Tag Archives: The Jesus Discovery

A Little Bit More Perspective – The Patio Tomb Jonah Ossuary

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,

Robert Cargill has made a video that demonstrates, step by step, how to correct the perspective distortion of the high-angle camera shots of the so called “Fish” on the “Jonah Ossuary”:

It’s nearly a half hour long, but it’s rather thorough.

I’ve been working on a similar perspective correction illustration by aligning the features of the drawing relative to its “canvas” (i.e. the size and shape of the ossuary itself).

I first started out with image #14 from the “The Jesus Discovery” website as it is so far the most complete of the pictures released.

It may be labeled “no CGI” but that’s a little bit of a fib. As we’ve seen from other images of the ossuary, this nice, uniform sepia tone is not the actual color of the artifact. This image has been put through a filter or two. But never mind about that. 🙂

I essentially mapped out all of the perspective-relevant features: Lines that should be vertical and horizontal relative to each other, and then I mapped the “grid” that was created as flat as I could.

It’s not perfect, as there is a little bit of distortion from the lens they used (in my next iteration I’ll see if I can fix that) and I need to expand the right hand side a bit more; however, we can see that when the features are more or less aligned relative to each other, and the final frame is re-sized to something the proportions of its place on the ossuary, we get something very vessel-like, and not ichthymorphic at all.

The rim is as wide as the hip of the vessel and “Jonah’s head” is flattened to a half-spherical base.

Since Bob was able to do this with one image, and I was able to do this with another, my haphazard guess is that if every photo of the “fish” we have was adjusted for perspective, it’ll end up looking similar to this as well. 🙂

Peace,
-Steve

UPDATE March 23: Some additional illustrations for my discussion with Dr. Tabor in the comments.

This illustrates how image #14 (on the bottom) is filtered compared to the “raw” image #15 (on top) where both are labeled “no cgi.”
This illustrates how the reproduction ossuary did not capture the proper shape of the head/base.

Did Simcha Arrive Early to the Party?

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,
He’s even wearing the same shirt.

So, among the images that have been posted on the Jesus Discovery website, I found three shots of Simcha Jacobovici that were taken back in 2005.

Because of this, I find myself scratching my beard in curiosity as to why they’re mixed in with other photos from a project that took place between 2009 and 2011 (which is where all of the other photos fall).

Granted, they’re nice shots — somewhat dramatic — but they are rather out of place.

Is this so-called “documentary magic”? 🙂

Peace,
-Steve

Aspect Adjustment on the Jonah Ossuary

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

So Robert Cargill posted another theory about the ball base of the figure on the Jonah Ossuary, which I believe is on the right track.

When I read over it, it suddenly hit me: Perspective.

So I did a bit of perspective adjustment, myself… and guess what I found?

Below are the steps I took, as well as the assumptions I’ve made:

Step 1:

The original image, labeled “no cgi.”

 Step 2:

I rotated it so that the border at the bottom was flat.
I believe that this was the intention of the artist
and is a safe assumption that it was meant to be a baseline.

I also marked the a stroke on the inscription
that I assume was meant to be vertical.
It runs right down the center of the figure.

 Step 3:

I then, adjusted the aspect so that the two lines were perpendicular.

 Step 4:

What does the “ball” at the base look like NOW?

 My Conclusion:

Something like this is my guess.
The base of a vessel.

Peace,
-Steve

UPDATE: This article may have disappeared for about 10-15 minutes due to a mistake I made with the new blogger interface. Needless to explain, it’s back. 🙂

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Further developments on the shape of the “head of Jonah” now show it to be quite flat, and that the image is much more vessel-like than fish like when taken in its proper aspect and size. See:

The entire figure corrected for aspect ratio and distortion:

http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.com/2012/03/little-bit-more-perspective-patio-tomb.html

How many of the photographs and reproductions aren’t faithful representations of what is actually on the ossuary:

http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.com/2012/04/unfaithful-representation.html

The “Jonah Ossuary” Images Debunked

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,
To quote Bob: “Fish don’t have handles.”
Click to enlarge and see.

Robert Cargill has posted a blog article that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exposes where the so-called “Jonah Ossuary” images were digitally manipulated. These manipulations were made to hide features that very plainly show that the “fish” are in fact pottery.

If that were not enough: 

Almost immediately after Bob posted this article (March 13 2012 @ 13:21, to be precise) the “The Jesus Discovery” blog (which is the official mouthpiece of Jacobovici and Tabor’s “findings”) pulled down one of the manipulated images to re-title replace it.

Needless to say, this is not how one deals properly with criticism, and this is not the first time that edits to the “findings” have been made without proper citation and documentation.

In the digital age, there is always a “paper trail” and those who are observant will find it. 🙂

The original image (#16 posted Feb 27 @ 21:42, subsequently deleted),
now image #61 posted Mar 14 @ 13:21.
Note the overlay for strokes that are not present in the image.
Please, click the image to enlarge and see for yourself.

Image #60, posted Mar 13 @ 18:07.
Please, click the image to enlarge and see for yourself.

UPDATE: The paper trail continues. At 18:07, the old image (where the “fish” outlines were doctored; previously #16 [deleted], and then #60 with un-doctored lines) was re-uploaded as image #61. I will be watching carefully to see if #60 is deleted.

Peace,
-Steve

More on “The Jesus Discovery” – A Fish? Nay.

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

I posted this over on the ASOR blog in the comments, but I feel I should also share it here in more elaboration:

What is this?

If you’re not aware, Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor believe this is a fish. Specifically, the whale that swallowed Jonah. That “ball” at the bottom? They believe it’s Jonah’s head, wrapped in seaweed, being spat out upon land.

I believe that this is a better metaphor to understand the current problem with that conclusion:

(Especially pertaining to Jonah’s head. Or should I say ‘skull’? Wait until about 0:28 and you will see *precisely* what I mean).

(HT to Tom Verenna for an excellent infographic.)

That aside, in the proper orientation, the lines of different texture are most consistent with layered patterns produced by potters and glass workers ubiquitous to the era. (As many other scholars have pointed out.)

If this — as a fish — is “a first” (as Dr. Tabor calls it) even a casual observer should see a bright, red flag: If this is without precedent and we have nothing to compare it with, standard procedure is to observe extreme caution before we make any unusual or sensational claims.

As the matter stands, we have many, many examples of pottery and other vessels on ossuaries and they look more like this image than anything else (in structure, motif, and function). With that precedent, I would feel it’s the safer and more likely conclusion.

The “Fish Hypothesis” (on the other hand) requires treating the inscription’s details as a bit of a Rorschach, which flings us from the stage of scientific inquiry and thrusts us into a completely different field altogether.

No, not this Rorschach.
But if you messed with him, you might end up in an ossuary yourself.

UPDATE: Robert Cargill has written an amazing exposé on how the images have been altered digitally. I can only concur with his analysis as the hallmarks of photoshopping are all too prominent.

Peace,
-Steve “I don’t see the skull” Caruso, MLIS