Trump falls!! Hurt too

[thebeave]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

What would be the point of making an exposure of at 1/8000 sec for a run of the mill campaign event? Wouldn't you normally only use settings like that when you are knowingly recording high speed events? I think I'm starting to drift into vast conspiracy land here....

I have a bad feeling about this (/Han Solo). Over 60 years later, people TODAY are still arguing about the JFK assassination regarding what bullet went where and how. Will we be doing the same thing in 2084? All I can say is...

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

What would be the point of making an exposure of at 1/8000 sec for a run of the mill campaign event? Wouldn't you normally only use settings like that when you are knowingly recording high speed events? I think I'm starting to drift into vast conspiracy land here....

That’s f/2 at ISO 100. Basically, that’s Trump against a very blurry background. I have no idea why they would be shooting at those settings for a campaign rally.

 

[jonatha]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

The bullet in the photo in question need not be the one that hit his ear. (It's nowhere close to the appropriate height to do so.)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Probably*. FUCK

 

[thebeave]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

The bullet in the photo in question need not be the one that hit his ear. (It's nowhere close to the appropriate height to do so.)

As far as the apparent height, it kinda depends on the angle of the camera, etc doesn't it? It would seem to me that either the doctors or some specialist at the hospital would be able to confirm whether the wound has the signature of a bullet or teleprompter fragment. I've not heard recent news about whether its possible telepromter debris.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

What would be the point of making an exposure of at 1/8000 sec for a run of the mill campaign event? Wouldn't you normally only use settings like that when you are knowingly recording high speed events? I think I'm starting to drift into vast conspiracy land here....

Why wouldn't you? Bare background with absolutely no interest in depth of field. He was probably shooting several apertures, several speeds. I don't have a $5000 lens so, I don't have to worry about whether to shoot at these settings, but I do know when I shoot photography, I don't have one setting and just leave it there.

I have a bad feeling about this (/Han Solo). Over 60 years later, people TODAY are still arguing about the JFK assassination regarding what bullet went where and how. Will we be doing the same thing in 2084? All I can say is...

View attachment 46785

You are the one bringing up camera settings and how they are a questionable choice.

 

[pood]

The My theory is, Secret Service/FBI knew about the plot and had been in full control right until the moment they weren't.

FIFY

I wish it was mine, but I heard it from more knowledgeable person.

Who, Vladimir HItler?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The My theory is, Secret Service/FBI knew about the plot and had been in full control right until the moment they weren't.

FIFY

I wish it was mine, but I heard it from more knowledgeable person.

For them to know about it, there would need to social media evidence for them to be able to know about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

With a well dialed scope, practicing shooting every day, I could hit that target 99+% at that distance without windage flags with a M16, especially if the scope had a range finder that I could practice with. 500 meters is where it would get really iffy.

I have had standard military marksmanship training.

Same, pretty much 100%. The drill sergeants in basic training were positive I would be a hawkeye. It wasn't just my shooting...even prior to that there was a test where you pinpoint this thing on a screen over and over and the cadre sergeant commented he had never seen as small a cluster of points as mine. Back then I had 20/10 vision. But anyway... one of the drill sergeants stood right behind me during qualifications waiting to see me get the 40 out of 40, pressure was on in a different way than regular procedures. I missed some shots due to that and did not get the 40/40. I still did well and passed, of course, but my lesson in humility is that there is more than one variable (than just competence).

My first reaction upon hearing the news of distance was "this guy was a terrible shot." But then thinking about it more, there's a lot of other variables here like pressure, limited view, angle, counter sniper, ...

Now just also read that he WAS a terrible shot:

Trump shooter bought 50 rounds of ammunition on the day

It emerges that Thomas Matthew Crooks travelled to a local gun store hours before clambering onto a rooftop to aim at former president

www.telegraph.co.uk

While everyone tries to discover motive, maybe this guy just wanted to prove to his constant bullies he actually was a good shooter. Political assassins often have screwed up motives that are independent of partisanship...

With ironsights. I can't stress that enough. Ironsights are a bitch to use, have no range finding features, are tricky to align on, and if someone needs corrective lenses, can lose accuracy due to the fit of one's glasses.

 

[ZiprHead]

The theory is, Secret Service/FBI knew about the plot and had been in full control right until the moment they weren't.

