Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Italian scientists to dug up Leonardo bones


behaviour???

Recommended Posts

A group of scientists is seeking permission to open the tomb in which Leonardo da Vinci is believed to lie, in a bid to reconstruct his face and discover whether his masterpiece, the Mona Lisa, is a disguised self-portrait.

Leonardo is laid at Amboise castle, in the Loire valley, where he died in 1519, aged 67.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Thanks

B???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • itsjustlife

    7

  • TheBloom

    4

  • Abramelin

    2

  • the rebirth

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I believe the Vatican in a joint effort with Roman Catholic Church scientists have already dug him up and discovered his true facial feature. Of course it's all been highly suppressed closely guarded secret, but inside sources at great risk managed to leak and publish a photo... click here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

B???

He apparently painted a whole series of the woman, mostly topless. If they dig him up to see if its in his image I'd love to know his cup size lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question isn't whether his face is going to be similar to the Mona Lisa, it's why is his self portrait is able to be superimposed over the Mona Lisa's face - and it aligns perfectly. It's that the angles of both faces are the same, and can be combined with only changing the size and not proportion or having to tweak either images to align. Meaning that if you take Da Vinci's self portrait, and the Mona Lisa and put them over each other the IMAGES are meant to be put together. So it's not that it's his self portrait as a woman, it's that his painting of Mona and his self portrait were created to do this and for a reason.

This would also show how the woman in the painting isn't really Lisa Gherardini. They say it's been proven because they found her tomb and that she really existed. But that doesn't not prove that the woman in the painting is her. How and why would he design her face to align with his? No one knew who the woman in the painting was until one of Da Vinci's biographer said it was "Mona Lisa" before that it had other titles such as "A courtesan in a gauze veil" and "A certain florentine lady" - Why would they call the painting either of those names if it was of Lisa Gherardini?

Mona Lisa

I'm re-writing a book about this and other things I've found in Da Vinci's art. I have a preview on my web site My Site Link to More pictures and explanation

Both of those images also combine with a third, Da Vinci's lover and assistant Salai. The title MONA LISA is an Anagram for MON SALAI (my salai in french) and the painting of Salai also matches up with Da Vinci's self portrait and the Mona Lisa. In my book i explain why he did this, and why he had to keep it so secret.

compare.jpg

My Site

post-39035-12643615678_thumb.jpg

Edited by itsjustlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he found proportions that worked and stuck to them. Though I do understand what he might have had to hide...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he found proportions that worked and stuck to them. Though I do understand what he might have had to hide...

Yeah he did, cause he was gay and could have been burned at the stake for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe leonardo was actually a terrible artist. therefore, he had to use stencils of the human head to draw portraits. silly leo blew his cover though, cause he used the same stencil for all his works! this is why his 'self portrait' and the mona lisa (as well as others) are super-imposable.

*heavy sarcasm intended*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

B???

Would it not be far more interesting if the reconstructed face of Leonardo matched the face on the Turin Shroud??

0,,6701930,00.jpg

innocent.gif

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that nobody here so far has brought up the question of should we be disturbing a corpse just to answer these, in my opinion, inconsequential questions? Regardless of what anyone alive today believes it's safe to say that the person they intend to dig up never intended that his body be disturbed. Keep in mind they don't if it is Leo they will be digging up. A scene from an Arthurian novel comes to mind in which Merlin buries Arthur in secret so he can at least have some peace in death after giving so much to everyone else in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that nobody here so far has brought up the question of should we be disturbing a corpse just to answer these, in my opinion, inconsequential questions? Regardless of what anyone alive today believes it's safe to say that the person they intend to dig up never intended that his body be disturbed. Keep in mind they don't if it is Leo they will be digging up. A scene from an Arthurian novel comes to mind in which Merlin buries Arthur in secret so he can at least have some peace in death after giving so much to everyone else in life.

Reconstructing his face to see if it looks like the mona lisa is just kinda redundant and not worth "disturbing" him. It's not that his face might look like the mona lisa, it's that his self portrait was intended to go over the mona lisa - like a mask. So it's not like it would matter that his face would look like her, but that the images of the two are the same - in the same positions and angles and proportions. He painted the mona lisa while looking in a mirror, to make it look so realistic and photographic. Which is another reason it aligns. But its a lot deeper than just that. The paintings title(s) and other paintings of other people are also apart of the story.

salimonac.jpg

Mon Salai - link

I think it would be worth digging him up to see his skull and dna, since he's considered the greatest genius of all time. That's a lot more appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that nobody here so far has brought up the question of should we be disturbing a corpse just to answer these, in my opinion, inconsequential questions? Regardless of what anyone alive today believes it's safe to say that the person they intend to dig up never intended that his body be disturbed. Keep in mind they don't if it is Leo they will be digging up. A scene from an Arthurian novel comes to mind in which Merlin buries Arthur in secret so he can at least have some peace in death after giving so much to everyone else in life.

