Mona Lisa and those alleged "hidden codes" - calling HOAX on this one

Just the other day we received news reports that an Italian art-historian named Silvano Vinceti had made an incredible discovery when examining the Mona Lisa painting using a simple magnifying glass.

According to this "expert", he managed to easily find what appeared to be symbols and/or characters hidden within the left and right eye of the painting. As he stated:

To the naked eye the symbols are not visible but with a magnifying glass they can clearly be seen ..."

Now the fact that he claims to have achieved such a stupendous feat using nothing more than a magnifying glass immediately had my BS meter swing full over and hit a solid 100%.
Even more amazing was that in the entire 400+ year period of the paintings existence, with 100's of art experts examining literally every square millimeter of the painting at one time or another, that not one of them had noticed the existence of any kind of hidden addition by DaVinci within the eyes. And yet this guy pulls out his trusty magnifying glass and immediately finds them !

Putting aside my incredulity for a few mins, let's bring in some common sense and try to make sense of this "claim".

I've had the good fortune to visit the Louvre and stand within a couple of meters of the worlds most famous painting .. and truthfully, was quite surprised that the painting was in fact much smaller than I had imagined.
Also, the painting is surrounded by guards and placed behind a clear plexiglass protective screen. Flash photography is prohibited due to the potential degradation/fading of the pigment that may be caused by the intense light flashes.

So the 1st thing that surprised me was that the Louvre custodians even granted permission for him to front up to the painting and whip out his trusty magnifying glass. Of course, this may have actually happened but nowhere has a reason been given for such an examination having taken place. And I would assume that to be allowed to come within touching distance of the Mona Lisa, a damn good reason had better be provided.

The next bit of head scratching is why he even needed to physically examine the painting.
Over the years, the Louvre's own art historians and renovators would have examined every square millimeter of the painting. In the process, I'm certain that very high resolution scans and photographs would have been made. The purpose of this would be to allow the magnification of any part of the painting to determine the degree of degradation and to determine the best method of restoration. In fact, these high resolution images would give much greater detail information than just eye-balling the painting itself.

So as far as I'm concerned, if there was any hidden code or characters anywhere within the painting, then they would have been spotted by someone, sometime, over the hundreds of years that the painting has been under scrutiny by the worlds art experts ... especially if all it took was a magnifying glass !

Now what would it take to "hide" codes within the eyes ? How would DaVinci go about doing this ?

The 1st assumption is that it's a painting and so DaVinci would have in most likelihood have used paint to "write or draw" the codes.
The 2nd assumption is that to make them "invisible" to anyone looking at the painting, the codes or characters would have to be very small. In DaVinci's time, a magnifying glass would have been "state of the art" and the ONLY way that he could see the codes as he was painting them ... yet have them appear very small to the unaided eye.
The 3rd assumption is that the codes would have been painted using a colour that would blend in with the colour of the eye. You certainly wouldn't use a bright colour such as red, yellow, blue, white, etc but something dark such as brown or black ... definitely a colour in that range to help the code blend in.

And finally, you would tend to think that if DaVinci could see these codes with a magnifying glass as he painted them, then it wouldn't be difficult for anyone else to see them with a magnifying glass even with fading of the paint over the centuries. Certainly if Vinceti could spot them now so easily, how much easier would it have been to spot them say, 100 or 200 years ago when the paint was fresher and less faded ?

And yet no one did.
Why ?
Because they don't exist and Vinceti is claiming his "discovery" for some reason known only to himself.

In fact, have any of you even seen these codes ? Has Vinceti publically displayed them ? Or do we have only his word that they even exist ?


Finally, take a look at the following image of the Mona Lisa's eyes.

I'm predicting that there are "hidden codes" in both eyes.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70959dbd5a36.jpg[/atsimg]

Can you see them ? They're right there in plain view ... look very closely.

What ? still can't see them ?

Ok, here ... I'll use my magnifying glass to make them obvious.

Left eye:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5208fa52d3a4.jpg[/atsimg]

Right eye:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f7422d1036c.jpg[/atsimg]

Well, looks like ATS has been around even longer than any of us imagined ! Perhaps DaVinci was ATS member #1

Oh, and for those of you doubting that I "painted" those codes in each eye, I assure you that they definitely are there in the above "unmagnified" image of both eyes and only visible when the eyes are magnified.

reply to post by tauristercus


If it is the "Moan" Lisa, it is indeed a fake.

2nd.

VvV

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by tauristercus

 

If it is the "Moan" Lisa, it is indeed a fake.

2nd.

Thank you for your glorious contribution..

----

I also think it's strange. The only explanation I could offer, if there were indeed symbols/markings/numbers on the eyes of the painting, would be that the inspected painting is a fake, and the real one is elsewhere. This has been stated numerous times in other threads, and it's a pretty common reaction in the public.

