if the chronology of my responses is a bit jumbled.

I agree with you that it was quite scandalous for an artist of Leonardo's time to be using nude female models, but it is preposterous to state that he never once used a nude female model. His notebooks are full of anatomical sketches, he had a medical level knowledge and understanding of the human form. We have a great many sketches that prove that he had disected cadavers, even pregnant ones, to learn the inner workings of the human body. At that time the dissection of human cadavers was frowned upon quite strongly by the church. I'd even venture to say that it was seen as worse than using a nude female as a model. DaVinci knew full well the workings of the female form as well as the male form. To say he never once had a nude female in his studio is preposterous. His was a scientific mind, he brought science into art, he was far more concerned with gaining knowledge than anything else.

Again, the fluidity of the movement in the painting is indicative of the fact that he did not use models. It is impossible to achieve that level of fluidity with the rigidness of a model. DaVinci painted the Last Supper as almost a snapshot, it's mid-movement. It is clear to the viewer what position the figures were in a second before and what position they will be in a second later. You can not achieve this with the use of static models, just look at modern sci-fi novel covers. There is no doubt that he did sketches upon sketches, any artist will tell you it's maddening to achieve the movement and position you truly desire. He probably had the enitre painting finished in his head and his notebooks before he ever put pigment to wall.

If DaVinci had done anything "unexpected" with this painting it was his use of oils and such which was experimental. It allowed much brighter and vivid colors but didn't hold up over time. There is no secret code in this painting, the artist is not trying to tell us anything. He did the painting because he was paid for it, he was paid well for it because he did a beautiful job on it. Your assertion that the "holy spirit" was somehow painting through him is not a very stable argument. We have to view this painting objectively and in the context of the time it was painted and who painted it. We can not transpose modern thinking and theories onto somthing done in the 1400s. If DaVinci had stated that the spirit painted through him he may have been in as much trouble as if he had painted a woman into the scene.

As for my statements about "artistic proportions" I refer to the idealized "perfect" form. I'm sure we've all seen the drawing he did of the perfectly proportioned man placed inside the circle. This is what I mean by "artistic proportions". It is true that in reality the male and female forms are rather close, however in reality there is an infinite number of variations on any part of the human body, that can be seen by going outside and looking at the people around you. A painting is an idealized version of reality, certain things must be changed or the entire painting will look wrong. Art is a very subtle science, a subtle change in the curve of one line will change the entire picture. When refering to idealized artistic proportions the female form is quite different from the males. The main technique for achieving proper proportion is to use about the same sized head (in length at least) for both male and female forms. The body is then created using the head as a reference which gives us the differences in male and female bodies.

More of what he perhaps meant in these characters is invested in their positions and relationships with one another. That's a big part of this period of art - you know this.

Yes, I do know this and this is exactly what I stated before when I said symbolism was so important to these painters. The gesture, positions, movements, and placement of the apostles in the painting is what is important if you wish to dissect the painting. The focus of the painting is clearly Jesus himself, as his eyes are on the horizon line and his face is the vanishing point for all the perspective lines. Everything in the painting points to Jesus, he may as well have painted a giant arrow pointing to Jesus. If he had in fact paitned a female into the scene and wanted us to see it she would've been pointed to in some form. The reason the figure of John is placed leaning away from Jesus is to help frame the figure of Jesus and set him apart from the rest of the apostles.

You seem so sure that this is some great mystery surrounding this painting but there really is none, if you know how to read a painting from this era it is clear as day. The only mysteries DaVinci was concerned with were those of the natural world, of light and shade, mass and proportions, aerodynamics and the like. Science was his great mystery, not alternative theories about the story of Jesus. I don't understand why you feel the need to debate with me at every turn. We both agree that it is a male, that it is John, not Mary in the painting. If you don't like my technique or my experiment or my findings then that is a personal issue I suppose. If you agree with the final outcome, that of me deciding it is a male, then what does it matter how I got there? This is but one peice of art out of hundreds done by DaVinci, if there were some great mystery surrounding this painting there would be further artistic evidence, we would have sketches of him revising the figure of John because it looked far too feminin. This whole thread is saying nothing of the possibility of Jesus having been married, I for one do believe he was but because of other evidence. However, I don't think DaVinci thought this way nor do I think he told us he did in this painting. His technique and style are characterized by smooth subtle tones, soft light, soft flesh, and fluid movement, things we equate with the feminin in our modern thinking.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:41 AM
(continued from the above post because I actually ran out of room lol)

