Templar knight hidden in Leonardo's "Last Supper"!?

What's all the excitement about? I don't see anything remotely interesting about the pics, reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects in images, you guys are reading way too much into it.

Originally posted by humbleh
What's all the excitement about? I don't see anything remotely interesting about the pics, reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects in images, you guys are reading way too much into it.

who are you working for?

i can see the star above Jesus....thats one thing that actually jumped out at me. Its quite clear, the lines are clear enough.
This is such an interesting thread

Not only is there a star but there is a heart,

Can all this be coincidence, I dont think so.

He was known to use mirrors and reverse his writing and such.
Check this out. Watch for the heart to appear.



[edit on 29-7-2007 by earth2]

i kind of see the heart, but the star is more impressive i think because of the lines of the points being so clear.
What was that other painting mentioned in Holy Blood, Holy Grail...something like Et Ego Arcadia??....wasnt that supposed to have hidden stuff too?

I agree some of the stuff we see is because of the decay of the original work, and someone editing the photo with PS or something could give us a different perspective.

Where you all see a pyramid (I can see that too), I happen to see a buddha type shape ... sitting and facing Jesus in a squat ... with that hair design you see in the statues. This would be in the flip only, no re-aligning.

I also see the pentagram, the knight, mary being attacked, the 'shield' on the pillar, and possibly the baby. I can see what one person saw as the alien ... would be on the chest of what looks like the robed ghostly figure behind Jesus.

With his mathematical and artistic genius ... I think anything is possible.

It is odd to me how that one person is pointing straight up ... and whether I see a face or not ... I am not sure.

Originally posted by radioactive_liquid

Originally posted by humbleh
What's all the excitement about? I don't see anything remotely interesting about the pics, reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects in images, you guys are reading way too much into it.

who are you working for?

He has a point though

Originally posted by -0mega-
He has a point though

Not really. He simply asserts that "I don't see anything remotely interesting" and then generalizes by asserting that "reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects". How that pertains to this specific example is lost on me.

If I was to deliberately paint something with an effect that could only be seen via superimposing its mirror over it, would my intent (and effect) disappear because "reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects"? How ludicrous.

I think it has been pointed out in this thread how unlikely to be chance some of the effects are. We've done our home work and refrained from blanket assertions based on no evidence. Can we expect the same from sceptics? At least when I am a sceptic, which I usually am, I give evidence for why I think so.

Originally posted by ru55j

Whilst reading about the Cathedral in the Crest thing that russ was talking about I noticed the centre crest in this image that you posted.

Sorry to mention it, as it is a little OT but does anyone else see the twin towers of the WTC!?

I'll admit that I'm very skeptical about this whole thing, and since it's been suggested that skeptics should provide reasons as to why they are skeptical, I'll oblige.

First, we need to keep in mind that "The Last Supper" hasn't just been restored over time, it's been edited / reworked over time. The original work was done in a medium that doesn't last very well, and various attempts to restore damage have, at times, also made changes to the way some of the characters look. This really (at least to me) makes any 'revelations' based on the image at least questionable.

Second, there's the "I see a pony!" effect. I call it that because if you look at enough random visual information (cloud formations, ink blots or the like), eventually, you'll see a pony. It's human nature to try to impose patterns and order on random data. Take an image, play with it enough, squint your eyes just so, and eventually, you'll see something that isn't there, simply because your brain will create something. Take almost any image of multiple people, and superimpose its mirror, and you'll start to see all sorts of things for a lot of the same reason.

Third, the 'knights' in the composite image don't look very much like Templars, even if you assume that they're knights. They don't seem to be wearing mail, and the distinctive white tunics / surcoats that were Templar icons certainly don't seem to be in evidence, and the even more iconic Templar Cross even less so...or am I missing something?

Fourth, there's *too much* being seen in this image...knights all over the place, stars, hearts, (I'm waiting for shamrocks, moons, and diamonds, to complete the Lucky Charms set!), grails, infants, knives, phantom hands....it makes me wonder exactly what da Vinci was trying to say, since he seems to have said *everything*... or perhaps, he simply painted his version of one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament, and we're all making a lot more of this than the artist intended.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by -0mega-
He has a point though

Not really. He simply asserts that "I don't see anything remotely interesting" and then generalizes by asserting that "reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects". How that pertains to this specific example is lost on me.

It pertains to this specific example because this 'specific example' is exactly the sort of case that he's discussing....it's a case of reverse-mirroring an image, and then seeing all sorts of unusual things in the resulting image, therefore, the observation that 'reverse mirroring can produce all sorts of weird effects' is very pertinent to the discussion at hand.

