THE SUDARIUM OF OVIEDO: A STUDY OF FIBER STRUCTURES

Abstract
The Sudarium of Oviedo has been studied intensively with a petrographic (polarizing) microscope. It is composed of pure flax fibers, and they show the same characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. The technology used to prepare the linen cloth appears to be identical to that described for Roman times by Pliny the Elder (Natural History XIX, 3, 16-18).

Flax fibers are mostly crystalline cellulose, and the crystals have a fibrillar structure. The fibers are birefringent between crossed polarizers; however, the birefringence changes depending on the past history of the material. Perfect, new flax fibers show extinction (the segments between growth nodes are perfectly black) at two angles as the microscope stage is rotated. Strained or irradiated fibers show zones of birefringence at other angles. Fibers from the Sudarium show many defects caused by different kinds of radiation.

The evidence indicates significant age for the material. It seems to have similar defect types and populations as the Shroud of Turin. The two cloths must be roughly the same age.

This is an article written by Raymond N. Rogers about his examination of samples from the Sudarium of Oviedo, the cloth that is thought to have covered the face of Jesus after his death on the Cross. Rogers examined the fibers at the request of authorities at the Cathedral in Oviedo, Spain, in 2004 but it went unpublished. After Rogers' death, it was presented posthumously at the August 2008 Shroud Conference in Ohio. PING!

The Sudarium (Sweat Cloth) of Oviedo

If you want on or off the Shroud of Turin Ping List, Freepmail me.

I will debate you on the shroud any day, antwhere as long as you agree to support your statements with sources.

Already you start with ad hominem intimations that I do not provide sources for my evidence. I have always provided sources. I think that almost every member of the Shroud Ping list would back me up on that. Unlike you, I assume someone in a discussion will provide links to source materials.

Frankly, Soliton, it is my experience in several debates with you, that it is you who seldom provides sources. When you do, yours tend to be limited to skeptic magazine articles and books by non-scientists, such as Joe Nickell, an ex-English Lit teacher and a failed amateur magician, or scientists working completely outside of their fields of expertise, such as Schafersman, a Geologist, who thinks he is qualified to critique peer-reviewed, published research done by recognized experts in blood chemistry. From experience with your debating techniques in the past, I find that often your sources actually state something exactly opposite to what you claim they prove.

You don't accept my peer-reviewed sources, published in scientific journals, written by experts in their fields,claiming that the articles were somehow published by "slipping past" the peer-review process. And, given the usual nature of your links, I will not accept your non-peer-reviewed sources written by amateur, dilettante, skeptics working outside of their fields of expertise, published in skeptic magazines and books, who, like you, ignore or denigrate research that falsifies their positions.

I also will not accept your insulting manner and ad hominem approach to debate. Your response to any evidence is to attack the scientists who have produced the research. When that fails, you proceed to insult the Freepers who are attempting to have a discussion. Ridicule, slander, and libel are not proper debating techniques. You even proudly stated that some people may not like your debating style. Count me as one of them.

I have no intention of again dancing to your tune for your amusement. The last time you got multiple posts deleted by the moderator and eventually were told to leave the thread. because of your insults and slurs to fellow Freepers.

Quite frankly, Soliton, I am tired of you and your attitude. So why should I bother?

On *this* topic, he is a troll, in my book.

He has posted comments which are explicitly, openly refuted by the very links he cites as proof of his comments. And done so on multiple threads.

And when called on it, resorts to ad hominem and changing the subject.

One would think he was a Democrat discussing Sarah Palin.

I will respond to no posts from him on this subject. Cheers!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.