If today we feel John appears to be a woman it is based off our skewed and biased modern knowledge, we are transposing our modern thinking onto a painting that was made in a different visual language. Personally i don't much feel like debating this one peice of evidence with you anymore, I'd rather get back to work on the rest of the painting. This is only one peice of a very complex painting and I believe that when shown in conjunction with the rest of my evidence it will become quite clear that there is nothing mysterious about the figure of the apostle John. I've shown my work and my evidence and if you choose to believe I have made errors than that is your right and we will have to agree to disagree. I for one have not seen any evidence to show that DaVinci painted Mary into the Last Supper or that there are any other mysteries surrounding this painting.

I have given plenty of evidence in my explainations that it is John and not Mary even if I were to have excluded the work I did on the painting. Why are you so determined to belive that there is some mystery surrounding this painting? All of us on ATS love a good conspiracy, we all love mysteries, but the DaVinci code was just a book and not even a very good one at that. I can understand how fans of the book feel, can you imagine how bad I wish Star Trek was real? The fact remains that it is a male, it is the Apostle John and the it was painted in accordance with the wishes of the commisioners and the story laid down in the Bible. There is a lot of enigma surrounding the craft and work of that period because most everything people did back then was a lifetime endeavor. They couldn't google their way into knowledge like we can now. DaVinci's "secrets" of his paintings were only secret because the vast majority of people both then and now have little understanding of the complexities and science behind artwork, especially artwork of this period. It's impossible to try and explain to a mechanic how the human form has no concave lines, or to explain to even a first year art student what is wrong with their anatomy. Art is far far more complex than it has ever been given credit for and many people are simply unable to understand it. DaVinci wrote to an audience that was familiar with his technique and style, reading his notebooks is easy if you already have the prerequisite knowledge. Trying to dissect a painting with little knowledge of art is akin to trying to dissect relativity or string theory with little or no knowledge of physics.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by decidedlyundecided
So here we have my submission as an answer to the Mary theory of the Last Supper, in my "expert" opinion it is in fact a young male.

Interesting analysis of the face. Now try it on the boobs.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:26 PM
Now to respond to everyone else lol. Thank you all for your interest in my thread, I'll respond chronologically:

Well first off let me say that you did do a wonderful job doing the reconstruction. But having said that I must point out that you cannot prove your theory upon a subject by altering the original document. And how is it that you came to the conclusion that the mouth must be moved?
Mr Mx

Thank you, I'm happy with the final product myself. I suppose my image of the reference lines and such can be rather confusing but in actuality I didn't alter the original very much and I tried to stick to the rules laid down by DaVinci himself, maybe I'm being a bit arrogant but I believe the great master would be rather pleased with my attempt. The mouth had to be moved becasue I was removing the distortion caused by the fact that the figure is facing downwards. If you look at someone who is facing downwards you can see that their nose will eventually overlap their mouth, so in a two dimensional depiction it will appear as if the mouth is placed too close to the nose. Since proper proportions dictate that the mouth is about halfway between the nose and chin it had to be moved to coincide with the new raised position. I hope that makes sense lol.

I would disagree with your half way assertion. I am more inclined towards the divine proprotion. Nose-mouth : Nose - chin, 1: 1.618

I believe i'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Proportions can be subtly changed to change expressions and facial features, DaVinci toyed with proportions quite a bit with his "grotesques" which I love. However, when the head of the apostle John is spun so it is vertical the distortion is plainly visable.

