Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#1  Postby DoctorE » Mar 27, 2010 12:45 pm

bs,bs,bs,bs


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.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/t ... z0jNeUV6KM


Continues with PIC : http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/t ... ItcWzHfcEM
User avatar
DoctorE
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11067
Age: 60
Male

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#2  Postby chairman bill » Mar 27, 2010 12:57 pm

Oh FFS! It's been shown to be a fake, therefore it can't be the face of this semi-mythical character. Whoah! Unless this is a miracle, and the truth is only apparent to believers. All you have to do is believe & you'll know it's truly the image of Jeebus. Halle-bleedin'-lujah, praise Dog!
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28182
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#3  Postby twistor59 » Mar 27, 2010 1:08 pm

Jesus ?
Oh, he looks a bit like Chuck Norris with long hair.
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#4  Postby chairman bill » Mar 27, 2010 1:15 pm

twistor59 wrote:Jesus ?
Oh, he looks a bit like Chuck Norris with long hair.

Well that's proof! Can't argue with that.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28182
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#5  Postby theidiot » Mar 27, 2010 1:31 pm

chairman bill wrote:Oh FFS! It's been shown to be a fake, therefore it can't be the face of this semi-mythical character. Whoah! Unless this is a miracle, and the truth is only apparent to believers. All you have to do is believe & you'll know it's truly the image of Jeebus. Halle-bleedin'-lujah, praise Dog!


Really? It has? I've never really been interested in the Shroud? But can you present this argument and the evidence in support of it, that the shroud has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fake?

Reading about the shroud on the wikipedia page, there is various pieces of evidence to argue the contrary, enough to say that it's rather difficult to argue that "it's been shown to be fake". There seems to be a quite reasonable argument that it wasn't, at least this is what I in my limited knowledge of it can garner from the wikipedia article, about the various ways the shroud was analyzed for it's authenticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
theidiot
 
Posts: 783

Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#6  Postby aspire1670 » Mar 27, 2010 1:38 pm

theidiot wrote:
chairman bill wrote:Oh FFS! It's been shown to be a fake, therefore it can't be the face of this semi-mythical character. Whoah! Unless this is a miracle, and the truth is only apparent to believers. All you have to do is believe & you'll know it's truly the image of Jeebus. Halle-bleedin'-lujah, praise Dog!


Really? It has? I've never really been interested in the Shroud? But can you present this argument and the evidence in support of it, that the shroud has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fake?

Reading about the shroud on the wikipedia page, there is various pieces of evidence to argue the contrary, enough to say that it's rather difficult to argue that "it's been shown to be fake". There seems to be a quite reasonable argument that it wasn't, at least this is what I in my limited knowledge of it can garner from the wikipedia article, about the various ways the shroud was analyzed for it's authenticity.

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


The shroud was debunked to death on the old RD Forum. But wait, what is this........
Image
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 70
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#7  Postby theidiot » Mar 27, 2010 1:53 pm

aspire1670 wrote:

The shroud was debunked to death on the old RD Forum. But wait, what is this........


Well, I'm not familiar with the debunking on the RD Forum, but judging that this is a new forum, and not with all the same people.

I would just like to hear a general argument on why the shroud has been shown without any reasonable doubt to be a fake, by posters here who believe it has.
theidiot
 
Posts: 783

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#8  Postby aspire1670 » Mar 27, 2010 2:08 pm

theidiot wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:

The shroud was debunked to death on the old RD Forum. But wait, what is this........


Well, I'm not familiar with the debunking on the RD Forum, but judging that this is a new forum, and not with all the same people.

I would just like to hear a general argument on why the shroud has been shown without any reasonable doubt to be a fake, by posters here who believe it has.


I don't think you would like it all although it would provide you with yet another opportunity to wibble for jebus. But if you would like to start yet another thread and be spanked on yet another topic..........
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 70
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#9  Postby theidiot » Mar 27, 2010 2:26 pm

aspire1670 wrote:

I don't think you would like it all although it would provide you with yet another opportunity to wibble for jebus. But if you would like to start yet another thread and be spanked on yet another topic..........


Well there's nothing here to spank. I already admitted my limited knowledge on the subject. And by your confidence I'm inclined to side with your views, because surely you must know quite a good deal more than I do here, that leads you to hold your view so confidently. I was just curious to follow along in your thought process, so I can find the clarity that I lack, on a subject that I know only scantly of.

Think of me on the subject of the shroud as an inquisitive student, and every one else here as the teacher. I'm just looking to learn.
theidiot
 
Posts: 783

Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#10  Postby DoctorE » Mar 27, 2010 2:58 pm

This version makes just as much sense...


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 ass of Fido 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 ass of Fido and then transforming it into a 3D image, Ray Downing, president of Studio Macbeth, told The Post
Image
User avatar
DoctorE
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11067
Age: 60
Male

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#11  Postby TimONeill » Mar 27, 2010 10:45 pm

theidiot wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:

The shroud was debunked to death on the old RD Forum. But wait, what is this........


Well, I'm not familiar with the debunking on the RD Forum, but judging that this is a new forum, and not with all the same people.

