The Amazing Survival of Trump

[Joe Elliott]

What we can learn from the Trump case is that, just as in the JFK case, diagrams cannot ways be trusted.

There are various diagrams of the path the bullet took past Trump's head. I found one below at the 0:33 mark of a youtube video.

The diagram of the path that the bullet took, which I assume everyone has seen, clearly shows that Trump's survival was amazing. The head was turned perfectly, so the sides of the head was lined up perfectly with the path of the bullet. And the bullet was aimed perfectly, to just barely miss the head over the course of a six inch path, that would have missed him completely had the ear not stuck out a bit. This precise turn of the head made it possible for the bullet to strike the ear while missing the skull. A truly flukey shot.

I would like to point out one thing. Was this diagram the result of a very careful study by Dale Myers, using multiple photographs showing the precise location of Donald Trump's head? No. Well, what is this this diagram based on?

Two assumptions:

1. Donald Trump was struck by a bullet.

2. And, well, not really an assumption, that no other part of Trump's head was struck.

To meet these two assumptions, one would have to start off with assuming the head just happened to be turned perfectly to allow this to be possible. It has to be if he was struck by a bullet. And this is what produce the diagram.

This is a big coincidence. I am always suspicious of coincidences.


Let's consider a different scenario. The rifle bullet struck an object. It produced a spray of fragments that continued downrange which slightly wounded five men. Trump and the four officers standing near him.

Trump's head was not turn just so. The right side of his head was exposed. A fragment struck his ear. And would have continued on to strike his skull, likely killing him, had it been a rifle bullet. But being a fragment, it just gave a minor wound to the ear and was deflected away from the head. Resulting in Trump having a minor wound, just like the four other officers.


So, where is the evidence that Trump's head just happened to turned in such a way, that it was possible for a bullet to hit the ear but miss the skull? Where is the careful study that shows this is so? Anything beyond "Well, it looks to me that this might have been the case?"

Where is the study that carefully:
* studies the photographs of the position of Trump's head, and the compass heading of a midline line from front to the back of the head, through the center of the head.

and compare that to:

* the compass direction of the bullet from the sniper's position to Trump

and see how parallel these two lines are?

And not just get the compass direction of the bullet path from the sniper's position, and just assume the head was turned to face the opposite direction to make such a shot possible.

Keep in mind that most bullets that strike an ear, continue on to strike the skull and produce a fatal shot. A bullet that does strike an ear but does not strike the skull is very rare, very flucky, and should not be our starting theory. In contrast, a fragment could strike an ear and not continue on to go through the skull. A fragment is much more easily deflected.

I finally offer one piece of advice. Stop looking into a scenario of what explains Trump's wound. And start looking into a scenario that explains all the minor wounds to the five men. Make that your starting point. This would be a more productive method. And try to avoid coming up with a scenario that requires a big coincidence, like Trump's head turned perfectly parallel to the bullet path, if you can.

[Charles Collins]

What we can learn from the Trump case is that, just as in the JFK case, diagrams cannot ways be trusted.

There are various diagrams of the path the bullet took past Trump's head. I found one below at the 0:33 mark of a youtube video.

The diagram of the path that the bullet took, which I assume everyone has seen, clearly shows that Trump's survival was amazing. The head was turned perfectly, so the sides of the head was lined up perfectly with the path of the bullet. And the bullet was aimed perfectly, to just barely miss the head over the course of a six inch path, that would have missed him completely had the ear not stuck out a bit. This precise turn of the head made it possible for the bullet to strike the ear while missing the skull. A truly flukey shot.

I would like to point out one thing. Was this diagram the result of a very careful study by Dale Myers, using multiple photographs showing the precise location of Donald Trump's head? No. Well, what is this this diagram based on?

Two assumptions:

1. Donald Trump was struck by a bullet.

2. And, well, not really an assumption, that no other part of Trump's head was struck.

To meet these two assumptions, one would have to start off with assuming the head just happened to be turned perfectly to allow this to be possible. It has to be if he was struck by a bullet. And this is what produce the diagram.

This is a big coincidence. I am always suspicious of coincidences.