EdenKaia This is the painting, John the Baptist, also by Da Vinci. While this is obviously not the same John portrayed in the Last Supper, you can clearly see how Da Vinci would have depicted young males. The biggest question in my mind is, if Mary was truly the person depicted on the side of Christ, where was the last of the diciples, John? I only count eleven if you exclude this figure.

Yes, I did post in that thread, it was that one and ones like it that inspired me to create this thread, I felt a lot of people were tlaking about a lot of things but there wasn't enough artistic skill and knowledge involved in the discussion. Thank you for posting that image, it's a beautiful painting and very indicative of his style; the subtle use of light and shade, the soft colors of the skin tones, the soft flesh indicative of his young age, the beautifully subtle movement in the picture, the interaction with the viewer, and even the subtle smile he often used and is best known in his Mona Lisa. I think this painting here should prove that Mary is no where to be found in The Last Supper. Your question is a valid one, even if Jesus were married there were still 12 apostles, the painting was comissioned to dedpict Jesus and the 12 apostles at the last supper, if he had painted Mary into the picture he would've still painted 12 apostles which would make 14 people in total in the scene.

I am loving this debate, very interesting indeed!

I'm loving it too, it's like candy for the mind lol

When looking at the proportions of her/his face, you are assuming that her jaw is clenched. That would be the only time that you could really overlay the "law of four's or five's" or whatever your art teacher(s) chose to call it. Yes the human face has a predictable set of proportions under the pretense that the mouth is in it's closed position.

I am only assuming here but, it would appear that our mystery girl/guy is conversing with the person to his/her right. We could guess that his/her jaw may be open if this is true. Even if she is not talking to him, think about this, how much of the time do YOU have your upper and lower teeth together? When I am relaxed I don't think mine ever are.

OR I coulld be totally off and if that's the case I am starting a "Mary has an underbite and here's the proof" thread

The mouth is not clenched but it is closed. If the mouth was clenched tight there would be facial muscles visable due to the strain of clenching the teeth. I don't believe John is speaking with the figure next to him and for this we're going to have to look outside of this painting. In this scene John is supposed to be saddened and in distress over the recent pronouncment of Jesus's imminent demise. The way the figure is painted, although the figure seems rather relaxed and at peace, is symbolic of sadness. The teeth are together and the mouth is closed because it's not a depiction of an actual person but an idealized version of the scene.

Look above the first disciples head, the one to the left. Leonardo Da Vinci is a master painter and he has hidden the holy grail in textures in the wall. You can argue all you like that the figure is a woman, but the holy grail is not her, it's the chalice that is indeed in the painting.

As others have stated, if you zoom into the picture you see that there is no chalice.

Interesting analysis of the face. Now try it on the boobs.

Lol, I'm not sure i see the "boobs" you're talking about

No boobs, no chalice.

I found this link in another thread, it's wonderful, you can zoom in on any part of the original painting, it's what I've been referring to for all my work: Last Supper Zoomify

Edit: to fix quote tags

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Shadowflux]

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux
First, let me clear up the fact the it was I, Shadowflux, who did all the work, Decidedly is my girlfriend and I'm staying at her house right now, I forgot to sign her out and sign me in before I posted.

Secondly, let me say that I believe it is nothing more than people thinking it looks like a female. I assume you guys haven't taken any art classes or studied classical art, even if you have I'll write as if you haven't for those that haven't. DaVinci was an expert in human anatomy, he even states in his journals (which I have) that he endeavors to use models as little as possible and relies heavily on his knowledge.

In artistic anatomy there are rules, mostly geometric relations, for instance there is one eye width between both eyes. There are rules governing the length and size of every part of the human body.

This is not neccesarily a portrayle of a model, though he probably used models for some references.

Stalkingwolf: My basis for this assertion is natural human facial proportions, as you can see in my diagram I mapped out certain reference points on the face of the figure and compared their relation to eachother. The head is obviously tilted down, due to perspective this makes the mouth appear closer to the nose than it should be. As I said before, the mouth should be about halfway between the nose and chin. Since it was not half way between the nose and chin it needed to be changed to remove the downward facing perspective in order to view an undistoreted version of the face.

