From my understanding facial reconstruction from skulls is a well-defined process in forensics, so it's likely that they used standard methods. They mentioned getting colors (i.e. skin/hair tone) from painting.

I'd love to see facial reconstruction of people of whom we have pictures and video. Since what I've heard of facial reconstruction is that there is a lot "art" in it.

It would also be nice to see police sketch artist renderings compared with the people they depict.

I've noticed that people rarely seem to see much value in testing procedures against questions with known answers.

I can tell you that, having seen some before, injured, and transplanted photos of facial transplant patients, their faces rapidly look much like they used to, regardless of the original person their face was transplanted from.

Bone structure is, as far as I can tell as a layperson, the major determinant of how people look. I found it quite surprising as I thought it would be the other way around.

The only obvious change was hair and skin color, essentially.

> Bone structure is, as far as I can tell as a layperson, the major determinant of how people look. I found it quite surprising as I thought it would be the other way around.

How would it work the other way around? You don't have a "look" before your bone structure exists right?

Right, but naively I would think that your bones are the foundation and your skin and muscles are the house on top. But really, the skin and muscles are more of the paint and trim, and the bones are the foundation, walls, and even part of the roof. Even your nose is largely determined by the angle and width of your facial bones, which is quite surprising to me, given that obviously there's no bone in it past the bridge.

I can't really sum it up better than the Wikipedia page's author:

> It is easily the most subjective—as well as one of the most controversial—techniques in the field of forensic anthropology.

> From my understanding facial reconstruction from skulls is a well-defined process in forensics

It's commonly used, but is it:

* Consistent from practitioner to practitioner?

* Able to consistently pass a double-blind test?

My understanding of forensic 'science' is that it has a bad reputation for having more in common with shamanism, or the rituals of a witchdoctor, than it does with science.

I'd love them to have made more of that if the cranial reconstruction got close to the painting un-hinted.

And probably the hair pattern as well.

What’s amusing about two different sites being named ’Register’? It is a relatively common newspaper name suffix like ‘Times’ or ‘Post.’ Or is there something else I’m missing?

> being named ’Register’? It is a relatively common newspaper name

Incidentally: The Times (The "Times of London", first with that name form), debuted on 1 January 1785, with the name The Daily Universal Register.

Even "interchangable", you may (rhetorically) say.

The one cited here most often would not be the national catholic register. I assumed it was thereg from a cursory look before clicking.