Let's consider a different scenario. The rifle bullet struck an object. It produced a spray of fragments that continued downrange which slightly wounded five men. Trump and the four officers standing near him.

Trump's head was not turn just so. The right side of his head was exposed. A fragment struck his ear. And would have continued on to strike his skull, likely killing him, had it been a rifle bullet. But being a fragment, it just gave a minor wound to the ear and was deflected away from the head. Resulting in Trump having a minor wound, just like the four other officers.


So, where is the evidence that Trump's head just happened to turned in such a way, that it was possible for a bullet to hit the ear but miss the skull? Where is the careful study that shows this is so? Anything beyond "Well, it looks to me that this might have been the case?"

Where is the study that carefully:
* studies the photographs of the position of Trump's head, and the compass heading of a midline line from front to the back of the head, through the center of the head.

and compare that to:

* the compass direction of the bullet from the sniper's position to Trump

and see how parallel these two lines are?

And not just get the compass direction of the bullet path from the sniper's position, and just assume the head was turned to face the opposite direction to make such a shot possible.

Keep in mind that most bullets that strike an ear, continue on to strike the skull and produce a fatal shot. A bullet that does strike an ear but does not strike the skull is very rare, very flucky, and should not be our starting theory. In contrast, a fragment could strike an ear and not continue on to go through the skull. A fragment is much more easily deflected.

I finally offer one piece of advice. Stop looking into a scenario of what explains Trump's wound. And start looking into a scenario that explains all the minor wounds to the five men. Make that your starting point. This would be a more productive method. And try to avoid coming up with a scenario that requires a big coincidence, like Trump's head turned perfectly parallel to the bullet path, if you can.

The answer is quite simple: Another “magic bullet” like the one in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.   

Seriously folks, this just shows that no matter how conclusive the evidence is, people will believe what they want to believe…

[Richard Smith]

I'm not exactly sure what you are implying.  Several shots were fired.  Trump was struck on the ear.  A miracle that he wasn't killed.   If CTers were to apply the same standards to this situation that they apply to JFK's assassination, they would be blaming Biden and others for the attempt.  One kid outsmarted Biden's entire secret service with its $3+ billion budget.  He even flew a drone over the sight just hours before the event and no one apparently intervened or found that suspicious.  Drones are themselves dangerous and have been used in assassination attempts.  An astounding security lapse.  I'm not suggesting a conspiracy but more evidence of widespread incompetence under the current administration.

[Joe Elliott]

The answer is quite simple: Another “magic bullet” like the one in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.   

Seriously folks, this just shows that no matter how conclusive the evidence is, people will believe what they want to believe…

e
Conclusive evidence? What is the conclusive evidence you are talking about, that Trump was struck by a rifle bullet?

Was it the statement by the FBI director last Thursday that he did not know if Trump was struck by a bullet or if it was a fragment?

Was it the statement issued by the FBI the next day that Trump was struck by either a bullet or a fragment?

Was there a definitive study that showed that Trump was directly facing the shooter, making a shot that strikes can strike the ear but not the skull? You do have conclusive evidence that they just have not assumed that Trump directly facing the shooter at the time, not off by 10 degrees to one side or the other, making the shot impossible?

The allegedly high "shutter speed" photograph, which was strangely slightly blurred showing the bullet path? And if the very high alleged "shutter speed" is accepted indicates a speed of 8,000 feet per second bullet?

Where is this "conclusive" evidence?

You have not even presented a scenario that explains why 5 men standing close together all received minor wounds?

[Richard Smith]

AP:
Nearly two weeks after Donald Trump’s near assassination, the FBI confirmed Friday that it was indeed a bullet that struck the former president’s ear, moving to clear up conflicting accounts about what caused the former president’s injuries after a gunman opened fire at a Pennsylvania rally.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Let's consider a different scenario. The rifle bullet struck an object. It produced a spray of fragments that continued downrange which slightly wounded five men. Trump and the four officers standing near him.

Trump's head was not turn just so. The right side of his head was exposed. A fragment struck his ear. And would have continued on to strike his skull, likely killing him, had it been a rifle bullet. But being a fragment, it just gave a minor wound to the ear and was deflected away from the head. Resulting in Trump having a minor wound, just like the four other officers.

