Emergency Doctors Determine that Trump was Struck by a Rifle Bullet

[Joe Elliott]

We are getting a lesson into why the testimony of Emergency Room Doctors should not be treated as Holy Writ.

The object that struck Trump was not a bullet. It was a fragment of debris that was propelled by the bullet. How can we tell?

There is a still photograph showing the object that struck Trump's ear. It is a streak about 3 feet long. The speed of this object is distance / time, 3 feet divided by the shutter speed.

If the shutter speed was 1/1000 of a second, then the speed was 3 / (1/1000) or 3000 feet per second. This would be consistent with a rifle bullet.

If the shutter speed was 1/100 of a second, then the speed was 3 / (1/100) or 300 feet per second. This would be consistent with the rifle bullet.

A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second would not be used, even for an outside shot. The image produced would be too dim. There probably is no a setting on 1/1000 of a second on that camera.

A shutter speed of something like 1/100 of a second is probably about right for an outside shot. And if this was an inside shot the shutter speed would have been set even slower, like 1/50 of a second, to prevent the image from being too dim. So this is a picture of a fragment flying through the air and not of a high speed bullet.

Other evidence? Trump refuses to release the medical information which would prove it one way or another. But just wants us to take his word for it, which is not going to happen.

Also, four other officers standing near by to Trump were, like Trump, slightly wounded by flying debris.

Trump is claiming he was struck by a bullet to make himself seem more heroic, a man spared by a miracle of God.

Two arguments why this streak seen in the photograph could not be the object that struck Trump:

1. The path is too level. The shooter was firing from an elevated position. Yes, but only 20 feet higher than Trump. From 450 feet away the angle would be arcsin ( 20 / 450 ) or 2 degrees, which is pretty damm level. Conclusion: FALSE ARGUMENT.

2. The path does not line up with the top of Trump's ear. The path is two inches too low. This does not take into account that the photograph was well below Trump and aiming upwards. WIth the head of Trump being 6 inches wide, the angle would be arcsin ( 2 / 6 ). This indicates an upward angle of 18 degrees, which results in a shot where the path seems to be 2 inches too low, but isn't. Conclusion: FALSE ARGUMENT.

The Butler Pennsylvania doctors should be a lot more accurate than the Dallas doctors. Instead of intensely trying to keep the heart beating and lungs breathing, the Butler doctors were under no such pressure. The just need to stop the bleeding of the slightly wounded Trump. And they likely spent more than ten minutes with him. And yet they were not.

[Charles Collins]

We are getting a lesson into why the testimony of Emergency Room Doctors should not be treated as Holy Writ.

The object that struck Trump was not a bullet. It was a fragment of debris that was propelled by the bullet. How can we tell?

There is a still photograph showing the object that struck Trump's ear. It is a streak about 3 feet long. The speed of this object is distance / time, 3 feet divided by the shutter speed.

If the shutter speed was 1/1000 of a second, then the speed was 3 / (1/1000) or 3000 feet per second. This would be consistent with a rifle bullet.

If the shutter speed was 1/100 of a second, then the speed was 3 / (1/100) or 300 feet per second. This would be consistent with the rifle bullet.

A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second would not be used, even for an outside shot. The image produced would be too dim. There probably is no a setting on 1/1000 of a second on that camera.

A shutter speed of something like 1/100 of a second is probably about right for an outside shot. And if this was an inside shot the shutter speed would have been set even slower, like 1/50 of a second, to prevent the image from being too dim. So this is a picture of a fragment flying through the air and not of a high speed bullet.

Other evidence? Trump refuses to release the medical information which would prove it one way or another. But just wants us to take his word for it, which is not going to happen.

Also, four other officers standing near by to Trump were, like Trump, slightly wounded by flying debris.

Trump is claiming he was struck by a bullet to make himself seem more heroic, a man spared by a miracle of God.

Two arguments why this streak seen in the photograph could not be the object that struck Trump:

1. The path is too level. The shooter was firing from an elevated position. Yes, but only 20 feet higher than Trump. From 450 feet away the angle would be arcsin ( 20 / 450 ) or 2 degrees, which is pretty damm level. Conclusion: FALSE ARGUMENT.