Didn't Da Vinci use cadavers for study?

With his history and intelligence, I think he would understand.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I notice that nobody here so far has brought up the question of should we be disturbing a corpse just to answer these, in my opinion, inconsequential questions? Regardless of what anyone alive today believes it's safe to say that the person they intend to dig up never intended that his body be disturbed. Keep in mind they don't if it is Leo they will be digging up. A scene from an Arthurian novel comes to mind in which Merlin buries Arthur in secret so he can at least have some peace in death after giving so much to everyone else in life.

What would archeology be without us digging up old bones and artifacts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an artist, and I don't see why people read so much into artwork sometimes. This is why there is a huge problem with modern art. It's all about the thought process behind the picture. IT ISNT.

It's about the talent involved. NOT what you were thinking when painting it.

I don't see the big deal about Da Vinci. As far as I'm concerned, he could paint. It's certainly not worth desecrating his corpse for!!

Edited by DukeofNoodleness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an artist, and I don't see why people read so much into artwork sometimes. This is why there is a huge problem with modern art. It's all about the thought process behind the picture. IT ISNT.

It's about the talent involved. NOT what you were thinking when painting it.

I don't see the big deal about Da Vinci. As far as I'm concerned, he could paint. It's certainly not worth desecrating his corpse for!!

I agree.....tis scandalous digging up someones corpse just to satisfy the curiosity of a few supposedly intelligent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narcissism is what i think of after reading all those articles about DaVinci,or extremely short on funds and clients.

He can't be the one in all his paintings even in the MonaLisa. there is this painting head to head (profile wise) him and a good looking

young man called Old Head Yong Head, this in my personal study goes under DaVinci and his Grandson.

Thwart and defeat of an aspiration is what it feels like when they claim it was him in all those paintings, what about the model named MonaLisa

a real person that you can detect more of her in so many paintings rather than wanting to detect DaVinci, she is like all models. Muses do that too, artists used muses as models or inspirations. When i look at DaVinci's work in female subjects i see the MonaLia and i see a 10% self attitude from his personality but not to assume its him, all great painters do have that(slight reflection of self), they get lost in their work or efforts. Have any one looked at Angelina Jolie poster as Mriane Pearl!!

This is the nature of that type of work. Art, Show business and Photography. They wear an identy for the sake of the art. This business is old as time, we have so many Mary and the Child paintings from so many artists it is like a 101 material they all done it at least one, even DaVinci had some done, now that doesn't make sense that it was a portrait of him, it was MonaLisa as a model.

Today some do work for photographers posing in historical identies, but they didn't change in real life into the histirical figuer.

From studying Van Gogh copmared to DaVinci both artists have great self influence in their work but it is much easier to detect in Van Gogh, that we dodn't see Starry Night as he seen it,in DaVinci's case he is much harder to detect leaving big chance to assumption.To me if a new discovered portrait is found then it is of that young head man. DaVicni had a family that believed just like he did,it is a family trait, Bruce and Demi may ring a bell.

Edited by columbiavictoria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an artist, and I don't see why people read so much into artwork sometimes. This is why there is a huge problem with modern art. It's all about the thought process behind the picture. IT ISNT.

It's about the talent involved. NOT what you were thinking when painting it.

I don't see the big deal about Da Vinci. As far as I'm concerned, he could paint. It's certainly not worth desecrating his corpse for!!

Da Vinci is considered to be the greatest genius of all time. More than Einstein, Galileo, Shakespeare etc. He designed planes, tanks, buildings, was the first to draw anatomy and devices to breathe underwater before anyone else would for hundreds of years. So he is a very big deal. If you say it's about the talent, then he's pretty much #1 and definitely worthy of all the attention he gets and more.

I would say that real talent comes from the thinking that goes on before creating something AND the something you're creating. You could be realllly talented, but if you dont put that into something - there is no evidence of it besides thinking you're "talented."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narcissism is what i think of after reading all those articles about DaVinci,or extremely short on funds and clients.

He can't be the one in all his paintings even in the MonaLisa. there is this painting head to head (profile wise) him and a good looking

young man called Old Head Yong Head, this in my personal study goes under DaVinci and his Grandson.

Thwart and defeat of an aspiration is what it feels like when they claim it was him in all those paintings, what about the model named MonaLisa

a real person that you can detect more of her in so many paintings rather than wanting to detect DaVinci, she is like all models. Muses do that too, artists used muses as models or inspirations. When i look at DaVinci's work in female subjects i see the MonaLia and i see a 10% self attitude from his personality but not to assume its him, all great painters do have that(slight reflection of self), they get lost in their work or efforts. Have any one looked at Angelina Jolie poster as Mriane Pearl!!

This is the nature of that type of work. Art, Show business and Photography. They wear an identy for the sake of the art. This business is old as time, we have so many Mary and the Child paintings from so many artists it is like a 101 material they all done it at least one, even DaVinci had some done, now that doesn't make sense that it was a portrait of him, it was MonaLisa as a model.

