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

"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.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/t ... z0jah4cAGh

interesting, controversial for some people probably, i'm just curious.

I think that it's kinda hypocrite to first make 10 documentaries about the shroud of Turin being fake, then throw that all away and reconstruct Christ's face with the blood found on it.
What people won't do for money o.o

I don't think so. It seems like more of since this is the only evidence we have this is what he would look like if we base it off of our evidence.

I believe this.
Very interesting!
I will download the docu.

did anyone watched Touched by Jesus? on History channel. they should some weird similarities with jesus.

WE have no accurate visual record of jesus. Only a romanticised religious lawbook.
He was very influential, and the basis of the average western society

Accept that the guy likely never existed and the stories about him never even appeared until around 200 A.D. The book and the stories were influential, but Jesus Christ is for lack of better words a 'myth'.

Actually there is quite a lot of proof that he did exist.
The story may have been exaggerated over the years but he did exist.

I am willing to believe that Jesus has existed. Though the bible in its current form is probably not how it was in ancient recording time.
Due to authors taking liberty and freedom in altering small things to add their personal touch when copying then.
My guess is that teh current form dates since the printing, or more or less the Gutenberg bible

I agree with the above post

I agree with these too.

I believe a man lived and he was a healer. nothing more.

Then you believe most of the stuff said about him.