2. The path does not line up with the top of Trump's ear. The path is two inches too low. This does not take into account that the photograph was well below Trump and aiming upwards. WIth the head of Trump being 6 inches wide, the angle would be arcsin ( 2 / 6 ). This indicates an upward angle of 18 degrees, which results in a shot where the path seems to be 2 inches too low, but isn't. Conclusion: FALSE ARGUMENT.

The Butler Pennsylvania doctors should be a lot more accurate than the Dallas doctors. Instead of intensely trying to keep the heart beating and lungs breathing, the Butler doctors were under no such pressure. The just need to stop the bleeding of the slightly wounded Trump. And they likely spent more than ten minutes with him. And yet they were not.

A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second would not be used, even for an outside shot. The image produced would be too dim. There probably is no a setting on 1/1000 of a second on that camera


Even my old inexpensive Nikon D40 has a shutter speed capability of 1/4000 of a second. If you think 1/1000 of a second is not reasonable for a photo in bright daylight looking up toward the sky, then you might not know as much about photography as you apparently think you do. Today’s cameras record digital photos that include information about the camera settings. It should be feasible to find out the exact camera settings by referring to the actual photo as recorded by the camera. Have you researched this to see if the photographer has provided this type of information about the photo? If not, you might want to consider doing so.


Edit: 1/1000 of a second shutter speed is a very commonly recommended setting for sports photography. It “freezes” the action. There is no reason to believe that the photographer wasn’t using that setting for the Trump rally.

[Joe Elliott]

A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second would not be used, even for an outside shot. The image produced would be too dim. There probably is no a setting on 1/1000 of a second on that camera


Even my old inexpensive Nikon D40 has a shutter speed capability of 1/4000 of a second. If you think 1/1000 of a second is not reasonable for a photo in bright daylight looking up toward the sky, then you might not know as much about photography as you apparently think you do. Today’s cameras record digital photos that include information about the camera settings. It should be feasible to find out the exact camera settings by referring to the actual photo as recorded by the camera. Have you researched this to see if the photographer has provided this type of information about the photo? If not, you might want to consider doing so.


Edit: 1/1000 of a second shutter speed is a very commonly recommended setting for sports photography. It “freezes” the action. There is no reason to believe that the photographer wasn’t using that setting for the Trump rally.

It is true. I know more about math than photography. I am going by my memories of cameras in the 1970s. And I was not too much into cameras even then. But as I recall with those cameras, you could go with a short shutter speed, but the image might be too dim. But you can counter that by using a wider aperture, where you would have a bright image with a short shutter speed, but the wide aperture gives a less sharp image. Perhaps with digital cameras you can have the best of all worlds.

By the way, one can look at the photograph by googling "trump bullet streak", go to the images tab and see a photograph with a red oval drawn around the streak.

Well, the answer to the mystery is to be found by consulting the professional photographer who took the picture. "What was the shutter speed of the photograph that he took?". I bet a professional photographer could give us the answer even a couple of weeks later, or a year later. He would know what shutter speed he was using that day, at least approximately, which would answer the question. If he was using a shutter speed of around 1 / 1000 th of a second, then I guess it would have to be a bullet. The press should get onto looking into this. They only have to question one of their own.

But I don't think so for the following reasons

1. Trump being reluctant to release the medical records of that day, which would prove at a stroke, that he was "heroically" struck by a bullet.

2. I don't know much about camera. But I read a post from someone who does, I believe. He claimed that a super high shutter speed was not used, because the image of Trump's head is blurred. This can be seen in the "Make America Great Again" slogan on Trump's hat (well, at least the left part of this slogan) being blurred, caused by Trump moving his head when the shot was fired.

3. A fantastic coincidence that the shutter was snapped just when it was, to within a millisecond of when the bullet struck the ear. If it was a fragment moving a tenth of the speed of a bullet, it would still be a coincidence, but not so fantastic.

[Charles Collins]

It is true. I know more about math than photography. I am going by my memories of cameras in the 1970s. And I was not too much into cameras even then. But as I recall with those cameras, you could go with a short shutter speed, but the image might be too dim. But you can counter that by using a wider aperture, where you would have a bright image with a short shutter speed, but the wide aperture gives a less sharp image. Perhaps with digital cameras you can have the best of all worlds.

By the way, one can look at the photograph by googling "trump bullet streak", go to the images tab and see a photograph with a red oval drawn around the streak.