So, where is the evidence that Trump's head just happened to turned in such a way, that it was possible for a bullet to hit the ear but miss the skull? Where is the careful study that shows this is so? Anything beyond "Well, it looks to me that this might have been the case?"

Where is the study that carefully:
* studies the photographs of the position of Trump's head, and the compass heading of a midline line from front to the back of the head, through the center of the head.

and compare that to:

* the compass direction of the bullet from the sniper's position to Trump

and see how parallel these two lines are?

And not just get the compass direction of the bullet path from the sniper's position, and just assume the head was turned to face the opposite direction to make such a shot possible.

Keep in mind that most bullets that strike an ear, continue on to strike the skull and produce a fatal shot. A bullet that does strike an ear but does not strike the skull is very rare, very flucky, and should not be our starting theory. In contrast, a fragment could strike an ear and not continue on to go through the skull. A fragment is much more easily deflected.

I finally offer one piece of advice. Stop looking into a scenario of what explains Trump's wound. And start looking into a scenario that explains all the minor wounds to the five men. Make that your starting point. This would be a more productive method. And try to avoid coming up with a scenario that requires a big coincidence, like Trump's head turned perfectly parallel to the bullet path, if you can.

Joe: Give us/suggest an object that caused this shrapnel/fragmentation to take place.

What is there that was between the shooter and Trump to cause this to happen? To deflect it? Other than the teleprompter I don't see anything. And the evidence is that the teleprompters were undamaged, not hit. And if shrapnel/framents from it caused the injuries to five other people wouldn't it have been essentially blown apart? That's a lot of shards.

So what do we have? If we subtract the bullets by themselves and the teleprompter (on the left below) as the cause then what is there?

[Joe Elliott]

Joe: Give us/suggest an object that caused this shrapnel/fragmentation to take place.

What is there that was between the shooter and Trump to cause this to happen? To deflect it? Other than the teleprompter I don't see anything. And the evidence is that the teleprompters were undamaged, not hit. And if shrapnel/framents from it caused the injuries to five other people wouldn't it have been essentially blown apart? That's a lot of shards.

So what do we have? If we subtract the bullets by themselves and the teleprompter (on the left below) as the cause then what is there?

I don't know the setup at the stage. But there were five men who all suffered minor wounds.

You imply there is no possible object the bullet could have struck. Where are the photographs that show this? No object within 100 feet of Trump? Bullet fragments flew over 100 yards at Dealey Plaza. Unless one argues that the, again, slight wound to James Tague was caused by a rifle bullet, not a fragment. Nothing in the crowd that could have been struck?

Question: Were all five slightly wounded by rifle bullets?

If not, then some of them, perhaps all of them were wounded by fragments, fragments of the bullet or fragments of the object struck.

If any of them were wounded by a fragment than there must of been an object that was struck by a bullet, because bullets don't just fragment in the air without striking something first. That you don't know or I don't know of such an object does not matter. We can deduce the present of such an object. Otherwise there no reasonable way to explain why five men in the same area should all suffer minor wounds.

Question: If even one of the five was wounded by a fragment, how did that fragment get created.

Question: Who got control of the teleprompter and the other equipment in the area? Did the police seize control of it and carefully examine it and could find no damage? Or did the Trump team wisk it away?

How do we know no object was struck by a bullet just uprange from Trump?

[Charles Collins]

Here's a preliminary animation based on when I believe the first shot arrived (00:00) and ending when I believe the second shot arrived (00:90). The third bullet arrives, by my guesstimate at 01:65 (that moment in the animation is excluded). Thus .90 sec between shots 1 and 2; .75 between shots 2 and 3. As sound lags behind the arrival of the bullets, I have made the arrival of the bullets .15 sec before the sounds were recorded. That lag may have to adjusted.

I do see an unusual rolling of the right shoulder and forward-slouching of the head prior to the right hand being raised. I have the right hand raising up at the very moment the second bullet arrived.

Well done! Thanks! Notice the lady at the very top center. Just above the sign. She turns her head to look in the direction the shots came from. A reaction to the sound I would think.