However, if it's truly the original Mona Lisa, then I call BS as well. It has to be one of the most popular portraits in the world, and the one most scoured over with magnifying glasses and with better technology. Including specialized cameras and probably microscopes as well, to determine many things, including it's fragility due to aging; as you have stated.

Another explanation, though extremely unlikely due to the security aura around it, is that the guy marked it himself.

Also, a more logical but highly unlikely theory. Maybe one of the canvas backings they use to protect the painting had some sort of serial number or markings on it, and due to exposure, was imposed on the eyes from behind the painting itself. Though, that would be ridiculous I think, considering they wouldn't dare use volatile materials that had ink on them.

Just my offerings, however outlandish. The premise of micro-symbols on the eyes is more so.

reply to post by SyphonX


I tried to make light of this matter, since it is clearly a ridiculous assumption to look for secret code in the painting.

Like you so elequontly stated, even with modern technology and techniques for inspecting paintings, nothing has turned up, so it is highly unlikely that a guy with a MAGNIFYING GLASS, is likely to find a secret code in the painting.

Conspiracy people might argue that the painting has been altered, or that indeed the one hanging in the Louvre, is not the original.

VvV

As I mentioned in my OP, why haven't images of the codes been shown publicly ?

Also, why hasn't there been any follow up articles in the media with additional details ?

Also, why hasn't the Louvre made any kind of official statement confirming this so-called "discovery" ? Not much noise coming seems to be coming from that direction.

Well I've read an article or two from alternative media sites, featuring real experts such as those devoted to Leonardo da Vinci's work entirely, completely dismissing the claims.

My only guess, as to why we haven't heard anything else, is because the original reports were from major media outlets who grasped at the story immediately. Perhaps now they are embarrassed, and don't dare discredit their journalism abilities. Perhaps they literally don't give a **** and only wanted ratings, and hence have no follow-up stories to bogus articles they knowingly created.

I concur. If one looks at bacteria you can see numbers and letters.

reply to post by tauristercus


Many already said this in the other thread...

I said I see them..

A big B in left eye and a big S in the right eye..

What I don't see is the point of another thread on the subject..

reply to post by backinblack


BS?

Secret hidden joke at the "art historian's" find maybe?

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack

 

BS?

Secret hidden joke at the "art historian's" find maybe?

edit on 15/12/10 by Chadwickus because: ##########B##########S##########

haha, star for the edit...
The story stunk from the getgo..I think a new book is due..

Oh come on now people my dear old gran used to sit in her chair and create what she would call masterpieces ( colouring by numbers). What on earth could we learn from a possible hidden code to which would probably be part decphered.

First off, let me say that through the centuries, there have been many amazing feats performed by artists - some considered to be "impossible" by today's standards. It is true, as well, that various artists, daVinci among them, did indeed put "secret codes" into their work. And yes, it is indeed possible that even after 400+ years, some have yet to be discovered. I'm even willing to go so far as to say that maybe, yes, even a simple magnifying glass could find them, if one knew what one was looking for. My problem is a.) no "proof", so to speak, has been offered and b.) the Louvre is renowned for its security, particularly in regards to that particular painting. So they just let this guy come in and whip out his trusty glass? I too smell book, film and possibly History Channel exclusive special deal in the offing.

As always, I blame Dan Brown.

maybe your right we will never know unless we actually get to look at the thing

Apparently Silvano Vinceti used neither magnifying glass nor microscope to examine the Mona Lisa but instead studied high-definition scanned images of the painting from Luminere Technology of Paris. This opens up the possibility of him not even studying an image of the Mona Lisa but rather one of the many Yves Chaudron forgeries commissioned by Eduardo de Valfierno in the early part of the last century. Microscopic numbers and letters found within those images could very well be identifying marks placed there to help tell them apart them from the original, the whereabouts of which have been suspect ever since Vincenzo Peruggia waltzed out the front doors of the Louvre with the Mona Lisa under his smock on August 21st 1911.

I don't know if it's just a coincidence or more than that, but Leonardo has been put into a game storyline called Assassins Creed.

The number 72 was very important in the newest game of the series Assassins Creed Brotherhood. And it is suggested in that game that Da Vinci is the one who designs places to gaurd these artifacts of importance that the storyline of the game is based around.

Now, I just completed the game after XMas but had already heard about the #'s and letters supposedly in her eyes. So when I got to certain points in the game I was in complete amazement because 72 was the number being claimed to be found in her eyes. What's even more interesting is in Assassins Creed 2 you look at the renaissance paintings and try to find clues in the pictures, that in the end lead you to this video called the truth.

I call hoax as well! I bet you can find hidden code in the wood grain of your trim, floor, maybe the old tree in the back yard.