The Important of Medical Evidence

[Joe Elliott]

The Important of Medical Evidence

A key question on resolving if Trump was hit by a bullet or a fragment is the medical evidence and Geometry.

Let's say, for simplicity sake, that we are talking about an object with a similar but more simple shape to an ear, a plastic dish or saucer. A dish one could pour some milk into to feed a cat. But the dish is mounted on a wall, glued on so its face is vertical.

If this disk was struck by a fragment, the damage to it might be anywhere. There could be damage to the rim. There could be damage inside the dish, where the milk would rest if it was on the floor. A gouge could be taken out of it, without punching a hole in it and causing damage to the wall behind it. This is because a fragment is much less powerful than a rifle bullet. It has a fraction of the mass of a bullet. More importantly, it has a fraction of the speed of the bullet. If it was a tenth of the mass of the bullet and one tenth of the speed, it would have one thousands of the kinetic energy. It would be easy for the disk to redirect the direction of travel of the fragment. The dish would tend to force the fragment to bounce off. So, in general, there were be no hole in the dish. No hole in the wall from the dish. The dish would protect the wall.

If contrast, if the disk was struck by a bullet, it would tend to put a hole in the dish and the wall behind would end up with a hole as well. Just as a bullet would usually put a hole in a human ear and procede to put a whole in the skull. Only in the most fluky of cases, with just the right trajectory, would a rifle bullet graze the ear, putting no hole in it and not continuing on to strike the skull.

A medical report, along with the a good photograph would probably resolve if the ear was struck by a bullet or a fragment. If the damage occurred "inside the dish" inside the ear, then the damage would have to be caused by a fragment. Else we would have a hole in the ear and the skull would have been struck. A human ear cannot redirect the trajectory of a rifle bullet.

But if struck by a bullet, a photograph would establish that this truly was a grazing wound. If the damage was limited to the very top of the ear. This would show the damage was consistent with a bullet wound, although it would also be consistent with a fragment.

Why hasn't Trump released his medical report of his ear from July 21? Why have they not publish an image of his ear taken soon after the wound, before it could heel, showing the wound was consistent with a rifle bullet? There is only one reason. The bullet was caused by a fragment and Trump wants to conceal this.

We already know much of what the Trump side has told us is a lie. Ronnie Jackson, the "Candyman", the disgraced former White House physician who was demoted from Rear Admiral to Captain because of his bad conduct in the White House, claimed the bullet put a whole as big as a dime in the ear. Which, if true, would prove a bullet strike. But we have good images of Trump's ear taken two weeks after the incidence and there is no hole. The ear could not heal enough.

Everyone should disbelieve that Trump was wounded by a rifle bullet. Until evidence is submitted, the medical report, a picture taken shortly after the wounding. Otherwise, we will never be allowed to see this evidence.

[Richard Smith]

The Important of Medical Evidence

A key question on resolving if Trump was hit by a bullet or a fragment is the medical evidence and Geometry.

Let's say, for simplicity sake, that we are talking about an object with a similar but more simple shape to an ear, a plastic dish or saucer. A dish one could pour some milk into to feed a cat. But the dish is mounted on a wall, glued on so its face is vertical.

If this disk was struck by a fragment, the damage to it might be anywhere. There could be damage to the rim. There could be damage inside the dish, where the milk would rest if it was on the floor. A gouge could be taken out of it, without punching a hole in it and causing damage to the wall behind it. This is because a fragment is much less powerful than a rifle bullet. It has a fraction of the mass of a bullet. More importantly, it has a fraction of the speed of the bullet. If it was a tenth of the mass of the bullet and one tenth of the speed, it would have one thousands of the kinetic energy. It would be easy for the disk to redirect the direction of travel of the fragment. The dish would tend to force the fragment to bounce off. So, in general, there were be no hole in the dish. No hole in the wall from the dish. The dish would protect the wall.

If contrast, if the disk was struck by a bullet, it would tend to put a hole in the dish and the wall behind would end up with a hole as well. Just as a bullet would usually put a hole in a human ear and procede to put a whole in the skull. Only in the most fluky of cases, with just the right trajectory, would a rifle bullet graze the ear, putting no hole in it and not continuing on to strike the skull.

A medical report, along with the a good photograph would probably resolve if the ear was struck by a bullet or a fragment. If the damage occurred "inside the dish" inside the ear, then the damage would have to be caused by a fragment. Else we would have a hole in the ear and the skull would have been struck. A human ear cannot redirect the trajectory of a rifle bullet.

But if struck by a bullet, a photograph would establish that this truly was a grazing wound. If the damage was limited to the very top of the ear. This would show the damage was consistent with a bullet wound, although it would also be consistent with a fragment.

