The real face of Jesus

[totalnoob]

Ok Christians, time to throw away those old pretty boy paintings of Jesus.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/is_this_christ_v5CFHmU9RIPuItcWzHfcEM

News flash: Jesus was five-foot-eight, quite swarthy, not blond and looked nothing like James Caviezel or Willem Dafoe.

Jesus was not movie-star handsome, nor even handsome at all. And he certainly didn't have blue eyes.

Behold the "real" face of Jesus.

This startling image was painstakingly "lifted" from the Shroud of Turin and reconstructed by computer for the History Channel special, "The Real Face of Jesus," which airs next week.

How did they do it?

Jesus' real face was "recreated" by taking the encoded information and the blood on the shroud and then transforming it into a 3D image, Ray Downing, president of Studio Macbeth, told The Post.

"We 'lifted' the blood and isolated it [on the computer]," he said, 'so that would sit 'in air' [on a transparent background]."

Since the Shroud of Turin was wrapped around and not simply draped on the body, the blood was transferred to the cloth as it was wound, and therefore did not align with the places on the face from which it originated.

And what about the rest of the brownish image that appears on the cloth?

Popular theory has it that the image was created when body oils oxygenated on the cloth where it touched the body.

Downing disagrees. "That is a hypothesis that no one has ever tried to disprove and it is easily disproved," he says.

He claims that his technique of computer imaging actually uncovered what substance created the image and thus enabled him to see for the first time since The Crucifixion, the actual face of Jesus.

Downing told us, "I will reveal at the end of the show the type of event that must have occurred 2,000 years ago" to create the image on the Shroud.

 

[Siddhartha]

The last I read the Shroud of Turin was produced some time during the middle ages.

 

[Kadarin]

One really glaring assumption in that article is that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake.

 

[totalnoob]

Not according to the wiki journals. Scientist don't question radiocarbon testing, they only question the nature of how the sample was taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

[dawp]

Whether or not the shroud is real, modeling Jesus on the euro look isn't accurate no matter how you look at it. The artists just pulled someone off the streets to sit for them and that happened to be In Europe.

 

[theflyingpig]

Gnomon Workshop: Modeling the Face of Jesus in Maya 2010

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

LOL, the Shroud of Turin is a proven fake. Wow, who are these fools still working with this thing?

 

[Red Dawn]

 

[sandorski]

Standup Philosopher?

 

[Siddhartha]

AFAIK, there is no mention of Jesus's appearance in the Bible. So one can assume that he did not look significantly different from the other people in the region at that time.

 

[heyheybooboo]

LOL @ Mel Brooks




--

 

[DesiPower]

Gnomon Workshop: Modeling the Face of Jesus in Maya 2010

ROFL... Epic

 

[Thump553]

LOL, the Shroud of Turin is a proven fake. Wow, who are these fools still working with this thing?

Please post some links to support this assertion as it's news to me. Last I knew it was unproven one way or the other.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

AFAIK, there is no mention of Jesus's appearance in the Bible. So one can assume that he did not look significantly different from the other people in the region at that time.

"He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." - Isaiah 53:2 (New International Version)

 

[SlitheryDee]

How did they determine the skin tone? I suppose dark skin tone is a logical assumption, but did they have real evidence to suggest melanin content or were they just guessing? If so, I wonder if they filled in any more gaps with "logical assumptions"?

 

[RaiderJ]

Odd, that facial reconstruction doesn't look like a Republican to me. Fake.

 

[nonlnear]

I have always wanted to see Steve Buscemi play Jesus.

 

[Sinsear]

Jesus was black?

 

[alchemize]

Same guy?

 

[CycloWizard]

You mean to tell me that Jesus was a Jew? Who woulda thought...

 

[HumblePie]

You mean to that Yeshua was a real person that actually lived on this planet at some point in time?

 

[MJinZ]

Isn't this a repost? Oh right, I posted this a while ago lol. It was part of the huge wave of Jesus and Christianity threads that were mostly locked.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2056858

 

[MrMatt]

Please post some links to support this assertion as it's news to me. Last I knew it was unproven one way or the other.

The material in the shroud was made in the 12th century. Do the math.

 

[nobodyknows]

LOL!! Who?? Me??

 

[HumblePie]

The material in the shroud was made in the 12th century. Do the math.

Yep. There was a big stink over this several years back.

Basically, after years, they finally let the scientific community cut a small piece of cloth from the outer edge and do some carbon testing. Testing found the cloth to be created in the 12th century. This caused a stir. The original come back was that the piece was from the outer edge so it may have been a piece "grafted" on to the cloth in later years to "repair" it. So when they scientists asked to test a sample in the middle they were originally denied. After years of pressure, they finally got their request and tested a sample with the "stain" of Jesus on it. It turned out to be 12th century.

This is basically why a lot of over religious nut balls I know now don't believe in carbon dating. Claiming it doesn't work and is flawed. The fact is that anything created in the 12 century or later the carbon dating processes is very accurate. Now carbon dating something 40 million years ago versus 800+ years ago is different. There is a little room for error of a few thousand years or so on something 40 million years old. Not so much a margin of error for something 800 years ago old.

Also the further argument was that the "stained" piece was some how contaminated or tested incorrectly. There is a lot of denial about it.

The only reason it is still debated is because people deny the veracity of the scientific tests, and they don't want the scientists to keep testing and proving them wrong even more.