Craft: I actually had no hypothesis, I'm being impartial here and offering my "expert" opinion. I am a professional artist and graphic designer, this is my field of expertise so I thought I'd lend a hand to the discussion. If I were to have any hypothesis it would be more along the lines of Jesus having married, being the King of Judea as a political title, and the water to wine story being indicative of a wedding. However, I don't think DaVinci painted John as a female. I simply followed the rules of anatomy, perspective, and proportion to reach the final picture shown.

My theory in regard to DaVinci is that he was far more interested in science and the world around him than he was in mysticism, religion, or heretical conspiracies. The reason why he painted so many religious paintings is because of the time he lived in and because of who was paying him. Leonardo himself would tell you the same. He says in his journals "...there is a difference between work you get paid a lot for and work you get paid little for.." I'm paraphrasing of course lol

Hello! I am also a graphic designer and an artist. I dont consider myself an "expert" at anything however I do know a bit about da Vinci. In every one of his paintings, the gender of the subject isn't even a question. He is very careful to portray the subject accurately. I dont agree with your view on the painting or how you came to the conclusion to manipulate it in the way you did. Every painting of da Vinci which portrays a male, there is always some defining feature to show this; i.e. facial hair, chiseled face, very defined muscles. One could use your logic and manipulation of the picture you represented above for any picture to prove a point. I have a pic of Mary that I would like to post here but am not sure how.. Can someone point me in the right direction. Similar as the head is pointed down and slightly distorted. Using you logic, one could say this is a pic of a man as well.........which clearly it is not.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:38 PM
While I'm at it I thought I'd point this out, John is not the only apostle depicted without a beard. The beard on the figure to the right may have faded so it only appears that way but the figure on the left clearly has no beard. The features are very very itallian, they remind me of my mother and brother in a lot of ways. If you ask me the figure on the left appears rather feminin as well but once again it's just DaVinci's technique:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:43 PM
Logan, I appreciate your input, I'd love to hear any evidence you have to support the claim that John is a femal.

I believe this is the image you are referring to:

Beautiful work, god I love his stuff. However it is clearly a female and there is no question as to her gender. Notice the differences between her and DaVinci's males in the cheeks, nose, eyes and chin

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:56 PM
Even if John is Mary the Magdalene, does it change anything? it is a long known fact that Da Vinci was opposing christianity.

One man's works can not bring out the christian religion.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Queenannie, I believe we're suffering from some form of misunderstanding. I don't understand why you feel the need to debate with me if we both agree that it is in fact a male.

I'm not debating with you! Just telling you that this is a futile practice.

The idea of this thread was spurred by the DaVinci code, correct? Specifically toward whether or not it is Mary or John that Leonardo painted next to Christ.... Right?
And your input is that because of physical things and appearances you're saying Leonardo intended to paint a John not a Mary, right?

You asked what we thought, right? And I told you what I thought and why so you'd know I wasn't attacking the conclusion you came up with. I do think your method is unsound and that's all I'm trying to say.

I agree with you that it was quite scandalous...

I don't think it was scandalous--I have no opinion. But the social climate of the time was governed by the RCC and they had their own ideas about these things and these are factors you cannot ignore.

I never said Leonardo never had a female model in his studio--how would I know?

And yes, the church frowned just as much on dissecting cadavers as they did about unchaperoned physical display outside the sanctity of marriage.

But cadavers never tell on you--and in those days of oppression don't think that wasn't the deciding factor. What would you rather do? Sketch real nudes or cut up dead bodies?

I'm sure we've all seen the drawing he did of the perfectly proportioned man placed inside the circle.

Vitruvian Man? Certainly.

You seem so sure that this is some great mystery surrounding this painting but there really is none, if you know how to read a painting from this era it is clear as day.