Why hasn't Trump released his medical report of his ear from July 21? Why have they not publish an image of his ear taken soon after the wound, before it could heel, showing the wound was consistent with a rifle bullet? There is only one reason. The bullet was caused by a fragment and Trump wants to conceal this.

We already know much of what the Trump side has told us is a lie. Ronnie Jackson, the "Candyman", the disgraced former White House physician who was demoted from Rear Admiral to Captain because of his bad conduct in the White House, claimed the bullet put a whole as big as a dime in the ear. Which, if true, would prove a bullet strike. But we have good images of Trump's ear taken two weeks after the incidence and there is no hole. The ear could not heal enough.

Everyone should disbelieve that Trump was wounded by a rifle bullet. Until evidence is submitted, the medical report, a picture taken shortly after the wounding. Otherwise, we will never be allowed to see this evidence.

The FBI confirmed he was hit by a bullet.  So there is more confirmation than just the word of Jackson.  The investigators in charge have confirmed it was a bullet.  If you think he was hit by a fragment of something other than a bullet, what could it have been since there is a clear line of sight between the shooter and Trump?  There is nothing to be fragmented.  Trump is also standing on an elevated platform behind a podium.  Not likely that any bullet bounces off the ground and hits him in the ear. 

[Joe Elliott]

The FBI confirmed he was hit by a bullet.  So there is more confirmation than just the word of Jackson.  The investigators in charge have confirmed it was a bullet.  If you think he was hit by a fragment of something other than a bullet, what could it have been since there is a clear line of sight between the shooter and Trump?  There is nothing to be fragmented.  Trump is also standing on an elevated platform behind a podium.  Not likely that any bullet bounces off the ground and hits him in the ear.

You keep making the same false statement over and over and over. The FBI did not say that Trump was hit by a bullet. Instead they say, he was hit by either a bullet or a bullet fragment.

There is a world of difference between being hit by a rifle bullet and a fragment of a rifle bullet. A rifle bullet might only contain one tenth the mass of the rifle bullet. And it might only be going at one tenth the speed. In which case it would only carry one thousandth, 1 / 1,000 the kinetic energy of a rifle bullet. So even though it contains some of the material that made up the bullet, it is not a rifle bullet.

The FBI, upon further study, may be able to conclude it was a rifle bullet, or was a fragment from the bullet itself, or was a fragment from something the bullet struck.

If it was a fragment, that would explain why:

* Trump did not allow any pictures of the ear out until after the ear had healed.

* Why the projectile did not continue on to strike the skull, which it would have at most angles (but not all) that allow an ear strike.

* Why Trump did not suffer a concoussion and hearing loss form a supersonic bullet passing within two inches of the ear drum.


As far as what was in the line of sight between the shooter and Trump's ear?

Nothing needs to be in the line of sight. Not if the shot was not well aimed. Which is certainly possible from 140 yards away with a shooter with no Marine training or any kind of expert training.

What about the metal handhold, an unsidedown "U" shape piece of metal. A bullet could strike that and produce a bunch of fragments, some of which gave slight wounds to four police officers as well as a slight wound to Trump.

Yes, I know, the four imaginary officers. Who the press reported on shortly after the shooting. And one of who I can see in one of the videos walking in front of the podium that Trump is standing behind. And two of which the press reported a few days later that two of these injured officers may be in some minor trouble for not getting (or possibly did get) proper authorization to help guard Trump.

[Joe Elliott]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30700223/

Auditory risk of exposure to ballistic N-waves from bullets

Study sample: The gun was an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle configured to fire a 0.50 calibre Beowulf00AE cartridge. Four sample shots were recorded for each of four microphone spacing conditions and five kinds of ammunition (80 shots in total).

Conclusions: Unprotected exposure to a ballistic N-wave from a supersonic 0.50 calibre bullet presents a significant risk to hearing at distances of 6.4 metres down range and through trajectories within 1.2 metres of an ear.

So if within 6.4 meters down range of the rifle, not a problem for Trump, over 120 meters away
or:
within 1.2 meters of the track of the bullet, a problem for Trump.

True, I dont think this was a 0.50 calibre bullet, but it did pass within 5 centimeters of his eardrum, 0,05 meters, and yet, miraculously, this super sonic bullet appears to have done no damage to his hearing.

But there would be no hearing loss with a subsonic fragment.

Why are people convinced that Trump was struck by a supersonic rifle bullet?

Can anyone explain this?

[Jerry Organ]

You're really going down the rabbit hole with this.

Eric Trump said of his father: ""He says it's the greatest ear ache in the history of ear aches." Neither Eric Trump nor Donald Trump are known to exaggerate (wink).

