HoneyInBlackCoffee t1_j1lm5zs wrote
Are these actually of any accuracy? Going based off just a skull you can't tell what someone's flesh looked liked to any degree. Just like you can't tell feathers on fossils usually
gryphmaster t1_j1lo2mk wrote
You are very confident about something you do not know much about
HoneyInBlackCoffee t1_j1lsz6o wrote
It's actually a well known thing. How many fossils have you seen of dinosaurs that show feathers? These facial reconstructions are known to be utter bs, they can't even get it right on people that we know what they looked like
gryphmaster t1_j1lt6x2 wrote
Feathers on dinosaurs and soft tissue on bone are entirely different things
See that’s what clued me in
And considering the same facial reconstruction techniques are used to positively ID crime victims, calling them utter BS is a bit of a judgement call I don’t think you know enough to make
InternationalToque t1_j1lu5tb wrote
I think they're conflating the whole "shrink-wrap" effect dinosaurs have with their fossil reconstructions and the human reconstruction process.
gryphmaster t1_j1lu7t5 wrote
Or possibly reconstructions from like, a decade ago
HoneyInBlackCoffee t1_j1luedd wrote
Have you ever seen those police reconstructions? They never once actually look like the person. I'll say it again, they can't even get it right on people we know what they looked like. The human skull has very little differences person to person. You can tell if they had some diseases and such IF you an get dna from it. But what someone looked like accurately? Not a chance
gryphmaster t1_j1lupva wrote
Here’s a quick case study of positively ID’ed bodies by family members
You seem to be just running off your opinion that its totally inaccurate, when its obviously accurate enough for family members to recognize loved ones through reconstruction
HoneyInBlackCoffee t1_j1lw02e wrote
"facial sculpturing techniques has been widely criticized by forensic scientists for its lack of scientific reproduction of the final product and for its low statistical success rates"
Think ill go by the forensic expertsmate
gryphmaster t1_j1lwfj1 wrote
Lack of reproducibility has nothing to with the fidelity that you’re talking about and the entire article goes on to defend the practice against those criticisms
Way to tell me you read until you met the first thing that reconfirmed your opinions
If you want high fidelity in forensics, you def don’t want to hear about bite mark or shoe print analysis
2017hayden t1_j1m0w5s wrote
We have many examples of how human soft tissue appears on the average person, assuming this individual had no more able deformities this would be fairly accurate. We have no idea what dinosaur soft tissue would have looked like, that’s what makes accurate dioramas of them from nothing but their bones so difficult. Also human soft tissue and the way it attaches to bones is a very different study from feathers on dinosaurs, a better comparison would be trying to say what human hair looked like from just our bones and no other frame of reference.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments