Unbelievable

[sscotty727]

Scientists are hoping to exhume the body of Leonardo Da Vinci to determine if his Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait.

[Come on, you want to disturb the poor man's remains for something as stupid as this??]

.....

Scholars have suggested that Da Vinci's presumed homosexuality motivated him to paint himself as a woman.

[One again, closed minded people portraying a man who dresses as a woman as homosexual. I personally home they refuse to allow them to do this.]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1003696/mona-lisa-could-be-da-vinci-in-drag-scientists

[Histiletto]

It sounds like the scientists have already assumed the results and just want confirmation of their analysis. Let them do their grand-standing and declare their findings. Great people have probably had to go through harder things then this. By the way, he died and as a scientist he might want to help them speculate from the spirit world. That is if you can or do believe in the continuum of life.

[Dr. Shoe]

What a load of bunkum. he wasn't gay, he was a transvestite, most of the world's cleverest men are. <<<< Case in point! lol

[iggy_ze]

I seem to recall that there was a recent suggestion that he may also be the face on the Turin shroud. Possibly from an early and forgotten form of photography. Good old Leo! Ian

[tightsnheels]

Ok there are a bunch of scientists that don't know anything out there. Let's start with A) he died 419 years ago they did not have embalming back then. Now those two points made there is no way they could confirm anything as there could not possibly be any flesh left, even his skeleton and presumable his casket would be disintegrated or at the very least be very fragile by now.

I say leave the genius cross-dresser lie in piece and get on with more important science.

T&H

[Dr. Shoe]

Ok there are a bunch of scientists that don't know anything out there. Let's start with A) he died 419 years ago they did not have embalming back then. Now those two points made there is no way they could confirm anything as there could not possibly be any flesh left, even his skeleton and presumable his casket would be disintegrated or at the very least be very fragile by now.

I say leave the genius cross-dresser lie in piece and get on with more important science.

T&H

So how did the ancient egyptians preserve their mummies?

There have been neolithic remains dug up that look as if they'd been in the ground 50 years. In fact a few years ago some workmen dug up a skull which caused the police to start a murder hunt until they realised that they'd stumbled across a saxon burial.

[marhil711]

What a load of bunkum. he wasn't gay, he was a transvestite, most of the world's cleverest men are.

<<<< Case in point! lol

Ok there are a bunch of scientists that don't know anything out there. Let's start with A) he died 419 years ago they did not have embalming back then. Now those two points made there is no way they could confirm anything as there could not possibly be any flesh left, even his skeleton and presumable his casket would be disintegrated or at the very least be very fragile by now.

I say leave the genius cross-dresser lie in piece and get on with more important science.

T&H

If the skull is fragile or not largely depends on the burial place. In well aerated soil it's true and even the bones will desintegrate quickly. In non aerated soil or in complete absence of oxygen like in a swamp or in absence of humidity like in a crypt even the skin will last.

Anyway, it's amazing what modern autopsy methods can do. I've seen on TV how they have reconstructed a human face with only a bare skull. And that was not on CSI, it was on a German science report.

So if they should find his skull it's well possible to reconstruct the face and even morphing it into female.

But in my opinion, let him rest in peace and let's enjoy his work unspoiled. We don't need to know that.

[jmc]

There's a fundamental problem with reconstructions -- it is extremely difficult to separate the mind-set of the reconstructor from the results. Meaning the persons doing the reconstruction can bias the results to fit their preconceived notions. I would bet that you could take almost anybody's skull and construct either a masculine or feminine face to fit it. People come in all shapes and sizes, some of them are guys and some of them are gals. It is crucial that a reconstruction be performed by an un-biased person or a group. That is clearly not the case here as this bunch has already stated what they want to find. It is likely that they will find it but its validity will be debatable. As far as the Egyptian mummies -- one crucial aspect was the lack of moisture. The bodies were basically dehydrated, easily attainable in a desert climate. Dehydration prevents bacteria from decomposing the remains.

[sscotty727]

I saw a program on the history channel lastnight where they try to reconstruct various famous people's faces based on their death mask so they can show what they looked like alive. Atleast in that case they were using a death mask vs a dug up skull. In this case, they are wanting to do it to somehow prove he was a cross dresser therefore he was gay. This assumes several things (incorrectly in my idea) 1. If he did cross dress for the painting, it doesn't mean he cross dressed otherwise. He could have just done it for the painting. He might not even cross dressed. A good artist can paint a person from memory. 2. Even if he was a cross dresser, the jump from cross dresser to gay is a jump many people here face incorrectly. As is pointed out, most cross dressers are heterosexual, not homosexual. 3. If he was even a gay cross dresser, so what? Maybe in his time that would have been a scandal, but in today's supposid forward thinking world, why is this even an issue? The part the really upsets me is they want to dig up a poor man's remains and do a reconstruction (which was pointed out is bias because they already know how they want it to look) for the sole purpose of proving he was a cross dresser and gay. He there were trying to solve a crime then fine, but this does not sound like a good reason to disturb his remains. If they gain approval and do this, I hope they fail misserably.