Anyway, the earache could have been from the sonic wave of the bullet that caused the skin-deep nick to his ear. There's also the temporary pressure cavity that a bullet makes. The impact point on the ear was about an inch above the canal opening, so some blunting of the pressure cavity.

On the other hand, if just a fragment caused the ear wound, then the succeeding bullets passed close enough to cause the ear ache (of biblical-proportion it was reported). If the streak photo shows a streak almost 18 inches long, then it's quite a bit to the rear of Trump and in the shot spread of the other bullets. My analysis could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Trump bullet is the only one outside the tight arc of the other bullets.

It could be that the first shot was well-aimed and did nick the ear, but it caught the gunman a little unprepared for the recoil, or the recoil made a gripping finger slide a tiny bit. So his succeeding shots were off in that tight arc.

[Charles Collins]

The following information isn’t directly related to bullet shockwaves. However, I think that it might help folks understand the nature of shockwaves in general. I have highlighted some information related to ear damage. But, I suggest reading the entire article carefully if you want to learn a bit about shockwaves, their physics, and how they affect us.



NASA Facts
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Dryden Flight Research Center
P.O. Box 273
Edwards, California 93523
Voice 661-276-3449
FAX 661-276-3566
pao@dfrc.nasa.gov FS-2003-11-016 DFRC
Sonic Booms
Summary
A sonic boom is the thunder-like noise a person on the ground hears when an aircraft or other type of aerospace
vehicle flies overhead faster than the speed of sound or supersonic.
Air reacts like a fluid to supersonic objects. As objects travel through the air, the air molecules are pushed aside
with great force and this forms a shock wave much like a boat creates a bow wave. The bigger and heavier the
aircraft, the more air it displaces.
The Cause
The shock wave forms a cone of pressurized air molecules which move outward and rearward in all directions
and extend to the ground. As the cone spreads across the landscape along the flight path, they create a continu-
ous sonic boom along the full width of the cone's base. The sharp release of pressure, after the buildup by the
shock wave, is heard as the sonic boom.
The change in air pressure associated with a sonic boom is only a few pounds per square foot -- about the same
pressure change experienced riding an elevator down two or three floors. It is the rate of change, the sudden
onset of the pressure change, that makes the sonic boom audible.
All aircraft generate two cones, at the nose and at the tail. They are usually of similar strength and the time
interval between the two as they reach the ground is primarily dependent on the size of the aircraft and its
altitude. Most people on the ground cannot distinguish between the two and they are usually heard as a single
sonic boom. Sonic booms created by vehicles the size and mass of the space shuttle are very distinguishable and
two distinct booms are easily heard.
General Factors Associated With Sonic Booms
There are several factors that can influence sonic booms -- weight, size, and shape of the aircraft or vehicle, plus
its altitude, attitude and flight path, and weather or atmospheric conditions.
A larger and heavier aircraft must displace more air and create more lift to sustain flight, compared with small,
light aircraft. Therefore, they will create sonic booms stronger and louder than those of smaller, lighter aircraft.
The larger and heavier the aircraft, the stronger the shock waves will be.
1
Altitude determines the distance shock waves travel
before reaching the ground, and this has the most
significant effect on intensity. As the shock cone gets
wider, and it moves outward and downward, its
strength is reduced. Generally, the higher the aircraft,
the greater the distance the shock wave must travel,
reducing the intensity of the sonic boom. Of all the
factors influencing sonic booms, increasing altitude is
the most effective method of reducing sonic boom
intensity.
The width of the boom "carpet" beneath the aircraft is
about one mile for each 1000 feet of altitude. An
aircraft, for example, flying supersonic at 50,000 feet
can produce a sonic boom cone about 50 miles wide.
The sonic boom, however, will not be uniform. Maxi-
mum intensity is directly beneath the aircraft, and
decreases as the lateral distance from the flight path
increases until it ceases to exist because the shock
waves refract away from the ground. The lateral
spreading of the sonic boom depends only upon
altitude, speed and the atmosphere -- and is indepen-
dent of the vehicle's shape, size, and weight.
The ratio of aircraft length to maximum cross sec-
tional area also influences the intensity of the sonic
boom. The longer and more slender the aircraft, the
weaker the shock waves. The fatter and more blunt the
vehicle, the stronger the shock wave can be.
Increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only
small changes in shock wave strength.
The direction of travel and strength of shock waves
are influenced by wind, speed, and direction, and by
air temperature and pressure. At speeds slightly
greater than Mach 1, their effect can be significant, but
their influence is small at speeds greater than Mach
1.3. Distortions in the shape of the sonic boom signa-
tures can also be influenced by local air turbulence
near the ground. This, too, will cause variations in the
overpressure levels.
Aircraft maneuvering can cause distortions in shock
wave patterns. Some maneuvers -- pushovers, accel-
eration and "S" turns -- can amplify the intensity of the
shock wave. Hills, valleys and other terrain features
can create multiple reflections of the shock waves and
affect intensity.
Overpressure
Sonic booms are measured in pounds per square foot
of overpressure. This is the amount of the increase
over the normal atmospheric pressure which surrounds
us (2,116 psf/14.7 psi).
At one pound overpressure, no damage to structures
would be expected.
Overpressures of 1 to 2 pounds are produced by
supersonic aircraft flying at normal operating alti-
tudes. Some public reaction could be expected be-
tween 1.5 and 2 pounds.
Rare minor damage may occur with 2 to 5 pounds
overpressure.
As overpressure increases, the likelihood of structural
damage and stronger public reaction also increases.
Tests, however, have shown that structures in good
condition have been undamaged by overpressures of
up to 11 pounds.
Sonic booms produced by aircraft flying supersonic at
altitudes of less than 100 feet, creating between 20 and
144 pounds overpressure, have been experienced by
humans without injury.
Damage to eardrums can be expected when overpres-
sures reach 720 pounds. Overpressures of 2160
pounds would have to be generated to produce lung
damage.
Typical overpressure of aircraft types are:
• SR-71: 0.9 pounds, speed of Mach 3, 80,000 feet
• Concorde SST: 1.94 pounds, speed of Mach 2,
52,000 feet
• F-104: 0.8 pounds, speed of Mach 1.93, 48,000 feet
• Space Shuttle: 1.25 pounds, speed of Mach 1.5,
60,000 feet, landing approach
2

