Someone with more motivation than me could probably calculate whether the amount of bullet streak in the frame would make sense for the frame’s exposure time calculated against the speed of 5.56 at ~150 yds
Someone in another thread did, and it doesn’t quite add up from the muzzle velocity of the average AR load and the shutter speed NYT quoted. But there are a lot of factors at play
I’ve seen careers ended over weirder, dumber shit, but if this was the unaltered version of what they posted I’d assume it was more likely than not real.
“It absolutely could be showing the displacement of air due to a projectile,” Mr. Harrigan said in an interview on Saturday night after reviewing the high-resolution images that Mr. Mills filed from the rally. “The angle seems a bit low to have passed through his ear, but not impossible if the gunman fired multiple rounds.”
Simple ballistic math showed that capturing a bullet as Mr. Mills likely did in a photo was possible, Mr. Harrigan said.
Mr. Mills was using a Sony digital camera capable of capturing images at up to 30 frames per second. He took these photos with a shutter speed of 1/8,000th of a second — extremely fast by industry standards.
…
“If the gunman was firing an AR-15-style rifle, the .223-caliber or 5.56-millimeter bullets they use travel at roughly 3,200 feet per second when they leave the weapon’s muzzle,’’ Mr. Harrigan said. “And with a 1/8,000th of a second shutter speed, this would allow the bullet to travel approximately four-tenths of a foot while the shutter is open.”
I did this in another thread. Using the values for the speed of a bullet from an AR-style rifle quoted from the NYT, and the shutter speed that the NYT photographer claimed, the streak is about 3x too long for the streak to only be the bullet.
In that comment I said that I was skeptical of what we were looking at. Now I wonder if part of the streak is also a refraction effect from the air displaced by the bullet, allowing the streak to be longer than the velocity*exposuretime calculation predicts? I’m not sure!
That might’ve been a shot before he was hit. The gunman fired off multiple rounds and Trump didn’t immediately react. Plus, the bullet that hit him caught his upper ear. That one looks too low.
Perspective can be weird, this photo was obviously taken from a low angle based on the podium. I’m not saying it is the bullet that caught his ear, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
If that’s real, that would be after he was stuck, right? The bullet is to his left, and he was shot from his right
There were multiple shots
Still doesn’t change the direction when it’s a single shooter 🤷
Someone with more motivation than me could probably calculate whether the amount of bullet streak in the frame would make sense for the frame’s exposure time calculated against the speed of 5.56 at ~150 yds
Someone in another thread did, and it doesn’t quite add up from the muzzle velocity of the average AR load and the shutter speed NYT quoted. But there are a lot of factors at play
It would be a weird thing to photoshop and lie about given the inevitable scrutiny.
I’ve seen careers ended over weirder, dumber shit, but if this was the unaltered version of what they posted I’d assume it was more likely than not real.
Not necessarily a photoshop. It could be a bug or bird at a different distance causing a forced perspective type thing.
That’s a good point, but in this case it looks like it’s the real deal.
Yeah, a little off could just be a factor of different load, barrel length, etc.
The NYTimes has an article about it here.
…
I did this in another thread. Using the values for the speed of a bullet from an AR-style rifle quoted from the NYT, and the shutter speed that the NYT photographer claimed, the streak is about 3x too long for the streak to only be the bullet.
In that comment I said that I was skeptical of what we were looking at. Now I wonder if part of the streak is also a refraction effect from the air displaced by the bullet, allowing the streak to be longer than the velocity*exposuretime calculation predicts? I’m not sure!
Reports were he was shot from behind (initial witness testimony, at least). There’s more info out there on positioning now but I haven’t read it all
He was definitely hit from the front. Look at the layout of things.
NYT was reporting a supposed layout that would make this either a missed shot or the shot, but immediately after it hit
He’s already been hit here, but hasn’t reacted.
That might’ve been a shot before he was hit. The gunman fired off multiple rounds and Trump didn’t immediately react. Plus, the bullet that hit him caught his upper ear. That one looks too low.
Perspective can be weird, this photo was obviously taken from a low angle based on the podium. I’m not saying it is the bullet that caught his ear, but I wouldn’t rule it out.
It’s a UFO, what is everyone talking about?