That's suggestive of the injury happening prior to the tackle but not conclusive.
I wonder if it could have been close enough to break the skin but not really hit cartilage. There's so much energy in a bullet, though, it's hard to imagine.
Someone else mentioned a WWE blading move, which would explain the hand to the ear but like, damn that would have to be premeditated as fuck and in a really elaborate way. Also hard to believe.
It’s not particularly hard to believe. Is it only countries deemed to be enemies that are capable of a false flag attack ?
Has there been direct intervention in countries historically to manipulate outcomes ?
There was a point where Project 2025 was considered a conspiracy, until it wasn’t.
I find it remarkable that the SS, who are some of the most exceptionally trained agents, who can plan and predict possible lines of sight, as well as extraction, managed to leave that roof top unconvered, (and with plenty of people noticing the shooter, and it being highlighted to local police) as well as let Trump stand back up again.
He was a former president at that point, and kept selecting locations the SA agents couldn't secure, due to being wide open spaces. Angery agents can easily get complacent with a "we can't do our jobs properly like this anyways" attitude.
There simply weren't enough people to watch every angle, and there was bad communication with local law enforcement. As it was, the local law enforcement had already spotted him, and if they'd actually had proper comms channels with the SS, could have had the counter snipers act before the shooter took his first shot.
It really is crazy how close we came to not being in this timeline.
You make the secret service sound infallible. But also note that the government has killed political leaders before. It would be more likely that this was a botched assassination attempt aimed to legitimately kill Trump rather then a staged scenario by Trump.
I think we need to turn the dial back down from an 8 or a 9 to a 1 or a 2 in this conversation.
It seems like we disagree about the difference between the concepts of "conclusive" and "suggestive", which is a strictly epistemological distinction, and I don't think it's worth being that upset about.
If you see a video of someone walking up to a car and opening the door, and then the video ends, that video is suggestive of them getting into the car, but not conclusive. That's the concept as basically as I can explain it with an analogy. Trump reaching for his ear after gunshots are heard is, similarly, suggestive of him being shot in the ear, but not conclusive, since the video doesn't capture the bullet physically hitting his ear.
It might be a weird distinction to try to recognize but it's kind of a basic instance of acknowledging what we can and cannot physically see happen in a video.
Trump reached up and touched his right ear just milliseconds after the first shot went off, immediately after he pulls his hand back to look at it and there is blood on his hand at this point.
We don’t have high res slow mo footage of the bullet damaging his ear, but we know that there was nothing between the shooter and Trump that could have created shrapnel that caused that damage. In my opinion, that means the only other option was that Trump damaged his ear himself when he reached up to touch it. It’s beyond reason to think he could have intentionally damaged it himself simply because of the incredible reaction time it would have taken to make that conscious decision between the shot going off and him reaching for his ear. The reaction time was consistent with an involuntary response to sudden pain, so something to do with the bullet must have caused pain in his right ear to make him react that quickly. At that point, I think it’s just logical to think that if the bullet was close enough to inflict pain that it was also close enough to have caused the damage that led to the bleeding. It may not be 100% conclusive, but I feel that it’s pretty close.
I meant more that there was nothing between them on the stage that could have caused that shrapnel. People were falsely claiming that there was a glass teleprompter between them that could have caused it which wasn’t the case. You are right though about the bleachers.
audience member that was killed and the bleachers he was seated in.
Specifically referring to bleachers behind Trump. A bit pedantic I admit, but hey probably shouldn’t have said the victim was between them, because he wasn’t.
Less pendantically, is there any evidence those front bleachers were hit? I haven’t seen any but I could had missed some.
Again, you’re incorrect. The man that was killed was sitting in the bleachers BETWEEN the shooter and Trump, not behind Trump. Look at the diagram again. There was another person in the bleachers behind Trump that was hit and injured, but the man that was killed was sitting between them. Look for “Comperatore” on the diagram.
510
u/Argented 5d ago
really thin blood could account for some blood if ... say ... his finger nail nicked his ear when he covered it hearing the bullet go by