They claim they have reconstructed Ramsey's face using computer scanning and imaging. There's also an image of King Tut in this article. The King Tut reconstruct, looks nothing like the face on the sarcophagus, or the classic iconic bust of him. I don't think that the Pharos at the time, would have wanted the face of someone else on their funerary monuments. The problem I have with the purported Ramsey reconstruction here, based on the shape of the skull alone. Just look at people over their lifetime, their skull shape and structure never changed, yet their face changes every seven years through out their life. Just based on the orbital alone the possibilities of the eye shape, size, color and other attributes that would make up one's facial features are limitless. When you look at the skulls in a catacomb, so many of them look like exact copies of each other. They all couldn't have looked alike. Also I've noticed when they use this technology to try to identify a John or Jane Doe remains. When they finally identify the subject, the computer reconstruct is never an exact match. It can't predict the facial lines, skinny vs a fat face, wrinkles, clefts, and dimples, all of which gives your face your unique appearance, even if everyone else in your village has the exact same looking skull.
Hmm, and what made me think that this was the facial reconstruction? Guess that's what happens when you spend too much time as a conspiracy theorist and the tin foil hat gets sweaty.
Well, do they test this stuff on people that we have faces for? Seems like a pretty simple way to test for accuracy.
When they do, it's like they come up with a face that looks like Al Capone when it was supposed to look like Sylvester Stallone. Then they say, "The resemblance is uncanny..."
I think it works for demonstrating what a skull could look like with flesh on it, but it's not necessarily what they did look like. Just look at the hundreds of iterations, that Dinosaurs have gone through over the years, as Scientist piece what they looked like. They all have the basic shape of it, but when they try to give it personality with skin, color, feathers, and their take on the locomotion. That's where they all differ.
I think the art in Historical record reflects the reality of what people looked like. No matter how crude the rendering is, one would recognize the resemblance if they saw that person. Ever see a very crude drawing from a child not even depicting anyone, and someone notices the resemblance to someone and they all agree? I trust those murals and reliefs more than I do modern revisionists. Especially the very same people, that don't believe that the people who made the monuments they are plastered on, made the structures themselves.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/scientists-reconstruct-face-of-handsome-ramses-ii-possible-pharaoh-of-exodus/