Conclusion: the blood from the (alleged) ‘spear wound’ is on the subject’s right side, so appears on the LEFT side of the subject’s imprint (your right).
Shame there’s no sign of a wound on the body image that corresponds with all that blood, but that’s another story, one that has been addressed previously on this site, back in August. Suffice it to say that bloodstains on the Shroud (head, hair, wrist, feet, side, scourge marks should not be regarded as synonymous with wounds when (a) the latter are NOT apparent on the body image, AND (b) one is less than 100% certain that the Man on the Shroud is NOT a forgery, e.g. in which the blood was painted onto a wound-free body image to convey the impression of wounds.
But do I hear you say that the blood came first, did it not, so was unlikely to have been painted on? So we are told, but as I’ve said on a number of previous occasions here, the evidence for ‘blood first- body image second’ rests upon qualitative spot tests from just one laboratory with a protein-digesting enzyme on a microscope slide – hardly copper-bottomed evidence for so crucial a question.
It will be the anniversary of my first Shroud posting in just 3 days time. My next post will attempt to summarise my current, now better informed position after another 135 postings. It will include the crucial but neglected issue addressed above: which came first – blood or body image?
In 1781, The London Magazine mentions the use copper on Royal Navy ships. I like the phrase:
Admiral Keppel made a remark upon copper bottomed ships. He said they gave additional strength to the navy and he reproached Lord Sandwich with having refused to sheath only a few ships with copper at his request, when he had since ordered the whole navy to be sheathed.