Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Historians discover letters and numbers in Mona Lisa's eyes

page: 4
130
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Smoke 'n mirrors I say!

I cannot for one second accept as truth that after all this time, analysis and investigation - not to mention 'restoration' - of this particular piece of art, they haven't 'discovered' these numbers and letters before. Not only that, but now they want us to believe historians suddenly happened upon them?!

Mankind has since forever shown that it is gullible to a fault when it comes to being presented with 'historical facts'. One can dream up any flight of fancy and deliver it to people with the assurance that it is steeped in history and along with producing a few manufactured items of 'proof' or 'artifacts', you will soon have a growing populace of people believing it to be gospel and 'evangelizing' like crazy.

I don't yet know for what reason this is 'breaking news' now, but you can be sure that it is simply a manufactured prop in a much bigger picture ... as someone else has alluded, perhaps even for as something as simple and insignificant as a movie.

Simple and insignificant?! Ya right ... Movies are one of the master tools in the toolbox of mind controllers and propaganda / disinformation disseminators.

This is simply an attempt to baffle us with the proverbial BS ... Amongst a host of other things, the shroud of Turin springs to mind.

Peace
edit on 13/12/2010 by Psyagra because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The 72 clearly refers to the 72 virgins that are gifted to Muslims upon death. What else would the secret behind the smile be?! He saw Islam as the true religion even back then


This is the most obvious sign that we in the West should convert immediately.

Tongue firmly in cheek



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
After the letter P I'm starting to see other letters distorted like what you see on some web sites to make sure you are a person and not a bot. I would outline them but I have yet to know how people get their images to be viewed here. Big capital P, small s, t t r s t. Above that I see a big U, and another s t. In the middle I see what could be a W.

Or, most of it could be paint cracks or scratches.

Really hard to analyze things from web jpeg files, with possible jpeg artifacts. That is something to keep in mind when you see an ET or flying saucer on Youtube, or a web image, and you don't have the opportunity to see the source.

It could be anything or nothing, or a hoax. Like someone discovering 3 huge new planets on an iPhone photo, highly unlikely it new, or authentic, or even there at all.

That letter P looks type set, and it has a discoloring square around it, like a poor cut-and-paste, in my opinion.

Now that P is talking to me!!!!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


I see the P too. Black and bold. I also see the letter F to the right of it and it's turned on its side. I suppose anyone who didn't see this stuff before probably just wasn't expecting to see any letters or numbers in the painting. I mean who would? The people who found this out got the idea to look for it from some book.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xadaz
The 72 clearly refers to the 72 virgins that are gifted to Muslims upon death. What else would the secret behind the smile be?! He saw Islam as the true religion even back then


This is the most obvious sign that we in the West should convert immediately.

Tongue firmly in cheek


What do you see if you turn 72 upside down? It's the same in each eye. Simply LV (Leonardo da Vinci) saying, "look what I did". Knowing the kind of man he was, it's no surprise that he liked to do things differently and enigmatically. No hidden message. No conspiracy. Moving on.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
what



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I see three possibilities.

1. The historians are wrong and this will unravel after further investigation.

2. Da vinci invented the first microscope, i really wouldn't doubt this because the guy was a once in 100 years genius. One of the people who makes massive leaps on behalf of our species.

3. The painting is a fake, the real one stolen years ago and replaced somehow. The artist of the forgery including the numbers as a bit of a joke.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
As an artist and a big fan of DaVinci in particular, I find this quite intriguing. Unfortunately, if this isn't some kind of hoax, I doubt we're going to find an image online that's detailed enough to show the letters and numbers. As has already been stated, they must be pretty freaking hard to see considering the popularity of the painting. God knows how many artists and scholars have studied the Mona Lisa and still supposedly overlooked these details.

I do think this is particularly exciting because it could have a major impact on our interpretation of DaVinci's work and life. Does he have hidden messages in other paintings? Maybe this is just part of a larger puzzle, or maybe it was common practice for artists in DaVinci's time to hide codes within their works that only other artists would know to look for. I'm still hesitant without seeing the numbers for myself, but it's pretty interesting if it's true.


Originally posted by davespanners
Isn't there also a problem that the Mona Lisa has been restored in the past so the paint on the very surface wouldn't be by De Vinci?

I'm not sure how it works but couldn;t the letters and numbers be from some sort of restoration attempt?



