That's it? A single early report. I've seen nothing to confirm that four officers were injured by fragments.
And I have seen nothing to confirm that the four officers were not slightly injured by fragments.
Clearly, the media is biased in some way. Either they are biased against Trump, and so they do not follow up on this report because they know it would show that no one else was slightly injured, only Trump, strengthening the case that Trump may have been hit by a bullet. Or, they are biased for Trump, and so they ignore these early reports because they known any digging will confirm the minor wounds of the four officers, strengthening the case that they all were slightly wounded by fragments. In any case, the media is falling down on the job by not digging into this to report that this early report was false or confirmed.
Why would the media be biased in favor of Trump? Because they want a horse race. They anticipate that Trump will falter in the polls. Meaning they have to help Trump as much as they can now. Like by concentrating on Biden's age issues while ignoring Trump's.
I don't know what the truth is, but a lot points to Trump being wounded by a fragment.
* Trump was slightly wounded, which is more typical of wounds from fragments, not by rifle bullets.
* Reports of four others standing near Trump being slightly wounded as well.
* Trump not allowing the release of the medical reports on the treatment of his ear that evening. That is super suspicious. The strongest argument against the wound being caused by a bullet. If it was caused by a bullet, Trump would do whatever it took to show this to the public.
* Easier to capture an image of a slower moving fragment than a fast moving bullet, because the timing has to be so much more precise for a fast moving bullet.
* The unlikely location of a grazing wound.
Not all grazing wounds are equally probable. It is possible that one could be grazed along three inches of the inner upper arm, and three inches of the torso, caused by a bullet that passes just under the armpit. Possible, but it would require the person's torso to be pointed in a certain direction, with the arm slightly away from the body held just right. A grazing wound along the top of the shoulder or outer side of the arm is more probable.
Similarly a grazing wound of the ear, without also striking the skull, requires the head to be pointed in a certain direction, or it just can't work. But a fragment can do that because it is much more easily deflected than a bullet.
In any case, I don't think this is a slam dunk that this wound was caused by a rifle bullet.
