I'd like to introduce you guys to the research of Peter Merlin Cane. He has discovered that the master of painting marked up their work with names, deeds and notations, hidden amongst the brushstrokes. It's sort of like "magic eye" when you see it as peter says, with your foveal vision. The hidden clues tell tales of rape, murder, sexual abuse and vendetta.
Reading the blog has been as intriguing and exciting to be as when I first found HoiPolloi's Vicsim Report. I tried to find out more about the author and why I found no evidence that his work was even being discussed anywhere.
I finally stumbled upon his scathing paragraphs about how his work was received. Instead of being embraced by the art world, Peter Cane has been rejected and ridiculed by just about every academic art history source. He is a highly acclaimed law professor and was basically to f-off by the art history cronies. It reminded me so much of how people react to Simon and the research on this site.
Like "September Clues", "Masterpieces of Deception" is a complete retelling of the tale that jars so much with what we have been told. The evidence is right smack in plain sight.
If you love art history and conspiracy, you will be fascinated and charmed by this charismatic author. Thanks to him, I can see the writing for myself just like we can spot those fake terror imagery in a heartbeat.
Here is the main blog where you will find written entries and videos: https://petermerlincane.wordpress.com/
"...be prepared for a roller coaster ride, because this is the gateway to a new reality, one that is at once intense, shocking, passionate, horrific, endearing, terrifying, amusing, and utterly unlike the world you thought you were living in. It reveals what truly cast those shadows on the wall that we all mistook for reality." -Peter Cane
Here is my favorite entry (where he skewers the art historians who have denounced him):https://petermerlincane.wordpress.com/2 ... at-a-hoot/
"One might expect a dedicated scholar to say ‘If that’s true, it’s really important, because xyz… let’s look at the evidence!’, and then as the full significance sank in, to add ‘and if it’s confirmed, then what else might this source tell us?!’ But no. What happened instead was a cacophony of whooping, screeching and hooting… Let me quote, because as a scientist I recorded it all: ‘nonsense!’, ‘preposterous!’, ‘pure hogwash!’, ‘far-fetched!, ‘rubbish!’, ‘ludicrous!’, and that immortal expression, so demeaning to an essential part of the human body, ‘what a load of bollocks!’. Did they look at the evidence? No. They didn’t need to. It defied and undermined the existing creed, threatened their whole way of doing things, and worst of all sent shudders through the whole social order… and for that reason alone it must be wrong. They used the same reasoning the Pope used for not looking through Galileo’s telescope: dogma forbade it from being true." -Peter Cane
(Simon I imagine you can relate to the above description!!)