If I was to deliberately paint something with an effect that could only be seen via superimposing its mirror over it, would my intent (and effect) disappear because "reverse mirroring can produce all kinds of weird effects"? How ludicrous.

I think it has been pointed out in this thread how unlikely to be chance some of the effects are. We've done our home work and refrained from blanket assertions based on no evidence. Can we expect the same from sceptics? At least when I am a sceptic, which I usually am, I give evidence for why I think so.

Actually, you're making a huge 'blanket assertion' based on little or no evidence. It's right there in the first sentence of the paragraph. You're assuming that this 'mirrored and superimposed image' was done on purpose, and with the intent of hiding a message...or messages. As for the odds of some of these effects being chance, those are a bit hard to calculate, but given that the original Last Supper was a fairly symmetric work, it shouldn't be a surprise that certain elements line up with their mirror image, should it?

I might believe that da Vinci hid a religious (or even a humorous) message in a work of art...but when people start finding Buddha, cathedrals, aliens, and the World Trade Center towers hidden in his artwork, I really have trouble believing that what they're seeing is really there.

Just call me a "sceptic"

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I'll admit that I'm very skeptical about this whole thing, and since it's been suggested that skeptics should provide reasons as to why they are skeptical, I'll oblige.

You misunderstood me, I said I tried to provide evidence for why I am skeptical, not just reasoning or conjecture.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
First, we need to keep in mind that "The Last Supper" hasn't just been restored over time, it's been edited / reworked over time. The original work was done in a medium that doesn't last very well, and various attempts to restore damage have, at times, also made changes to the way some of the characters look. This really (at least to me) makes any 'revelations' based on the image at least questionable.

Ahah! Now you're talking my skeptical language. If you were able to provide some documentary evidence of how radically different the Last Supper now looks compared to the original then you'd have a point. Saying that it's been edit/reworked over time and then not showing us how it has been edited is not meaningful to this discussion.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Second, there's the "I see a pony!" effect. I call it that because if you look at enough random visual information (cloud formations, ink blots or the like), eventually, you'll see a pony.

Again that is true, but in relation to what I have posted in this thread it is not applicable. We're not talking about Rorschach Tests heres, I have only discussed the Knight because that is only the effect I am confident looks any where near intentional. As to the validity of the other shapes, I honestly think they are unfounded.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Third, the 'knights' in the composite image don't look very much like Templars, even if you assume that they're knights. They don't seem to be wearing mail, and the distinctive white tunics / surcoats that were Templar icons certainly don't seem to be in evidence, and the even more iconic Templar Cross even less so...or am I missing something?

Yes I do think you are missing something. Have a look at my picture that I posted on the last page and you can clearly see the Knight is wearing a helmet and mail as well as a white cloak.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Fourth, there's *too much* being seen in this image...knights all over the place, stars, hearts, (I'm waiting for shamrocks, moons, and diamonds, to complete the Lucky Charms set!), grails, infants, knives, phantom hands....it makes me wonder exactly what da Vinci was trying to say, since he seems to have said *everything*... or perhaps, he simply painted his version of one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament, and we're all making a lot more of this than the artist intended.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It pertains to this specific example because this 'specific example' is exactly the sort of case that he's discussing....it's a case of reverse-mirroring an image, and then seeing all sorts of unusual things in the resulting image, therefore, the observation that 'reverse mirroring can produce all sorts of weird effects' is very pertinent to the discussion at hand.

I am not talking about hearts or World Trade Centers, I am talking about the figure of a Knight that I have based on looking at points of symmetry to work out whether it was chance or not. Again we're not talking about Rorschach Tests heres, the figure is not a blob, or an outline or a shadow, its a human figure complete with details.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Actually, you're making a huge 'blanket assertion' based on little or no evidence. It's right there in the first sentence of the paragraph. You're assuming that this 'mirrored and superimposed image' was done on purpose, and with the intent of hiding a message...or messages. As for the odds of some of these effects being chance, those are a bit hard to calculate, but given that the original Last Supper was a fairly symmetric work, it shouldn't be a surprise that certain elements line up with their mirror image, should it?

No, infact that was a hypothetical that I intentionally constructed to show that his line of reasoning was flawed. I created an example of an intentionally designed painting with an effect that could only be seen via superimposing a mirrored image over it. Then I said his blanket statement of saying that effects can be seen in all sorts of superimposed paintings therefore they are not intentional was ludicrous because it simply does not allow for the fact that some one might intentionally do so.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I might believe that da Vinci hid a religious (or even a humorous) message in a work of art...but when people start finding Buddha, cathedrals, aliens, and the World Trade Center towers hidden in his artwork, I really have trouble believing that what they're seeing is really there.

