I believe the analysis here is incorrect with respect to the relative position of the bullet with respect to the wound. The point of view -location of camera - was approximately at the height of the stage. Therefore, objects behind the candidate tend to appear lower relative to the candidate than they actually are. However, I do think the appearance of the bullet is more than suspect - wrong length of the streak for one thing. I explain more here: https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet
Mr. Yim, you are over- or mis-interpretting my use of the word, 'suspect'. At the early stage, people were concluding this was the first bullet. But perhaps I could have chosen a better word.
Please look here, first. Then we can converse better when you understand my perspective.
Sorry - I just believe it is just an elaborate hoax. The vapor trail explanation makes even less sense to me - would require an almost digital on-off characteristic of the trail - not to mention that there has never been a photograph of that phenomena - as far as I know.
Mr. Yim, with all do respect, you offer not evidence for your stance of "I just believe. . . ". My initial assumption was that we were looking at a streak from the actual bullet. I detailed--at the time--that if so, that streak would indicate a bullet speed roughly twice as fast as can be expected for the reputed weapon. Farmers and hunters pointed out to me that I would be better considering this to be a vapor trail. One can see such phenomenon trailing slower moving military and commercial jets. There are lots of photographs that you can find on line of such vapor trails. My wife and I watched just such video filming of jets flying around mountain tops by a group of photographers positioned even above the paths of the jets. I do not know where this was filmed, my guess was in Europe. There were close ups of the different identifying markings causing me to guess that this was the capturing of a NATO exercise.
We are on the same page as far as he length of the streak - 2X too long. I do realize that trails of condensation form in the wake of jets - but I am just stating a reality - this would be a first to have a photograph of this phenomena for a bullet. Also - the appearance is simply not physically realistic - it starts and stops abruptly - spatially - which implies that it also turns on and off abruptly in time (instantaneously) as it propagates in the direction of the bullet - just not the way things work.
Yes, we agree about the length of the streak IF and ONLY IF (IFF) it is the streak of the metallic bullet and not the vapor trail. I believe that what you are say about the vapor trail is debatable. A lot of environmental and ballistic factors are involved that I do not have access to without a lot of work that I cannot afford to invest in at the present moment. Much might not be accessible at all. (This is what good policing whould have produced.) I do not have time tonight to research it, but I am confident that photographs of such vapor trails can be found.
Mr. Gregg, did you read my post carefully? If you did, you would have/should have understood that I did NOT say that former President Trump was not wounded. Indeed, I do not have any reason to believe otherwise at present. Two alternative possibilities should immediately come to mind regarding the trajectory of what is purported to be the bullet in that image: (1) Trump was hit, but this image was doctored to show what we are to interpret as a bullet; (2) this IS a bullet, but not one that hit the former President in his right ear. Supposing for the sake of argument the latter possibility, other possibilities can be entertained, such as: (a) a second shooter fired a shoot from a similar direction (audio analysis should be able to rule this out) or perhaps the same shooter plinked off another round within this frame of time---which I am disinclined to think, but again an audio plus video analysis could easily resolve). Perhaps other hypotheses can be imagined as well. All I am saying is is that the geometry in the situation that that image is purported to represent does not lend itself to an interpretation that THAT represents the bullet that harmed the former President.
Please, perhaps try not to be so condescending and sarcastic. And by all means, if you can show that this image represents what it is claimed to represent, then I will reassess my confidence in the hypothesis presented here.
Thank you for caring enough about what we are facing as a nation and as a world to even comment. I sincerely do appreciate your effort.
I am trying to do careful, technical, forensic work here Mr. Gregg. As a scientist, I am willing to discard any hypothesis that I entertain, or generate, without ego investment. I have been polite to you, but this apparently is neither appreciated nor has it been reciprocated (e.g., your most recent comment about "gassing"). Careful technical work, even--or especially--when we correct ourselves, can reveal previously overlooked details that can at times be quite significant. Your lack of objectivity is curious, Mr. Gregg. In fact, I would say it is telling. You seem to harbor a prejudice, perhaps even an antipathy---but, please, perhaps I am wrong---I hope so. At the very least, this does not seem to be a technical topic that you are either quipped for--or are emotionally, properly disposed to--engage in.
For my other readers, I expect a further analysis forthcoming.
Oh, is that what it is? Well, it struck me as a conspiracy theory in the making. Tell me, is it true that FDR knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
I believe the analysis here is incorrect with respect to the relative position of the bullet with respect to the wound. The point of view -location of camera - was approximately at the height of the stage. Therefore, objects behind the candidate tend to appear lower relative to the candidate than they actually are. However, I do think the appearance of the bullet is more than suspect - wrong length of the streak for one thing. I explain more here: https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet
Mr. Yim, you are over- or mis-interpretting my use of the word, 'suspect'. At the early stage, people were concluding this was the first bullet. But perhaps I could have chosen a better word.