Today some do work for photographers posing in historical identies, but they didn't change in real life into the histirical figuer.

From studying Van Gogh copmared to DaVinci both artists have great self influence in their work but it is much easier to detect in Van Gogh, that we dodn't see Starry Night as he seen it,in DaVinci's case he is much harder to detect leaving big chance to assumption.To me if a new discovered portrait is found then it is of that young head man. DaVicni had a family that believed just like he did,it is a family trait, Bruce and Demi may ring a bell.

90g.jpg

The point is that his self portrait (drawing) combines perfectly with the face of the mona lisa. It's that the works of art are the same - not that it looks like him, because really we dont know much about what he looked like. Which is why they want to dig him up. The real question is why would he design the Mona Lisa to align with is self portrait? And the paintings of Salai, his lover.

Edited by itsjustlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Da Vinci is considered to be the greatest genius of all time. More than Einstein, Galileo, Shakespeare etc. He designed planes, tanks, buildings, was the first to draw anatomy and devices to breathe underwater before anyone else would for hundreds of years. So he is a very big deal. If you say it's about the talent, then he's pretty much #1 and definitely worthy of all the attention he gets and more.

I would say that real talent comes from the thinking that goes on before creating something AND the something you're creating. You could be realllly talented, but if you dont put that into something - there is no evidence of it besides thinking you're "talented."

I didn't say his artwork wasn't good. Nor did I say he wasn't worth the attention. I said this obsession over the mona lisa wasn't worth desecrating his corpse for!

I haven't heard that he is considered to be greater than Einstein, Galileo, Shakespeare etc unless that is your personal opinion. I agree, he was an incredibly smart gentleman, but that doesn't mean there was hidden meaning in all of his paintings.

The last part was exactly my point, it's not just about the thought that goes into a painting that makes it a masterpiece. In my opinion you've got to be able to draw, and yes, he could certainly do that! In reference to me saying it's not about the thought process, I meant in Modern Art. For me, attaching a porcelain toilet to a wall, cramming it with rubbish and calling it 'The Decline of Western Civilisation' does not cut it.

I didn't deny Da Vinci's talent.

I denied that there is some hidden meaning behind Mona Lisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90g.jpg

The point is that his self portrait (drawing) combines perfectly with the face of the mona lisa. It's that the works of art are the same - not that it looks like him, because really we dont know much about what he looked like. Which is why they want to dig him up. The real question is why would he design the Mona Lisa to align with is self portrait? And the paintings of Salai, his lover.

Here's my 2p.

Da Vinci used Salai's features in a few of his paintings ("John the baptist", "Mona Lisa"). It is thought/known that he had a relationship with Salai at some point. It's possible that his love/obsession with her influenced him greatly in his artwork, it's also possible that he fitted his portrait and the Mona Lisa portrait together to 'fuse' them as one, or because he so longingly wanted them to be as one.

It is also possible that he just used the same template for both paintings.

There are a million different reasons but I think some suggestions are utterly ridiculous.

Edited by DukeofNoodleness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my 2p.

Da Vinci used Salai's features in a few of his paintings ("John the baptist", "Mona Lisa"). It is thought/known that he had a relationship with Salai at some point. It's possible that his love/obsession with her influenced him greatly in his artwork, it's also possible that he fitted his portrait and the Mona Lisa portrait together to 'fuse' them as one, or because he so longingly wanted them to be as one.

It is also possible that he just used the same template for both paintings.

There are a million different reasons but I think some suggestions are utterly ridiculous.

Salai was another man and they were together for 25 years. And it is my theory that he used the painting of salai, john the baptist, mona lisa, and his self portrait to all fuse together. And he did this on purpose for the reason you gave. check out http://www.itsjustlife.com/refutation.html for why I dont think it was because he used a similar face as a template.

And putting a toilet on the wall and calling it art.. i'm with you on that one. It's hard to say who's really "the greatest" genius of all time, it's kind of subjective. I didn't state that Da Vinci was, although I do agree that he was. There was a list of the 10 ten geniuses and he was #1, followed by Einstein and Shakespeare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salai was another man and they were together for 25 years. And it is my theory that he used the painting of salai, john the baptist, mona lisa, and his self portrait to all fuse together. And he did this on purpose for the reason you gave. check out http://www.itsjustlife.com/refutation.html for why I dont think it was because he used a similar face as a template.

And putting a toilet on the wall and calling it art.. i'm with you on that one. It's hard to say who's really "the greatest" genius of all time, it's kind of subjective. I didn't state that Da Vinci was, although I do agree that he was. There was a list of the 10 ten geniuses and he was #1, followed by Einstein and Shakespeare.

About Salai. I was in rather a rush with my previous post as I was finishing my lunch break. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.