I only think the Knight is possibly intentional, the rest sounds like chance or tricks of the mind.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Just call me a "sceptic"

A skeptic provides evidence for why they disbelieve, those who dont provide such evidence and still disbelieve are generally refered to as nay-sayers.

And thanks go to my spell checker for the sceptics.

[edit on 29/7/07 by subz]

As one of the first posters in this thread and referring to the original image that was mirrored on this thread I find it extremely compelling and interesting with symbolism everywhere, I do agree though that it seems in the course of the thread it branched off to cloud watching which does feed skepticism.
DaVinci has always been one of my most curiosity mixed with awe inspiring always ongoing research projects and I do not believe Da Vinci did anything by accident maybe for humor but not by accident. While many argue that it makes no difference since he was not at the last supper he was still much closer in history then we are, had many ties to secret societys, an absolute genius, and one of our most famous forefathers in the conspiracy theory field and we should pay attention to what he has to say. There is much to learn here.

The first image that was mirrored on this thread by an ATS member resonates with me much more so than the other 2, do others feel this as well?

I am intressed in knowing if there are any known technology in Da Vincis era that would alow him to superimpose the painting this way?

Or any sort of theory on how he could have done it.

I find it very hard to believe he just managed to "do it in his mind" ?

Da Vinci: Genius? or pyschic, or spacetime traveller or ET?
His genius is unquestioned.

I believe this is a MOVIE!

The direct overlay reveals much but there is the progression from that to the "centred" Jesus figure which reveals much more.

I have not the software or the ability but I have watched on basic equipment a series of progressions occur as one goes from the plain replication ( which ISN'T symetrical!) to a closer perfect ... one achieves by closing left then right eye which gives the proper Knight images each end of the table... see first page notes of the geometry of his design

By the way it (as one math web site within alludes to) it is meant to be a holographic 3d MOVIE!

Fraction of what I have seen (for starters ....b4 the skeptics rain faeces!)

The starting pyramid with the reptilian figure embedded. Aligator like see the eyes on each side th scales and wearing a helmut
The pyramid itself has it's won eye and fountain

Standing behind in this image is an embedded Da Vinci arms wide but he is standing behind a "flying saucer" space craft

There are images everywhere many already identified. Also the pillar images are the self portrait of Da Vinci!

But someone whith excellent software (better than mine) and skills track the merge of these. Blink left and right ( slide the reversal accross the original and increase and decrease fade....and you see Jesus turn left and right and centre.

It is a message which despite transparent paper is a mathematical work of genius

Starts with Reptilian creatures from a space craft built and pyramid.....

Originally posted by Twixly
I am intressed in knowing if there are any known technology in Da Vincis era that would alow him to superimpose the painting this way?

Or any sort of theory on how he could have done it.

I find it very hard to believe he just managed to "do it in his mind" ?

i answered this question earlier. any semi transparent material (as fully transparant/tracing paper would not have been readily available in those days) would have worked. place one on top of the other and hang it up in the middle of a room - you then can work on both sides of the drawing without resorting to mirrors. very simple

I still say there's nothing interesting about the pics, they're just photoshopped images layered with their mirrors so it's all just cloud-searching because nothing sticks out clearly enough to really have any credibility as having been an intended effect by the artist. I can consult the Oracle of my butt and see prophetic images in my poopy paper, it's still just coincidence if I think I see something compelling .

Nonetheless, there are some great analytical minds here, you guys are downright obsessive about your research. If I ever were to discover something that needed researching, I'd definitely put you guys on the case .

OK, this isn't a hard concept. We're not talking about smudges or blobs that look like dogs with rabbit ears if you squint your eye and look on a Tuesday. I've made a quick example image of you peoples favourite comparison of clouds being mirrored and I've added a random geometric shape mirrored and put them next to the only effect I consider to be probable that its occurance is not accidental.



If you can sit there and compare the cloud and the random shape to the image we are referring to as a 'Knight' please do so! Then at least I can stop wasting my time replying to such close minded persons.

While I had Photoshop fired up I thought I'd show you that mirroring images is not impossible. Since its not impossible, it's at the very least possible that Da Vinci included an advanced version of what I created in 2 minutes in his master piece. To deny the possibility because any one can see shapes and images in clouds is absurd.

This becomes...


this


p.s. Please don't make me create any more Photoshop travesties

[edit on 30/7/07 by subz]