I'll be honest, I don't know everything about painting restoration, but from what I do understand, when a painting is restored, it's very rare, if ever, that new paint is added to the canvass. Oil paintings are finished by putting a clear protective layer of finish or wax over the paint. Over time, this layer can become scratched, damaged, and yellowed.

When a painting is restored, all that's really being replaced is this protective coating. First the old coat is removed, and then a new coat is applied. I can't think of why numbers and letters would be necessary in painting restoration, but maybe in some cases they would be useful. Even if there were a thin layer of new paint added on top of the original, it would be a glaze, which is a very thin transparent layer of paint. Details from the original would still be visible underneath it.

EDIT:

Just an afterthought (I got a little carried away here): As some others have said, it could just be a signature. Most artists sign and date their work, but there's always the trouble of finding the right place to put your signature and how to incorporate it into the work. It seems like making a nearly microscopic signature in the center of your piece would actually be quite clever.
edit on 13-12-2010 by T3hEn1337ened because: Jumped the gun



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
well i guess if you want pics maybe you can fly out to france and get them yourself



reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I guess there might be a little more to the assassins creed series huh?

line 2



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Knowing the outcome of most threads on here it will likely turn out that the numbers are 2012 and Leo predicted the end of the world.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Someone has to get this to Tom Hanks reeeally quickly..


Really though, an awsome find!!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I completely and fully agree with many posts in this thread.
It is not possible for them, in my opinion, NOT to find these before...with all the technology and big hype about this one painting.
They've spent millions trying to decode how Di Vinci made the "perfect" painting....and for them not to find numbers in the eyes?
Hmmmmm.....or maybe I'm just thinking too much here.

But yes, an amazing discovery.
Di Vinci had some links to certain societies...and maybe, it's a message or something to do with them...

Hmmmm....



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by HelionPrime
 


one is mesmerised when gazing at the original peice---not surprising. people are always taking hunches at her expression, the eyes, the mouth...the eyes...



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
What a ridiculous distraction...a real life Da Vinci code for the sheeple to discuss.

Go ahead sheeple and discuss what an amazing discovery this is...like these 'historians' will ever give us the so called "letters and numbers" to decipher ourselves...



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zefflin
What a ridiculous distraction...a real life Da Vinci code for the sheeple to discuss.

Go ahead sheeple and discuss what an amazing discovery this is...like these 'historians' will ever give us the so called "letters and numbers" to decipher ourselves...


Wrong side of the bed this morning?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I've taken a high resolution image and enlarged it x5 with a loss-less / noiseless (almost) enlargement software and truthfully, I'm seeing NO evidence of letters or numbers whatsoever.
The report states a magnifying glass easily shows these inclusions within both eyes, then this enlargement software that I used should easily show them too ... but there's nothing visible except the faint cracks in the paintwork caused by age and natural drying-out and shrinkage of the paint.

Also bear in mind that DaVinci would have had nothing more powerful then a magnifying glass to use himself IF he tried to paint small characters within Mona's eyes.

So I have no idea at all why such a claim is being made


Here's her eyes at normal magnification:



Here's her left eye at x5 magnification:



Here's her right eye at x5 magnification:




Sorry but I have to give this claim a rock-solid
edit on 13/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Well, 5x magnification of a pix-elated copy isn't the same as viewing the original under a microscope.
2nd



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Well, 5x magnification of a pix-elated copy isn't the same as viewing the original under a microscope.
2nd


They used a simple magnifying glass and NOT a microscope.
The original image I used was high resolution and would be good enough to show the presence of small painted characters within the eye structures.

Nothing there .....
edit on 13/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liamoville

Originally posted by Zefflin
What a ridiculous distraction...a real life Da Vinci code for the sheeple to discuss.

Go ahead sheeple and discuss what an amazing discovery this is...like these 'historians' will ever give us the so called "letters and numbers" to decipher ourselves...


Wrong side of the bed this morning?


Actually yes, indeed I did have a rough morning after seeing the Black Keys last night. But that does not change what I said. Because it is what it is, a stinky hoax smelling part of a bigger picture plan, my mind always thinks about this sort of thing but today I was barely on the internet and I come back to all of THIS?!

How could this be just now 'discovered!?' It's laughable to even think about what with the books and movies of the basically exact same thing.

But I won't just sit and vent about what amazing life conclusions I've come to today, I will do you all a favor... I will change this obvious fraudulent bit of info we've received but on a much, MUCH larger scale, and you all will have no choice but to become fans and participate in the inevitable awakening for the betterment of humankind.





new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join