I would just like to hear a general argument on why the shroud has been shown without any reasonable doubt to be a fake, by posters here who believe it has.


In 1988 three of the best radiocarbon dating labs in the world tested three pieces of the so-called "Shroud". Their results were that the fabric of the "Shroud" dates to AD 1262-1384 with 95% confidence. This proves the "Shroud" is a Medieval fake and this fits with all the other evidence we have about the "Shroud's" origins:

1. It first appears being exhibited by a French noble family, the de Charnys, in 1353.

2. Its authenticity was immediately challenged by the local bishop, Henri de Poitiers, who found the artist who had faked it. The bishop ordered the de Charnys to stop exhibiting the Shroud.

3. In 1389 the de Charny's try exhibiting the Shroud again. The new bishop of Troyes, Pierre D'Arcis, appeals to Pope Clement VII. Despite being a relative of the de Charnys, the Pope can't argue with the evidence that the Shroud is a fake and orders his relatives to exhibit the Shroud as a representation of the "true" Shroud and not the real thing.

4. The Shroud later passed over to the Savoy family in Italy and the fact that it was a fake was forgotten - the correspondence between Pope Clement and Bishop Pierre D'Arcis was not rediscovered until the Nineteenth Century, by which time the Shroud was being venerated as the real thing by millions.

5. The weave of the cloth corresponds to fabric woven in Medieval France but does not correspond to the type of linen used for burial in First Century Palestine.

6. The image on the "Shroud" corresponds to Medieval artistic conventions, but does not correspond to human anatomy. The eyes are too high up in the face to belong to a human, though this was how faces were depicted in Medieval gothic-style art

7. The face corresponds to Medieval depictions of Jesus - long hair, forked beard - but it not correspond to how devout First Century Jews looked. In the First Century Jews considered long hair to be a decadent and pagan "Greek" affectation and kept their hair short.

8. In 1979 leading microscopist Walter McCrone examined the "Shroud" and found the so-called "bloodstains" were actually made up of red ochre and vermilion - red pigments used in the Middle Ages. This also explains why they are still reddish-brown: actual blood would have oxidised to black centuries ago. McCrone also found smaller fragments of other pigments on the "Shroud".

ALL the evidence lines up and points to one conclusion: it's a fake. Given that two Catholic bishops and a Pope said so at the time, it's amazing that anyone ever thought otherwise. The scientific evidence backs up what these sceptical Medieval clergymen already told us - it's a fake.

Case closed.
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

History for Atheists - How Not to Get History ... Wrong
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2221
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#12  Postby Onyx8 » Mar 28, 2010 1:20 am

TimONeill wrote:Case closed.


Well we know you're correct but this statement is unfortunately merely wishful thinking as the 'History' article attests. :whine:
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#13  Postby Occam's Laser » Mar 28, 2010 3:21 am

theidiot wrote:
chairman bill wrote:Oh FFS! It's been shown to be a fake, therefore it can't be the face of this semi-mythical character. Whoah! Unless this is a miracle, and the truth is only apparent to believers. All you have to do is believe & you'll know it's truly the image of Jeebus. Halle-bleedin'-lujah, praise Dog!


Really?

Yeah.

It has?

Yeah.

I've never really been interested in the Shroud?

Why are you asking me? Only you can verify the level of your own indifference.

But can you present this argument and the evidence in support of it, that the shroud has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fake?

Sure.

Reading about the shroud on the wikipedia page, there is various pieces of evidence to argue the contrary, enough to say that it's rather difficult to argue that "it's been shown to be fake". There seems to be a quite reasonable argument that it wasn't, at least this is what I in my limited knowledge of it can garner from the wikipedia article, about the various ways the shroud was analyzed for it's authenticity.

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

It's debunked in the Bible. John 20:7 describes the burial shroud of Jesus: "and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself." According to the Gospel of John, the face cloth was separate from the linens wrapping Jesus' body. The Shroud of Turin is a single length of linen cloth with the supposed image of Jesus' face on it.
User avatar
Occam's Laser
 
Posts: 628
Age: 63
Male

Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#14  Postby Kiwi » Mar 31, 2010 11:44 am

Here is the picture
Image

And the article as published here in NZ
http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/3534660 ... e-of-Jesus

At least they put it under the "oddstuff" category, and not science !
Kiwi
 
Posts: 337
Age: 64
Male

Country: New Zealand
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#15  Postby Luis Dias » Mar 31, 2010 11:57 am

Well, since there are a few who believe that the Turin shroud is the most ancient photograph ever devised in the middle ages by da Vinci himself.... who was an egomaniac whose face has the same proportions that he had.... probably these guys figured out how da Vinci looks like....
User avatar
Luis Dias
 
Posts: 1536
Age: 38
Male

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#16  Postby mindyourmind » Mar 31, 2010 5:13 pm

theidiot wrote:
chairman bill wrote:Oh FFS! It's been shown to be a fake, therefore it can't be the face of this semi-mythical character. Whoah! Unless this is a miracle, and the truth is only apparent to believers. All you have to do is believe & you'll know it's truly the image of Jeebus. Halle-bleedin'-lujah, praise Dog!


