A new theory that Leonardo’s “Last Supper” might hide within it a depiction of Christ blessing the bread and wine has triggered so much interest that Web sites connected to the picture have crashed. The famous fresco is already the focus of mythical speculation after author Dan Brown based his “The Da Vinci Code” book around the painting, arguing in the novel that Jesus married his follower, Mary Magdelene, and fathered a child. Now Slavisa Pesci, an information technologist and amateur scholar, says superimposing the “Last Supper” with its mirror-image throws up another picture containing a figure who looks like a Templar knight and another holding a small baby. “I came across it by accident, from some of the details you can infer that we are not talking about chance but about a precise calculation,” Pesci told journalists when he unveiled the theory earlier this week. In the superimposed version, a figure on Christ’s left appears to be cradling a baby in its arms, Pesci said, but he made no suggestion this could be Christ’s child.

View: Full Article | Source: MSNBC

what the hell are you doing?
get the picture of this site before it crashes!
weird anyway that this religion is based on lies

I think Christ may well have had this relationship with Mary Magdalen, cause i wonder why all this 'evidence' is comming up to the surface now. Anyhow, i dont know why it such a big thing that Christ was married and had a child, that wouldnt have meant he couldnt be a great man, or even miracolous man. God gave us the sacrament of marriage after all, why Christ couldn't be in love too and have a family?

What, I don't understand. A mirror image? what, do you put one on top of the other??? :S

I read the full article, and I have some problems/questions with it. Where could the knight come from if it wasn't in the original picture? Mirror image means that it the same picture just reversed so there would have to be a knight, mother holding a baby, etc in the original, and there isn't. Couldn't find the picture to see it but I've got my curiosity peeked. Hope it isn't someone trying to sell something by making it up!!! Would be cool to discover another layer in Leo's masterpiece.

if jesus existed , and if he was a good jewish boy , he would have been married and had kids. He followed tradition.

More lies!

Just curious, anyone have the link to the actual picture?

I've been reading a few posts on this and seen a few pics ( I couldn't find anything). But I have a question. This guy states that when you superimpose a mirror image over the original, there's something on the left and something else on the right, etc. Well, wouldn't it stand to reason that if you superimpose a mirror image of anything onto the same original image, that it would come out completely symetrical? That way everything on the left would be the exact same on the right (but flipped). We should be seeing two people holding babies, etc.....

Posted on the other thread discussing this.......

Are you trying to convince the catholic priest and all Christian monks that being celibate is not because Christ was never married?

And, no god did not give us the sacrament of marriage, all he gave us is "do not commit adultery", the sacrament was made by religious leaders.

Overkill anyone??

Do you really believe that Leonardo Da Vinci would decide "oh well lets reverse the image and superimpose it and then I'll paint it to make sure something appears!" (just for the challenge of it!)

I go back to the acticle with the flames if you think you see something in flames then it is probably your imagination working overtime. Give me some conclusive evidence not some wierd theory. Maybe if we take the painting off the wall completely we will find the easter bunny painted...

I actually believe DaVinci would do something like that... he was notoriously fascinated with mirror images and that's well documented by his own hand. He wrote all his journals in mirror. He was also fascinated by optics and optical illusions.

Do I think he painted the Last Supper to purposely create a secret message? Naw, I don't. It's just a coincidence or a trick of the mind seeing something there that really isn't. Although, someone posted in another thread here an inverted version of the reversal, and I have to say, the "baby" is actually more clear. But I still don't buy it.

How do you figure that? Not that I disagree....just seems a pretty broad statement.

It isn't a weird theory at all.

actually it is common for artists to hide messages in their work one way or another. As a painter I myself have done so using lead white under paint layers as an experiment. ( subliminal messages ect ......) although I only did it once and did get an emotional effect from some viewers that I didn't expect.

so yes , especially knowing how intelligent and creative Da Vinci was , that it isn't unconceivable he did so.

In all the picture we have looked at here i havent seen anything that looks like a templar knight holding a baby.

Swaddling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Swaddling is an age-old practice of wrapping infants snugly in swaddling cloths, blankets or similar cloth so that movement of the limbs is tightly restricted. Swaddling bands were often used to further restrict the infant. It was commonly believed that this was essential for the infants to get a proper posture. source



Think of a small full body wrapped mummy with just the head exposed, often with the head covered with a blanket and only the face or part of the face exposed.

Ahhh

I figured this out months ago and it's in Chapter 3 of my book. I even have articles on this site about it!

http://www.itsjustlife.com

http://www.itsjustlife.com/lastsupper.html

and my blog

http://derekbair.blogspot.com

Please check them out. It's so frustrating to have this guy come out with the same thing and get 15million hits when I found the same thing months ago and haven't gotten any recongition! Check it out! I have the same pictures in my book and on my site!

Click to view attachment

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=82383

Thats the link to an article from this very site from:Posted on Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 5:38

"He has his research on his web site http://www.itsjustlife.com and says he will keep it updated with his current research which includes discovering a new way to view the Last Supper with shows that the feminine looknig character is indeed a woman and holding a baby. He insists that this is just a painting and isn't interested in the implications beyond what Da Vinci painted."
Click to view attachment

Please check out my site/blog/book. I've been working so hard on this!

Derek!

http://www.itsjustlife.com
http://derekbair.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/derekbair

Click to view attachment[

As someone who is against religion and thus tends to support anything that stirs folks up, I do have to say *takes a breath* I see no baby. That's not to say that Leo hasn't hidden things in his work, because the guy was certainly clever enough to pull it off, but I just really don't see a baby. I like the way the figures seem to fit in so well when superimposed, so who knows. Might be something there, I just don't see it personally. As Bella-Angelique posted above, I can see how babies back then were often wrapped up so, but I think if Leo went to such effort to hide it away (assuming he did it hoping it would one day be found) then I personally think he'd have made it more obvious upon discovery that it was in fact a baby. Why hide something in the first place if its discovery is still questioned? just my opinion of course

And itsjustlife, I'm checking out your sites now. From what I've seen so far it's really interesting, great stuff - I can't imagine how frustrated you must feel

hello everyone, im new here. i've been reading the post and i had to post my findings. check this out guys...this site has really good HIGH DEFINITION images showing the hidden figures.
www.thelastsuppertheory.com