Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Is this Christ? Computer recreates 3D face

23 posts in this topic

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?

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have scientists even come to an agreement on how old the shroud really is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is creepy :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we would have to accept that the Shroud of Turin really was wrapped around Jesus' body to accept this is what He looked like and I think the jury is still out on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to watch this Tuesday night. I've seen scientific depictions before and he was never shown as a very handsome man. As for blue eyes, he was Jewish, figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CSI: NAZARETH: A 3D image of Jesus' face was created using encoded information and the blood on the Shroud of Turin.

So whos blood is it? And why the natural assumption it's Jesus?

Still to much science fiction than science fact for me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whos blood is it? And why the natural assumption it's Jesus?

Still to much science fiction than science fact for me ;)

It is not a natural assumption. It is the story that has been handed down with the shroud for centuries. Whether the story is accurate or not is another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those who think that the shroud is authentic, try this little experiment. Take a white cloth, and wrap it round your face. Get a family member to take a pen and draw around you eyes,mouth,nose and ears. Then open it out. You will find that the drawning of your face is elongated, with the ears sitting way out to the sides. When we look at the shroud we don't see this effect we see a 2 dimensional representation of a face, similar to a painting. This proves that the shroud wasn't wrapped around a body.What we are actually seeing an excellent example of medieval Camera Obscura. It is essentially a photograph using an ancient cloth soaked in silver sulphates. Leonardo Da Vinci was well versed in these techniques. All you need is a sunny day and a body of a criminal that you can hang outside. The process is repeated for the back of the body, and there you have it. Add some blood in strategic places and you have your very own shroud of Turin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behold the "real" face of Jesus. and that's NOT a natural assumtion in anything i suppose ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrmmmm.....dare I suggest this is more History Channel bollox? :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they proved that the Shroud was a fake about 4 years ago. Hmmmm guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they proved that the Shroud was a fake about 4 years ago. Hmmmm guess not.

They ran some tests on it to determine how old it actually is. The test came back saying it was only a few hundred years old. But, then some other proof was brought forward saying that these tests were innaccurate, because the shroud has been patched here and there throughout history, so there are old fibers and newer ones in the shroud. And someone recently claimed it was fake, because they were actually able to reproduce it in detail, using the same materials available centuries ago. However, just because this guy could reproduce it, does not mean the original was done the same way.

So, no, there is still no actual proof either ways as to it's age, or authenticity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I watched this show on the *History* (edit) Channel last night. It was very interesting how they derived the 3-d image from the shroud. I've always been a bit skeptic about the shroud and even I found this show pretty interesting. There are still too many open gaps about the shroud that keeps me a skeptic about it, but overall I really like this show.

Edited by BiffSplitkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this show on the *History* (edit) Channel last night. It was very interesting how they derived the 3-d image from the shroud. I've always been a bit skeptic about the shroud and even I found this show pretty interesting. There are still too many open gaps about the shroud that keeps me a skeptic about it, but overall I really like this show.

Yeah, I want to see it, mostly out of curiosity. I too am skeptical about the shroud, so would not say it is the face of Christ. However, if the shroud at some point was actually used as a burial shroud for someone, it is interesting to see this persons face, whether it is Christ or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who ever thinks jesus was white needs to go back in the bible and look at the description they give of him and where he exactly was... have u ever seen white people in the middle east uhhhhh nooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who ever thinks jesus was white needs to go back in the bible and look at the description they give of him and where he exactly was... have u ever seen white people in the middle east uhhhhh nooo

You know, I think he's been bleached to fit the European sensibility. :P In any event, black, white, brindle, handsome, ugly, short, tall, etc etc, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one scripture I know of about Jesus' appearance:

Isaiah 53:2 (prophecy)

King James Version (KJV)

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who ever thinks jesus was white needs to go back in the bible and look at the description they give of him and where he exactly was... have u ever seen white people in the middle east uhhhhh nooo

Could that just be an interpretation? Could this simply be an early description of the outward differences between the skin colours of a middle eastern person, and an african person? Caucasian peoples have been in the middle east for a very long time. One might not have to be snow white to be considered fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those who think that the shroud is authentic, try this little experiment. Take a white cloth, and wrap it round your face. Get a family member to take a pen and draw around you eyes,mouth,nose and ears. Then open it out. You will find that the drawning of your face is elongated, with the ears sitting way out to the sides. When we look at the shroud we don't see this effect we see a 2 dimensional representation of a face, similar to a painting. This proves that the shroud wasn't wrapped around a body.What we are actually seeing an excellent example of medieval Camera Obscura. It is essentially a photograph using an ancient cloth soaked in silver sulphates. Leonardo Da Vinci was well versed in these techniques. All you need is a sunny day and a body of a criminal that you can hang outside. The process is repeated for the back of the body, and there you have it. Add some blood in strategic places and you have your very own shroud of Turin.

Except that the theory is that the image was formed by a radiation as Jesus ascended to the heavens.

Hey, it's not my story, but that is how it goes, and if we try to recreate that, we are going to hit a wall or two. It will always serve as the excuse/reason. It is not supposed to be an image from cloth just laying on a face. (Google John Jackson STURP)

A Summary of STURP's Conclusions

(Final Report 1981)

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography. The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

But I doubt these guys would need much stem to get their theories off the ground. There is mountains of enthusiasm as a starting point.

I honestly do not now what to think. Many have tried to debunk it, and come close, I would like to know, does the blood on the Shroud match the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo? Or perhaps is the DNA intact enough to compare to the Veil of Veronica? Have these paths been pursued at all? Does anyone know?

I think the most disappointing part is that the solution keeps coming back to some unknown form of radiation, and that theologians call this radiation the spirit. I do not think we have a spirit or ghost inside of us, I think we are just chemical machines that eventually shut down for good, what do you think?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they proved that the Shroud was a fake about 4 years ago. Hmmmm guess not.

I though the Shroud was proven as fake many times over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have u ever seen white people in the middle east uhhhhh nooo

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shroud has been tested and tested. In this day of technology they still can't say for sure if it is real?

It may be a death shroud. However, how do we know it is supposed to be this Jesus' shroud?

Why won't the Catholic Church allow more tests? And how did they end up with it anyway?

I still need proof of Jesus much less a shroud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(necro much?)

But I think we can be pretty sure it isn't Jesus' death shroud.

1) I think it was dated to around 1200-1300 (C14 can be somewhat inaccurate but generally only +/- 10 years on items less than 6500 years old).

2)Any proper scientist would have taken multiple samples from different areas of the shroud, so the claims that it had newer fixes in some places doesn't work, what's the probability that they managed to only hit these "fixes"?

3) there is a dark colour on the hand/wrist, but you wouldn't put a nail through the carpal bones. Either it could go through the hand (it is possible unlike what some people think - if you simultaneously tied the arms to the cross to lessen the strain or relieved the strain by nailing the feet to the side of the cross) but the easiest was to place the nail between the ulna and the radius bones (the two bones in your lower arm). The "bleeding" is in the most unlikely place for a nail.

4) people tend to forget that Jesus was from the middle east - he's almost always depicted as a European. And the shroud seem to have many European features.

All in all it seems to depict what the makers thought Jesus looked like and the wounds they thought Jesus had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.