The Da Vinci Code, both the name of the book and now current film needs to be debunked. It is so misleading because Mr. Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code) draws attention away from the facts that are noteworthy.

The Templers, Mary Magdallen, and the Masons, come back into view every so often, just like pyramid schemes The "facts"???? alluded to by Mr. Brown are only conjecture at best, and taken from a host of other books whose authors were careful to present their thesis in a prudent manor. Mr. Brown's Da Vinci Code was not careful at all.

What then is the Da Vinci Code? Was Leonardo da Vinci in receipt of the dark secrets he was supposed to reveal in his paintings? Certainly the Templers had been disbanded by the time of Leonardo's lifetime, and information about them in Italy would have been scarce; except if revealed by the Church itself, a highly doubtful thought.

It is true Leonardo moved to France for the last part of his life, and lived with the Royal family there. The earlier paintings were completed during his Florence period, and this was known for his open relations with young men, and formal accusations of homosexuality, not Templar and Church secrets. Could this be the Da Vinci Code Mr. Brown forgot to mention?

There are some real facts that a careful author, and not just a sensationalist, would have taken into account. Leonardo was a bastard and resented his mother for never having been married to his father. Leonardo was born and died a bastard. He despised the normal married family. At 14 he left the family household altogether to become an apprentice to the famous Verrocchio.

Leonardo worked with other great artists in that studio, many of which were also gay, Botticelli amongst them. Then on April 8, 1476 Leonardo and the others in the studio were formally charged with being homosexual; then a great offense. He was barely acquitted, but not without great pressure from very influential people.

Leonardo founded his own studio, but it was not an easy-going affair. As part of the code Mr. Brown alludes to (and taken from responsible books), the Last Supper has many clues to the code in question. The person seated next to him is a woman (supposedly Mary Magdalene), but Jesus is having nothing to do with her. In fact, you can name a painting the Last Supper, but is it? Doubtful, as the last supper was a Jewish Feast of Passover, and there are no typical Passover symbols on the table.

Moreover, also mentioned in the code was the Mona Lisa. Few people realize that the painting was much larger, with two columns (one to each side of the subject) having been removed, perhaps Masonic symbols, but the Masons had not been founded yet. As Leonardo took this painting with him to France when he immigrated, it was supposed it was out of his love for the subject. The painting was sold to the King almost immediately.

One has to go back to the long-standing "fact"???? that the Mona Lisa was a man in drag, and the smile a hint of the joke to the viewer.

The above facts are not used by Mr. Brown, as they do not fit the Templar / Masonic conspiracy theory. One would not be surprised, perhaps, to discover Mr. Brown himself a Mason.

Lastly their main theme of Mr. Brown's critics are saying that were Jesus to be married and have children would cast some dispersion on His Divinity. In fact, a full half of the human race believes that Buddha was divine, and certainly He was married and had a son. That line also goes on today, without much ado.

The Da Vinci Code is clever for sure, but can easily be missed without much trouble, as the theme will re-appear soon. The whole Templar and Jesus concept was brought up by Umberto Eco in his book Foucault's Pendulum, but a great portion of the readers seem to have forgotten it; just as the new victims of Ponzi schemes never remember that last great pyramid to fall.