[marhil711]

There's a fundamental problem with reconstructions -- it is extremely difficult to separate the mind-set of the reconstructor from the results. Meaning the persons doing the reconstruction can bias the results to fit their preconceived notions. I would bet that you could take almost anybody's skull and construct either a masculine or feminine face to fit it. People come in all shapes and sizes, some of them are guys and some of them are gals.

It is crucial that a reconstruction be performed by an un-biased person or a group. That is clearly not the case here as this bunch has already stated what they want to find. It is likely that they will find it but its validity will be debatable.

As far as the Egyptian mummies -- one crucial aspect was the lack of moisture. The bodies were basically dehydrated, easily attainable in a desert climate. Dehydration prevents bacteria from decomposing the remains.

That's perfectly true, only a totaly unbiased reconstruction will give a true result.

There are some fundamental differences between a male and a female skull. I'm in no way a physician, but I have read some articles on FFS.

For example, on a male skull the bone underneath the eyebrows is thickend, the jaw is more square-cut with a prominent chin and the forehead is angulated, while on a female skull the forehead is almost rectangular, the jaw is rounded and the cheeks are more prominent. So to a professional it should be quite obvious if a skull is male or female.

You are also right about the Egyptian mummies. After removing the inner organs the next step of mummification was drying the corpse with caustic soda. That would remove all moisture completely. Also it will desinfect the whole corpse, so any natural decomposition will stop immediately.

[Dr. Shoe]

You are also right about the Egyptian mummies. After removing the inner organs the next step of mummification was drying the corpse with caustic soda. That would remove all moisture completely. Also it will desinfect the whole corpse, so any natural decomposition will stop immediately.

...all of which was known and available to 16th century Italians...

Moreover, the Crusaders often embalmed noblemen who fell in battle so they could be buried at home.

[Histiletto]

I understand some of the historical significance of crossdressing was dealt with very harshly and with stiff penalties, from the lessening of their status to even exiling them into slavery depending on the whims of those offended. The act of CDing wasn't just concerned with the dressing as the opposite sex, it also included trying to pass as a person of a higher class than what was considered their station in the caste system. The studying and researching of history and its people has brought out many things that have been lost to our way of life. However, we have to be concerned that our biases aren't reflected in the evaluations and findings. To go into a project with certain objectives may be the motivators, but the results can only be seen as theory, until there are no exceptions after, sometimes, eras of reviewing. Even then it should be considered as proven theory based on the present knowledge. Which actually brings me to the reason of this post. Why can't people acknowledge that individuals, no matter their sexual organ assignments, have their own personality which contains all the gender traits and they share the same senses and desires in varying degrees. DaVinci may have been gay or he CD'd, so what! His life and thinking was so far ahead of the period he lived in, and we have the opportunity to admire in awe and review what he has left. Historical reviews of great people may find their thinking or habits may defy the standard social attitudes of their time, but their claim to the social notariety has made them fodder for historical paparazzi. J. Edgar Hoover, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) chief director, who was known to be relentless and overstepped the right to personal privacy for many U.S. citizens in his fight against crime, was reported to be a CDer after his life had ended. This report made J. Hoover to appear perverted, because of our social attitude, but the FBI was a powerful organization under his leadership and it brought fear to all those who lived as if the laws of the land didn't pertain to them. Society's standards need to be revamped to properly explain, define, and acknowledge who people really are. I truly believe the labeling of people as homosexual is because society's incorrect depiction of humanity, which has been fuel by biased and self-serving attitudes that continues to recycle or refuel mainstream thinking. Due to society's incorrectness, people have been left to live their understanding of the truth with public ridicule and condemnation. If society had even tried to understand their perception, we could have gotten rid of many of our segregate attitudes toward people who seem to be different. This is from a guy who loves and adores the companionship of women and only wants to continue a monogamous and an intimate relationship with the lovilest one of all. The idea of having more than a friendship with any guy is very repulsive, disgusting, and it hasn't been nor will it ever be me. However, I want to encourage and continue the fight to bring truth back into our inaccurate social standards, so that they reflect the real nature of who people are.