Really? It has? I've never really been interested in the Shroud? But can you present this argument and the evidence in support of it, that the shroud has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fake?

Reading about the shroud on the wikipedia page, there is various pieces of evidence to argue the contrary, enough to say that it's rather difficult to argue that "it's been shown to be fake". There seems to be a quite reasonable argument that it wasn't, at least this is what I in my limited knowledge of it can garner from the wikipedia article, about the various ways the shroud was analyzed for it's authenticity.

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


Well, using your very own seemingly reasonable (in a passive aggressive sort of way) approach, and accepting even that the Shroud has not been debunked (which assumption will fly in the face of Tim's clear summary, but let's leave that there for the moment) then on what basis do these opportunist charlatans (timing, anyone) claim that the Shroud can be used to "recreate" the "real" face of Jesus?
So the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering, and the extinction of entire species, is so that some humans who have passed his test can be with him forever. I see.
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 1661
Age: 56
Male

South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#17  Postby TimONeill » Mar 31, 2010 11:14 pm

Luis Dias wrote:Well, since there are a few who believe that the Turin shroud is the most ancient photograph ever devised in the middle ages by da Vinci himself.... who was an egomaniac whose face has the same proportions that he had.... probably these guys figured out how da Vinci looks like....


The “theory” (if it can be dignified by that word) that Leonardo (he’s NOT referred to as “Da Vinci” dammit!) had anything to do with the “Shroud” was dreamed up by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. These two prime kooks also dreamed up all the garbage about Mary Magdalene being the The Last Supper and the rest of the nonsense that Dan Brown shamelessly utilised as his “research” in the execrable The Da Vinci Code. They also wrote another book “proving” that the CIA knows ancient Egyptian monuments and sites are interstellar gateways for UFOs. So hopefully you’re getting the idea about the credibility of these two nutcases.

The “Leonardo made the Shroud” claim is based on nothing more than the following “logic”: (i) the Shroud is amazing, (ii) the Shroud has been carbon-dated to the Middle Ages, (iii) everyone in the Middle Ages were too dumb to fake the Shroud so (iv) so it must have been Leonardo. No evidence links the “Shroud” to Leonardo in any way. And it is first mentioned and depicted over a century before he was born. But kooks never let a lack of evidence or clear counter-arguments get in the way of their a priori conclusions.

What these guys have come up with is a computer simulation of what a Fourteenth Century faker thought Jesus looked like. Not surprisingly, it looks exactly like Medieval depictions of Jesus. What a joke.
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

History for Atheists - How Not to Get History ... Wrong
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2221
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#18  Postby Madmaili » Mar 31, 2010 11:19 pm

Jesus did not exist , so you have the face of some dead guy on a medival forgery probably the guy that forged it. btw does anyone know why the none existence of Jesus is such a fringe position in history circles?
If life is meaningless , why the fuck are you still around?
User avatar
Madmaili
 
Posts: 452
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#19  Postby Dr. Kwaltz » Apr 01, 2010 12:52 am

And this is what his dad looked like:

Image
Coworker on food:
We have 4 basic food groups: alcohol, fat, chocolate and caffeine... Get them all in a Mudslide!
Me:
I'm a tea lover - Long Island Ice Tea to be specific.
Dr. Kwaltz
 
Posts: 1364
Age: 62
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Computer recreates Jesus' face for History

#20  Postby TimONeill » Apr 01, 2010 1:47 am

Madmaili wrote:Jesus did not exist , so you have the face of some dead guy on a medival forgery probably the guy that forged it.


Since the face doesn't actually match human anatomy (the eyes are too far up the head), it's probably not based on anyone in particular.

btw does anyone know why the none existence of Jesus is such a fringe position in history circles?


Because it simply doesn't fit the simplest and most logical interpretation of the evidence. Paul mentions in passing in Galatians that he met Jesus' brother James. In order to sustain the idea that Jesus never existed at all and so had no brother to meet, Jesus Mythers have to jump through suppositional hoops about how MAYBE, when Paul said "brother", he meant something other than "brother". Except there is no evidence or examples of Paul using the phrase "brother of the Lord" to refer to anyone else and there are multiple references elsewhere to Jesus having a brother called James. So the idea that Paul wasn't referring to Jesus' brother is based on nothing more than supposition and wishful thinking by the Mythers, whereas Occam's Razor says it's most likely when Paul said "brother" he meant brother. Non-existent guys don't have brothers.

The Jesus Myth idea gets even more tangled up with another reference to this same brother - this time in Josephus. In his account of the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions this event was triggered by Ananus' execution of James, "brother of the Jesus who was called Messiah". Again, Jesus Mythers have to tie themselves in contorted knots to make this clear reference to Jesus and his brother as historical figures by a non-Christian historian go away. The only people who bother to do this are anti-Christian zealots with axes to grind.

Objective historians don't buy their contrived and contorted arguments and go with the most likely, less supposition-laden and simpler explanation - there was a historical Jesus. Objective rationalists should do the same rather than going with the fringe amateurs, obsessive bloggers and barking mad New Age kooks who make up the weird world of the Jesus Mythers.
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

History for Atheists - How Not to Get History ... Wrong
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2221
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests