Emergency Doctors Determine that Trump was Struck by a Rifle Bullet

[Charles Collins]

Yes. The photographer indicated that the shutter speed was 1/8,000 of a second. That should be considered definitive. Except for one thing. The length of the bullet path is about one foot. This would indicate a bullet speed of, distance / time.

1 foot / (1/8,000) of a second = 8,000 feet per second.

That is a problem. The muzzle velocity of the AR-15 is 3,300 feet per second. There is no way the shutter speed could be 1/8,000 of a second.

By the way, this photographs is cropped, making it possible the streak was longer than one foot, extending beyond the right edge. But non cropped photographs show the streak is only about one foot long, not much longer.

Correction: In my earlier posts I spoke of a three foot long streak. I was looking at youtube video where I only got a short view. It is really more like a one foot long streak.

If there is a conflict between what the photographer says and what the photograph says, I am going to believe the photograph. There is no way the shutter speed was 1/8,000 of a second. Unless the object was not a bullet fragment nor a bullet but an alien drone moving at 8,000 feet per second.


Perhaps the photographer was mistaken. Maybe the shutter speed was more like 1/4000 of a second. That just might work. But there is another problem.

The image of the sign on the podium of crystal sharpe. But of Trump's hat, the lettering looks a little blurry, obviously caused by Trump moving his head a little, while the podium was still. With the letter "A" on the hat, I cannot clearly see a red triangle inside the white "A". In contrast, I can easily see a blue triangle inside the white "A" on the podium sign, even though the letters are similar size. That hat appears a little blurry.

I would think that at 1/4,000 of a second, the letters on Trump's hat would be quite sharp, not blurry, even if Trump was moving his head slightly.

I think the photograph shows the shutter speed setting was set a good deal slower than 1/4,000 of a second, indicated by the blurring of Trump's hat. If that is true, the object could not be a bullet moving at 3,300 feet per second, and not a pristine bullet.

Question:

Does anyone have an example of a picture, taken with a shutter speed of 1/4,000 of a second, which still shows some blurring of the person, because they were moving a little. That even 1/4,000 of a second is not fast enough to prevent some blurring even of a person who is standing pretty still.

I think that the blurring might have more to do with the depth of field of the focus on the camera/lens at those settings. Peter Russell indicated that it was very shallow in his description of his photos. Perhaps Mills had focused on the podium thinking that would be sufficient. But Trump being a little further away isn’t in as sharp focus as the podium. I doubt that Trump’s motions had anything to do with it.

[Richard Smith]

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?

Your hatred of Trump is reaching a tin foil stage.   This is completely unhinged stuff.  Imagine hating someone to such an extent as to deny what can be seen with your own eyes.  A kid was allowed through gross incompetence of the Biden administration to fire eight shots.  Trump was struck by a bullet according even to the FBI. 

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.

[Joe Elliott]

Your hatred of Trump is reaching a tin foil stage.   This is completely unhinged stuff.  Imagine hating someone to such an extent as to deny what can be seen with your own eyes.  A kid was allowed through gross incompetence of the Biden administration to fire eight shots.  Trump was struck by a bullet according even to the FBI. 

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.

You or the AP have cropped the Friday statement from the FBI. Here is the complete quote:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-bullet-shrapnel-ronny-jackson-christopher-wray-cb780b9d1a078f0be4191682e75101cf

“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle,” the agency said in a statement.

In other words, the President was struck by, either:
* a rifle bullet
or:
* a fragment of a rifle bullet

in which case I wonder, if it was a fragment, how they could tell if was a fragment of the bullet and not a fragment of the object the bullet struck.

Since the FBI believes it could have been a fragment, bullets don't just fragment themselves. They must know, i assume, of some object that was roughly between the shooter and Trump that was struck. But we do not know what the object was or what damage happened to it.


And I have read in the news, and checked out the wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump

Four Pittsburgh Police officers who were feet away from Trump suffered minor injuries from flying debris when bullets struck objects nearby.

So no one hear wants to take a stab at explaining how five men standing near each other received their minor wounds. My explanation? From a spray of several fragments caused when the bullet struck on object. Let's here someone else's idea.

[Joe Elliott]

Going back to one of the original themes of this posts, emergency room doctors do not act like Sherlock Holmes. They get reports of victims of gunshots wounds coming in, they don't go sit in a corner and smoke a couple of pipes and figure out the details, dydywhile the patients bleed out. They get busy and treat the wounds.

In the Trump case, they don't make a careful study of whether a wound was caused by a rifle bullet or a fragment. They just treat it and report it as a bullet wound.

If the JFK case, they don't make a careful study. Wounds typically occur in pairs. And entrance wound and an exit wound. If they find one wound, they don't carefully look for the other wound and then consider which is the entrance wound and which is the exit wound. If they find a round wound on a dying patient, they will just consider it to be an entrance wound, and not consider the possibility that it was an exit wound that was shored up by a collar.

The statements by emergency room doctos are not Holy Writ.

[Richard Smith]

You or the AP have cropped the Friday statement from the FBI. Here is the complete quote:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-bullet-shrapnel-ronny-jackson-christopher-wray-cb780b9d1a078f0be4191682e75101cf

“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle,” the agency said in a statement.

In other words, the President was struck by, either:
* a rifle bullet
or:
* a fragment of a rifle bullet

in which case I wonder, if it was a fragment, how they could tell if was a fragment of the bullet and not a fragment of the object the bullet struck.

Since the FBI believes it could have been a fragment, bullets don't just fragment themselves. They must know, i assume, of some object that was roughly between the shooter and Trump that was struck. But we do not know what the object was or what damage happened to it.


And I have read in the news, and checked out the wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump

So no one hear wants to take a stab at explaining how five men standing near each other received their minor wounds. My explanation? From a spray of several fragments caused when the bullet struck on object. Let's here someone else's idea.

LOL. The FBI investigated and said it was a bullet.  That's a B-U-L-L-E-T.  You think that you know better than the FBI?  You sound like a JFK CTer desperately spinning to reach a desired outcome.   Here is the bottom line.  You hate Trump.  You don't want him to have miraculously survived an assassination attempt in an heroic manner.  Rather, you want to alter the facts to make it seem as though he was in less danger.  We shouldn't believe our eyes or common sense.  We shouldn't believe the FBI who has investigated the actual facts.  Rather, we should entertain some baseless alternative theory because it suits your political narrative.

[Charles Collins]

Mills' camera had a "rolling shutter".

    "Rolling shutter is a method of image capture in which a still picture
     (in a still camera) or each frame of a video (in a video camera) is
     captured not by taking a snapshot of the entire scene at a single
     instant in time but rather by scanning across the scene rapidly,
     vertically, horizontally or rotationally. In other words, not all parts
     of the image of the scene are recorded at exactly the same instant.
     (Though, during playback, the entire image of the scene is displayed
     at once, as if it represents a single instant in time.) This produces
     predictable distortions of fast-moving objects or rapid flashes of light."

Undistorted

Rolling-Shutter Distortion

The left half of the streak was recorded earlier than the other half. In the meanwhile, the bullet had moved a small amount.

That explains it. Technically any single point or pixel in the photo is exposed for the specified shutter speed time. However, the time that it takes to expose the overall photo (or even just the length of the bullet streak) is greater than the specified shutter speed time. Since the shutter “roll” apparently moves horizontally when the camera is in landscape orientation, I imagine that if Mills had had the camera turned 90-degrees (portrait orientation) that the shutter roll would have been vertical and a horizontal bullet streak would have been closer to the correct length for that 1/8000 of a second shutter speed setting. Thanks Jerry!

[Royell Storing]

  Trump's Uncle did far more than, "...went to MIT". He also did clandestine work for the U.S. Govt. Immediately after the death of Nikola Tesla, Uncle Trump was tabbed to independently sift through the numerous "locked down"  labs that Tesla had established across the USA.   

[Richard Smith]

Going back to one of the original themes of this posts, emergency room doctors do not act like Sherlock Holmes. They get reports of victims of gunshots wounds coming in, they don't go sit in a corner and smoke a couple of pipes and figure out the details, dydywhile the patients bleed out. They get busy and treat the wounds.

In the Trump case, they don't make a careful study of whether a wound was caused by a rifle bullet or a fragment. They just treat it and report it as a bullet wound.

If the JFK case, they don't make a careful study. Wounds typically occur in pairs. And entrance wound and an exit wound. If they find one wound, they don't carefully look for the other wound and then consider which is the entrance wound and which is the exit wound. If they find a round wound on a dying patient, they will just consider it to be an entrance wound, and not consider the possibility that it was an exit wound that was shored up by a collar.

The statements by emergency room doctos are not Holy Writ.

You began this thread by claiming that Trump was not struck by a bullet or bullet fragment.  Instead you claimed he was struck by some other mystery object three feet long.  Tin foil hat stuff.  Now you appear to accept that Trump was struck by a bullet or at least a fragment of a bullet.   Either way that means he was shot.  Why go through this tortured exercise?  Here is your reason:  "Trump is claiming he was struck by a bullet to make himself seem more heroic, a man spared by a miracle of God."  You want to denigrate this conclusion (a fact) because you hate Trump.  It is very revealing of the psychology of those who pathologically hate Trump.  Ideology is more important than fact.  It is more important to believe something that supports the narrative than your own eyes.