It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
New York Post


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]."


I heard it has already been determined that the shroud of turin comes from the middle ages and there's also a possibility that it's actually a painting. It could might well be a painting but I won't discount that it also might be something else completely.

I wonder if people see the real Jesus today, will they accept him and trust him. Considering that he will look.. you know.. middle eastern.

edit: fixed picture link

[edit on Mon, 29 Mar 10 by Jazzyguy]




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Regardless what the shroud is, real, fake, a painting, it's still a cool thread.

S&F

As for Christ looking *Mideastern* as you say - lol - wouldn't my mom freak.

I read once Christ had olive skin and hair like a sheep. For me? I've always thought the classic paintings of Christ are just too nancy-boy for me (blue eyes and blond and all that) so in my case I'm sure I'll appreciate his *real* looks a lot.



peace



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 



Jesus was five-foot-eight


I remember reading somewhere that the image was in fact quite taller than that. And by some degree.

This is the nearest I can find:


The height of the frontal body image from (311, 1224) to (311, 2256) is 1032 pixels, that is 1032*1.985 mm = 2.05 m. (We certainly cannot conclude that this is the height of the Man of the Shroud as this measurement does not take into account many other factors.) The empty space from (320,1132) to (320,1224) gives 18.3 cm. The back body image from (320,81) to (320,1132) gives 2.09 m. Actually, all these endpoints are disputable: the contour of the image is not very clear, in particular near the feet.


people.bridgewater.edu...

2.05metres is around 6ft seven inches.

Eleven inches in the difference is quite a reduction.

How can there be such a discrepancy? As the external quote mentions, there are several factors that can affect this, as in the feet, but by so much?

And if that is the case, then how much of the available information residing in the shroud is reliable?

Edit to add:

Using this site:

people.bridgewater.edu...

it is dificult to make him five eight. It's not impossible if you discount his feet alltogether, however...




[edit on 29-3-2010 by Beamish]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
That's it?!

A angled profile? WTF. If it's a 3D image, why not show different angels




[edit on 29-3-2010 by 911stinks]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Naw, that's all rubbish.

I heard he was actually 14 feet tall, had a bionic eye and a spatula for a hand, had a lion's mane and could summon small animals by whistling through his nose...



Nevertheless, the idea of making a 3d image of the guy from the shroud is...well, dodgy at best. I used to have an old friend who was an anthropologist and he laughed at all those re-created faces from skulls, where people would use putty or clay to "retrieve" the original look. He said there was more subjective interpretation than science going on.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
IS it just me or does he look like Osama bin Laden?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I look forward to scientists recreating the faces of Santa and the Easter Bunny next!



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
New York Post


I wonder if people see the real Jesus today, will they accept him and trust him. Considering that he will look.. you know.. middle eastern.

edit: fixed picture link

[edit on Mon, 29 Mar 10 by Jazzyguy]


That will be a MAJOR TEST FOR THE MASSESS OF EARTH, I am cool with whatever image he comes in with this time even if he looks like his HEAVENLY SELF!!! READY FOR WAR. I assume his TRUE FOLLOWERS WILL SENSE HIM AND KNOW ITS HIM NO MATTER HOW HE LOOKS, good point.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I fully realise that this may be slightly off-topic, but it is relevant to the subject.

Another source says:


We do not know whether he was tall or short. The image on the Shroud of Turin (believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus) is of a man variously estimated to be 5' 11½" to 6' 2" tall. Jews who lived in the 1st century CE were much shorter than this. Writer William Harwood comments: "According to a medieval writer, [the Jewish historian] Josephus described Jesus as an old-looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows and approximately 135 cm (4ft 6 in.) tall." 2 This is based on the standard 46 cm. long regular cubit -- an ancient unit of distance. Using the 53 cm. special cubit, Jesus' height would have been about 156 cm (5ft 1in.).


So he could have been quite short, too.

And further more, if Jesus was tall:


Harwood also makes the point that if Jesus were really 6 feet high, his height would have been so remarkable that he would certainly have been described as a very tall person by the writers of the Christian Scriptures.


www.religioustolerance.org...

Also, you can check out further, albeit speculative contemporary accounts, here:

www.jesuspolice.com...

where he is variously described as;


and he, turning about, appeared as a man of small stature


And


a man of simply appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Of course christians would be upset if jesus weren't white, because they are narrow-minded enough in the first place to believe in silly fairy tales, so they'd be upset at any suggestion that their messiah isn't what their small minds hoped for.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by john124]


You want to talk about narrow-minded, the same could be said about you, Science has not been able prove or disapprove God. You are perhaps the most ignorant man (next to the White Separatist and Black Militants who think Jesus is white or Black)

Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers.

All kinds of people to bad things in the name of there "God", but Jesus does not condone this type of behavior nor will he tolerate it... The fact that you cant see pass the tip of your own nose is actually quite scary. There are millions of things out there we cant explain yet, should they be labeled a fairy tale? No, the shouldnt... Wont you feel stupid when he returns... Just like plenty of others...