Why do you think that? I could care less who Leonardo decided to paint there--it has no bearing on what my heart tells me, none of which I've shared on this thread. I think it is quite entertaining how lively the discussion is getting about these things, like Dan Brown I also feel that being stirred up is preferable to stagnation because stagnation is death.

But any man's heart is a mystery to another, so certainly I can't deny that. The mystery I spoke of is that of DaVinci's true thoughts and intentions. No one knows. Even by reading everything he ever wrote or was wrote about him we still are not able to guess. To try to guess his mind by what was crafted by that mind is no more promising that pulling an idea out of a hat.

I don't understand why you feel the need to debate with me at every turn.

I'm not debating with you. Maybe you're debating with me? You don't consider what I've said, only feel you must rebut in a hurry. I didn't want to cause any strife, so since you're starting to get offended I'll let it go after this. I don't have to prove anything and I hate to cause offense to someone over words. I tried to convey, you seemed to not understand, but now my attempts to clarify what I meant are becoming an argument. Consider it finished, then, and accept my apologies!

We both agree that it is a male, that it is John, not Mary in the painting.

Wrong. When did I say I thought it was John and not Mary?

All I said is that yes, it is a man. The physical features, which you are using to analyze, are only going to return one answer regardless of the name Leonardo intended to portray. Either a very young man or a very young man.

If you don't like my technique or my experiment or my findings then that is a personal issue I suppose.

I like or dislike nothing about any of this. I'm not criticizing you or your abilities--but I am saying that the approach that you've chosen adds no clarity at all to the core question. And I've stated why--if you were the expert you say, then you'd know that what I'm saying is true. Because certainly I am no expert, not even close. I've studied a bit about these men and their period, because I admire them, and I know what I say is correct according to what we understand of those times, academically.

You asked what we thought, did you not? I told you what I thought and why. But I surely won't press it any more.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by masterp
Even if John is Mary the Magdalene, does it change anything? it is a long known fact that Da Vinci was opposing christianity.

One man's works can not bring out the christian religion.

Can you provide evidence of these "facts"? I would actually love to see it. Reading through his manuscripts, viewing his paintings, and knowing a light history of the man's life, it is easy to see that he was indeed a troubled homosexual man. But he never took a stance on Paganism. It actually seems that he was very careful not to lean too far one way or the other. There is no evidence that he was ever anti-christian in any respect. His paintings are the majority of what we have to go off of, and they all seem to show at least a fond respect for the religion. Granted, most of the works were commissioned, but I would imagine that if Leonardo was so opposed to Christianity, as you say, then it would have manifested itself a little better in his day to day life, paintings, and writings. He died a very Christian death.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:07 PM
What the heck is a 'christian' death and how is it different than what might be called a 'non christian' death?

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:19 PM
This is a really powerful thread. I wish I got onto this thread sooner.

Another aspect to look at in the last supper painting is the fact the painting has been restored. Even the aging that has cracked the painting distorts it's original luster.

Now I myself believe the individual sitting at the right of Jesus was indeed John, but I'm not here to impose my views on anyone. Despite this even a skeptic has to realize that with all the evidence against the Mary theory you'd have to believe that there are only males in the painting. The Da Vinci code is a fictional story with little truths present. It is the imagination that gets the best of us misunderstanding an Italian -style art form. I enjoyed this threads indepth look at the truths behind Da Vinici's Last Supper.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:15 PM
Wow. I come to the opposite conclusion by not altering the images.

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:16 PM
By that do you mean you see a Mary, not a John?

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:15 PM
Dam nyou Mr Peel!, was just about to comment that if you look at most other paintings by DaVinci of John he is shown as very feminine.

It seemed to be the style that Davinci enjoyed. There are several ideas that they are pictures of his lovers, but these, like his motives, cannot be deceiphered from the pictures. It being John could also explain the hand at the throat it a knife like stance, as his head was removed...

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Craft
What it seems like is that you rearranged the face to fit your hypothesis. It still looks like a woman with an more angular face to me though.

Thats what i thought also.. its still looks feminine..

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in