You respond nine months later?! And did you read all the posts before reopening the debate?
Wpin: "Your basis is ridiculous, the average does not mean all..."
Of course not, but where is there any suggestion in ancient literature that Jesus was of unusual stature? Nowhere. And if Jesus had been six feet tall in a land of five-foot four inch males, might that not have been remembered and mentioned?
So go back to post #133, where Swordmaker argues the case that
A) the Shroud figure is not six feet, but 5' 8" to 5' 9" and
B) the average Semitic male in 1st century Israel was about 5 ft 10 inches tall.
Well, I'd say that Swordmaker has selected his data rather carefully, since the usual numbers for the Shroud range up to 6 ft 2 inches.
As to the average height of first century Semites -- there's no doubt that wealthy, well fed children of aristocrats grew somewhat taller than average. But is there any suggestion in ancient literature that Jesus was such a child? No. Therefore, might we not reasonably suppose he was of average or below average height?
Wpin: "...and explain exactly how the “image looks decidedly not Semitic”."
On the question of whether the Shroud image "looks Semitic," to me it does not. Others say it does, so who is right? Well, here is an example of what some say a Semitic Jesus might look like:
"The Jesus pictured on the cover of this month's Popular Mechanics has a broad peasant's face, dark olive skin, short curly hair and a prominent nose. He would have stood 5-foot-1-inch tall and weighed 110 pounds, if the magazine is to be believed."
Wpin: "Also, what are your qualifications for these forensics?"
Forensics? I thought we were talking about the Shroud. Did you mean something else?