Very nice find OP I always imgained Jesus was brown skinned, due to the fact that he was born in the Middle East.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Yall are all being sarcastic right now, with the Christians think Jesus is white nonsense, arent you? This thread isnt a backwards way to xian bash, now, is it?


Anyway.

No one can recreate what Jesus looked like without Jesus body or remains. This is simply a stunt.

Now recreating a visage from 2000 yr old remains of a man, from the area Jesus lived and died in, would show us what contemporaries of Jesus looked like.

I believe this article from 8 yrs ago is about another what did Jesus look like? type story:

www.popularmechanics.com...

Image from this article is a bit more rounded and less aristocratic looking that the shroud picture:




If you want a really good read about the shroud of turin, I strongly recommend the book,

Turin Shroud, In Whose Image, by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince.

It has been renamed to capitalize on the Davinci craze Dan Brown ushered in. The LP, CP book is from the early nineties.

Shroud Book Link




I always find this a fascinating subject, when people can refrain from the snide Christian bashing, and kindergarten digs about white Jesus.


Interesting video, none the less, OP, thank you for sharing.






[edit on 29-3-2010 by hotbakedtater]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Of course, there is always this version, created back in 2002:




www.popularmechanics.com...

Max von Sydow he wasn't...

Edit to add;

hotbakedtater beat me to it...

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Beamish]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 


How Tall is the Man on the Shroud?


Estimates of the height of the man vary widely. One might think it would be easy to measure but it is not. The primary problem is that no one knows how the body was positioned or how the cloth was draped, if indeed the cloth holds an image from a body. (In reality, this holds true for a photograph or for an artist's interpretation).


Isabel Piczek, artist specializing in human anatomy. 5'11½" - 6'1"
Fanti, Marinelli, Cagnazzo (tibio-femoral indices calculations) 5'8" - 5'9"
Luigi Gedda (sagittal plane of face applied to anthropometric ratio) 6'0"
* Picknett and Prince (simple assumed face ratio) 6'8" - 6'10"
Picknett and Prince (corrected for logical fallacy) 5'9" - 6'1



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Well, all of your examples suggest that he was relatively tall. As your illustration goes on to say:


Jews were not small to start with, judging by the finds in the 1st century cemetery excavated near the wall of the Temple in the sixties


But when it says:


The primary problem is that no one knows how the body was positioned or how the cloth was draped


I have a problem. This may just be me being slow, but isn’t it quite clear how the body is positioned? He isn’t exactly in a fetal position, is he?

As, on the Shroud, his feet are pointing downwards, and it is relatively unclear where the top of his head begins, it is difficult to measure. But this new investigation saying he was five eight seems to pretty much ignore all other findings.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
There's much older, more contemporary, physical descriptions of Jesus that aren't particularly flattering in Josephus' Capture of Jerusalem, writing that still exists in Slavonic works. These appear to be taken from Roman arrest warrants. Basically, Jesus was a very short (3 cubits - less than 5ft), had a hunchback, was balding and had a unibrow. The Acts of John also refer to Jesus as being very small too.

Also, do people really honestly in this day and age still imagine Jesus to look like a European?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 

Well, all of your examples suggest that he was relatively tall. As your illustration goes on to say:

Except according to Fanti, Marinelli, Cagnazzo


I have a problem. This may just be me being slow, but isn’t it quite clear how the body is positioned? He isn’t exactly in a fetal position, is he?

You have to download the pdf in the source. It's very technical. The link is at the very bottom, it ilustrates that the angle of the knee is not straight.


As, on the Shroud, his feet are pointing downwards, and it is relatively unclear where the top of his head begins, it is difficult to measure. But this new investigation saying he was five eight seems to pretty much ignore all other findings.

The five eight is actually the best conclusion.


The study "Computerized anthropometric analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud" by Giulio Fanti, Emanuela Marinelli and Alessandro Cagnazzo is perhaps the most comprehensive and statistically correct analysis.

PDF



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Of course christians would be upset if jesus weren't white, because they are narrow-minded enough in the first place to believe in silly fairy tales, so they'd be upset at any suggestion that their messiah isn't what their small minds hoped for.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by john124]


That is exactly right. The real man was a Black man. A Black man is good enough to steal you car, or rape your wife, but not good enough to be your saviour. I always have to laugh at the very large pictures Christians have hanging proudly in their homes, a real nice looking blond man with blue eyes.

On another thought, some have stated that the image on the shroud is actually Jacques de Molay, head Master of the Templars, supposedly burned at the stake in Paris in 1314. For myself, I have always thought it a fake, and a very good one.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


And the result is....

a fake of a fake.

The Shroud is not some supernatural picture of Jesus. People are clinging to this idea like the UFO idea. It is nonsense.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


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

The Son of God was ugly?


reply to post by Beamish
 

The Son of God was crosseyed??




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join