Well, the answer to the mystery is to be found by consulting the professional photographer who took the picture. "What was the shutter speed of the photograph that he took?". I bet a professional photographer could give us the answer even a couple of weeks later, or a year later. He would know what shutter speed he was using that day, at least approximately, which would answer the question. If he was using a shutter speed of around 1 / 1000 th of a second, then I guess it would have to be a bullet. The press should get onto looking into this. They only have to question one of their own.

But I don't think so for the following reasons

1. Trump being reluctant to release the medical records of that day, which would prove at a stroke, that he was "heroically" struck by a bullet.

2. I don't know much about camera. But I read a post from someone who does, I believe. He claimed that a super high shutter speed was not used, because the image of Trump's head is blurred. This can be seen in the "Make America Great Again" slogan on Trump's hat (well, at least the left part of this slogan) being blurred, caused by Trump moving his head when the shot was fired.

3. A fantastic coincidence that the shutter was snapped just when it was, to within a millisecond of when the bullet struck the ear. If it was a fragment moving a tenth of the speed of a bullet, it would still be a coincidence, but not so fantastic.

Yes, the digital photo world is a lot different than film. Film speed is relevant in this discussion. Digital cameras simulate film speed and have a lot more capabilities. The Nikon D40 camera has film speed up to iso 1600 (that can be “extended” to iso 3200. The higher “film speeds” allow higher shutter speeds without much in the way of other compromises like dim photos or wider aperatures.

[Joe Elliott]

Yes, the digital photo world is a lot different than film. Film speed is relevant in this discussion. Digital cameras simulate film speed and have a lot more capabilities. The Nikon D40 camera has film speed up to iso 1600 (that can be “extended” to iso 3200. The higher “film speeds” allow higher shutter speeds without much in the way of other compromises like dim photos or wider aperatures.

Can anyone come up with an example of an outdoor picture that shows the streak of a rifle bullet?

[Charles Collins]

Can anyone come up with an example of an outdoor picture that shows the streak of a rifle bullet?

https://www.peterrussellphotography.com/nk1/nk12.html

[Joe Elliott]

People may get the impression that the FBI confirmed that Trump was struck by a bullet. Let me set the record straight.

On Thursday the FBI director said that he did not know what struck Trump. It was either a:

1. bullet
or
2. a fragment from a teleprompter

On Friday, the FBI issued a statement saying Trump was struck by a "bullet, whether whole or fragmented"
So this means, that on Friday the FBI announced that Trump was struck by either a:

1. bullet
or
2. a fragment from a bullet

Essentially the Thursday and Friday statements are the same. They only differ from on Thursday it might have been a fragment from a teleprompter and on Friday a fragment from the bullet. Since they cannot tell, as of now, whether it was an entire bullet or a bullet fragment, I don't see how they can tell the difference between a bullet fragment or some other fragment from an object that was struck. At least this has never been explained.

This is not about meaningless trivia. There is a world of difference between an intact, 3000 feet per second bullet and a fragment moving at 300 feet per second. If the fragment was one tenth the mass of the bullet, the fragment would only carry 0.1 % of the kinetic energy of a pristine bullet. I suppose that if a MAGA supporter was to throw a rifle bullet at me and hit me, I could say "I took a bullet for democracy" but it would be rather misleading.

Still waiting for more information from the FBI and about the photograph.

And a final point, five men standing around Trump suffered very minor wounds, Trump being one of them, the others officers. No one is saying all five were struck by a bullet. So, I assume, at least four of them, perhaps all five, were struck by the same spray of fragments. Is there any reason to think that Trump was the one struck by a bullet or a bullet fragment but the others were not? Why not say Officer B was struck by a bullet or a bullet fragment and all the rest, including Trump were struck by fragments?

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.peterrussellphotography.com/nk1/nk12.html

Good enough.

However, I should point out that the head of the shooter looks like a totally sharp image. His head is not blurred at all. This, in addition to the bullet appearing, indicates a very high shutter speed.

In contrast, Trump's head is blurred, while the sign on the podium is sharp and clear. which implies a slower shutter speed. It doesn't matter if some cameras, or even his camera, was capable of a very high shutter speed. All that matters is what was the shutter speed setting when the picture was taken. And, with Trump's slightly blurred head, it appears it was not set at a high speed.