Please look here, first. Then we can converse better when you understand my perspective.
https://dschmitt.substack.com/p/the-second-bullet-captured-in-doug
It is clearer to me now that what we are likely seein is not a streak of the bullet, but a vapor trail instead.
Sorry - I just believe it is just an elaborate hoax. The vapor trail explanation makes even less sense to me - would require an almost digital on-off characteristic of the trail - not to mention that there has never been a photograph of that phenomena - as far as I know.
Mr. Yim, with all do respect, you offer not evidence for your stance of "I just believe. . . ". My initial assumption was that we were looking at a streak from the actual bullet. I detailed--at the time--that if so, that streak would indicate a bullet speed roughly twice as fast as can be expected for the reputed weapon. Farmers and hunters pointed out to me that I would be better considering this to be a vapor trail. One can see such phenomenon trailing slower moving military and commercial jets. There are lots of photographs that you can find on line of such vapor trails. My wife and I watched just such video filming of jets flying around mountain tops by a group of photographers positioned even above the paths of the jets. I do not know where this was filmed, my guess was in Europe. There were close ups of the different identifying markings causing me to guess that this was the capturing of a NATO exercise.
We are on the same page as far as he length of the streak - 2X too long. I do realize that trails of condensation form in the wake of jets - but I am just stating a reality - this would be a first to have a photograph of this phenomena for a bullet. Also - the appearance is simply not physically realistic - it starts and stops abruptly - spatially - which implies that it also turns on and off abruptly in time (instantaneously) as it propagates in the direction of the bullet - just not the way things work.
Vapor trails: https://youtu.be/LZ2a80vxvrY
Yes, we agree about the length of the streak IF and ONLY IF (IFF) it is the streak of the metallic bullet and not the vapor trail. I believe that what you are say about the vapor trail is debatable. A lot of environmental and ballistic factors are involved that I do not have access to without a lot of work that I cannot afford to invest in at the present moment. Much might not be accessible at all. (This is what good policing whould have produced.) I do not have time tonight to research it, but I am confident that photographs of such vapor trails can be found.
Seriously? What did you think you saw? A shaving cut?
Mr. Gregg, did you read my post carefully? If you did, you would have/should have understood that I did NOT say that former President Trump was not wounded. Indeed, I do not have any reason to believe otherwise at present. Two alternative possibilities should immediately come to mind regarding the trajectory of what is purported to be the bullet in that image: (1) Trump was hit, but this image was doctored to show what we are to interpret as a bullet; (2) this IS a bullet, but not one that hit the former President in his right ear. Supposing for the sake of argument the latter possibility, other possibilities can be entertained, such as: (a) a second shooter fired a shoot from a similar direction (audio analysis should be able to rule this out) or perhaps the same shooter plinked off another round within this frame of time---which I am disinclined to think, but again an audio plus video analysis could easily resolve). Perhaps other hypotheses can be imagined as well. All I am saying is is that the geometry in the situation that that image is purported to represent does not lend itself to an interpretation that THAT represents the bullet that harmed the former President.
Please, perhaps try not to be so condescending and sarcastic. And by all means, if you can show that this image represents what it is claimed to represent, then I will reassess my confidence in the hypothesis presented here.
Thank you for caring enough about what we are facing as a nation and as a world to even comment. I sincerely do appreciate your effort.
Trump’s ear was grazed by a bullet that came within an inch of killing him outright. Period. But you’re gassing about some photograph? Okay…
I am trying to do careful, technical, forensic work here Mr. Gregg. As a scientist, I am willing to discard any hypothesis that I entertain, or generate, without ego investment. I have been polite to you, but this apparently is neither appreciated nor has it been reciprocated (e.g., your most recent comment about "gassing"). Careful technical work, even--or especially--when we correct ourselves, can reveal previously overlooked details that can at times be quite significant. Your lack of objectivity is curious, Mr. Gregg. In fact, I would say it is telling. You seem to harbor a prejudice, perhaps even an antipathy---but, please, perhaps I am wrong---I hope so. At the very least, this does not seem to be a technical topic that you are either quipped for--or are emotionally, properly disposed to--engage in.
For my other readers, I expect a further analysis forthcoming.
Oh, is that what it is? Well, it struck me as a conspiracy theory in the making. Tell me, is it true that FDR knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
I cannot say what your goal is Mr. Gregg. I must apologize, I honestly do not have time for such impertinent distractions at this time.