"Theory"??? You are using that word wrong.

 

[barbos]

The My theory is, Secret Service/FBI knew about the plot and had been in full control right until the moment they weren't.

FIFY

I wish it was mine, but I heard it from more knowledgeable person.

Who, Vladimir HItler?

no, it's not Voldemort Zelensky.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Meanwhile, are we just not going to talk about how incredibly weird it was that Trump was hhaving a rally in some nowhere barnyard? That is what’s the weirdest, to me.

I guess he can hold rallies wherever he wishes. Biden has held them in churches, restaurants and halls IIRC. Based upon news reports I see in Australia.,

Of course he can. You’ve answered a question I did not ask.

But it’s a WEIRD place to be, and deserves a discussion, or at least gossip.

If you wish to talk to farmers a barnyard is probably a good place to be. Targeted audience and all that.

Let's not forget landscapers.

 

[ZiprHead]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Nope. Someone actually got a shot of the bullet in mid air.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The bullet in the photo in question need not be the one that hit his ear. (It's nowhere close to the appropriate height to do so.)

As far as the apparent height, it kinda depends on the angle of the camera, etc doesn't it? It would seem to me that either the doctors or some specialist at the hospital would be able to confirm whether the wound has the signature of a bullet or teleprompter fragment. I've not heard recent news about whether its possible telepromter debris.

The round appears to be low, bottom of his ear in the photo. The camera angle is from below also. Viewed directly, this would place the round even lower. The parallax will depend on how close the camera is. I suppose the photographer was near by in the crowd giving a greater parallax.

 

[thebeave]

The bullet in the photo in question need not be the one that hit his ear. (It's nowhere close to the appropriate height to do so.)

As far as the apparent height, it kinda depends on the angle of the camera, etc doesn't it? It would seem to me that either the doctors or some specialist at the hospital would be able to confirm whether the wound has the signature of a bullet or teleprompter fragment. I've not heard recent news about whether its possible telepromter debris.

The round appears to be low, bottom of his ear in the photo. The camera angle is from below also. Viewed directly, this would place the round even lower. The parallax will depend on how close the camera is. I suppose the photographer was near by in the crowd giving a greater parallax.

Maybe its one of them there "magic bullets" that can change course in mid-air.

It does look like its coming in low, but that would imply that the bullet trajectories were kind of all over the map, given that one of them hit him pretty directly. I guess he was a pretty sloppy marksman?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, they should find where the round in the photo made impact, and calculate a back trajectory to the shooter to validate where the round actually traveled.

It's a matter of math at this point to validate whether the actual bullet hit him or whether he bladed himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know if they can determine in 3D space where the bullet is in that image.

The depressing thing is the shooter probably had enough time to think he did it as Trump went down.

 

[LoAmmo]

It’s also a matter of math to calculate the odds that someone intelligent enough to button a shirt could be stupid enough to think Trump “bladed himself.” Jesus fucking Christ, that’s idiotic.

 

[Gospel]

The attempt to take President Trump's life is utterly reprehensible, appalling, disgusting, and incredibly stupid.

With the obvious being said, I'm going to rant so you can stop reading here if you wish.

We should hold individuals responsible for their actions and rhetoric, instead of blaming groups based on factors like party affiliation, race, religion, gender, or socioeconomic status when tragedies happen. For example when an individual that is registered as a Democrat says something out of pocket we should be naming that individual and not talking about democrat's in general, the same applies if the individual is registered as republican.

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic." Instead, some seem to be perpetuating division and misunderstanding by focusing on party lines (but the Dems!, but the Reps!) and implying that Crooks had the support of an entire group based on his party affiliation.

I personally take issue with politicians focusing on groups rather than the ideas they push. However, if we must categorize people into groups, it would be more accurate to name actual organizations like the Heritage Foundation and what their agenda is. Not all registered Republicans support that foundation, at least not knowingly. The same can be said about liberal organizations, such as BLM. As a liberal, I understand their perspective, but I disagree with the leadership (or lack thereof), their agenda, and how they have implemented or failed to implement it, despite some successes (which is another discussion for another time).

In my opinion, this approach is less likely to dehumanize the broader population by not dividing them into the simplistic Blood VS Crips.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

 

[TSwizzle]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.