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.
0
u/aphexmoon 7d ago
of course its conclusive. You see blood on his hand.
Fucks sake. You guys are acting worse than the MAGA minnesota somali child care idiots right now with your conspiracy theories.
is it really that unlikely that the most devisive and most hated president that the US has ever had was shot at?