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/120274main_fs-016-dfrc.pdf?emrc=f4b1ff#:~:text=A%20larger%20and%20heavier%20aircraft,the%20shock%20waves%20will%20be.

[Joe Elliott]

You're really going down the rabbit hole with this.

Eric Trump said of his father: ""He says it's the greatest ear ache in the history of ear aches." Neither Eric Trump nor Donald Trump are known to exaggerate (wink).

Anyway, the earache could have been from the sonic wave of the bullet that caused the skin-deep nick to his ear. There's also the temporary pressure cavity that a bullet makes. The impact point on the ear was about an inch above the canal opening, so some blunting of the pressure cavity.

On the other hand, if just a fragment caused the ear wound, then the succeeding bullets passed close enough to cause the ear ache (of biblical-proportion it was reported). If the streak photo shows a streak almost 18 inches long, then it's quite a bit to the rear of Trump and in the shot spread of the other bullets. My analysis could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Trump bullet is the only one outside the tight arc of the other bullets.

It could be that the first shot was well-aimed and did nick the ear, but it caught the gunman a little unprepared for the recoil, or the recoil made a gripping finger slide a tiny bit. So his succeeding shots were off in that tight arc.

I don't think so. A rifle bullet passing with 1200 cm causes a "significant risk to hearing" then I suspect one passing within 5 cm will do some real damage, even if it was not a 50 calibre bullet. Naturally the Trumps would make whatever statement they need to make it seem like he was struck by a rifle bullet.

[Jerry Organ]

I don't think so. A rifle bullet passing with 1200 cm causes a "significant risk to hearing" then I suspect one passing within 5 cm will do some real damage, even if it was not a 50 calibre bullet. Naturally the Trumps would make whatever statement they need to make it seem like he was struck by a rifle bullet.

David Dutch had two wounds. Were they from:

• Two whole bullets
• One whole bullet and one fragment
• Two fragments
• One bullet that caused both wounds, but the
  doctors didn't discern the connecting missile path
• Other?

Using the animation, my guess is that it shows a scene beginning when the first three shots were fired. The first bullet (or maybe fragment) hits the hand rail. If a whole bullet, then it (or if it fragmented at the hand rail, one the fragments) might have went one to hit the hydraulic line. We don't know if the hydraulic line was hit on the first shot. Mr. Dutch is not in view during the ricochet strike to the hand rail. So he could have received one of his wounds from a fragment of the first shot (if the first shot fragmented). Or he might have been struck first on the second shot, which leads to the question of what caused his second wound.

Has his doctors said they recovered two bullets from Mr. Dutch? I suppose these medical records are sealed unless the patient authorizes release. But the doctors will have to testify. How readily does 5.56mm ammunition disintegrate; what exact type of ammunition was used by the shooter? Many questions. Doesn't seem to me to eight bullets, none of which disintegrated. Maybe one or two. But early days.


Thanks, Charles. I can rule out the sonic boom causing the ear ache. Probably the temporary pressure cavity is a dead end because the bullet had not been in a tunnel surrounded by tissue. I thought by ear ache, they meant the ear canal, but I guess they were taking about the outer ear wound.