Trump Assassination Attempt Recreation .

a reply to: daskakik

Yeah.ima send this to the mans family. Enjoy the lawsuit for slandering a dead man.

originally posted by: yuppa
Yeah.ima send this to the mans family. Enjoy the lawsuit for slandering a dead man.

If you think that is the right thing to do, go ahead.

The possibility that this is what happened still stands. You think Trump doesn't know a guy, who knows a guy, who can make it happen for a price?

He's so rich he can't be bought is what I heard during the 2016 campaign. What makes you think he couldn't call in a favor or two?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So you think the photo may actually be the militant leftist initially identified as Maxwell Yearick who recently returned from Ukraine this year??

The problem I got is the page I found that theory has one picture they claim is him in a police uniform tying his shoes, but it is clearly a guy being detained by police just at an angle.

a reply to: daskakik

The possibility that this is what happened still stands. You think Trump doesn't know a guy, who knows a guy, who can make it happen for a price?

Mate It's also possible a Grey Alien in the trees took a shot at Trump or that some random person a mile away fired a random shot into the air and it came down on Trumps Ear.

I've no doubt in my mind there is more to the Assassination attempt than what we are being told . That said you are reaching for something that is so clearly not the case and I'm not even sure why you are reaching for it ....

Are you just trying to prove a point or what ?

yes this is ATS a conspiracy site so I support your open mindedness but not so open your brain falls out .

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

No.

I want to see if there is Any photographic or video record of the shooting from the vantage point of someone in the bleachers behind Trump.

So far, we have seen nothing from that POV. And yet, it seems, no one finds that fact questionable.

Even though it is that POV that could/would, categorically, dispel any doubt as to whether Trump was wounded by a gunman bullet, or something that happened while he was on the ground.


From a "conspiracy" standpoint, it matters. Especially if we are being honest with ourselves when we say that we are seeking "the Truth", and not just what we are told is the truth.

ETA:

There was no "Hole", there was a laceration, as confirmed by statements made by both Trump's former physician, and Trump's own son, Eric.

A "laceration" can result from many sources, including, but not limited to, a "graze" by a bullet.

picture of the hole in the ear. Now this is either a hole in the ear made by a .556 (.22 caliber) projectile, or it's a cleaverly made hoax that needed time to stand still in order to manufacture.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

did a little search on the Twitter and came up with this.

Warning, clicking through will show you a dead person. only sharing to help with the conversation.

x.com...

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Are you just trying to prove a point or what?

The only point I am making is that someone altered that pic and flipped the video of him on the roof to make it look like the shooter was on the other side of the building.

Why would someone go through the trouble?

a reply to: network dude
Eric Trump is on the record saying his dad only had a laceration on the top of his ear, not a hole. Also that it didn't require stiches and would heal on its own.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: network dude
Eric Trump is on the record saying his dad only had a laceration on the top of his ear, not a hole. Also that it didn't require stiches and would heal on its own.

you can argue with the air all you like, but the picture shows a hole. I'm not even sure you could argue with Kodak at this point as digital images have taken them out of the loop. I suppose sky screaming is always an option.

originally posted by: network dude
you can argue with the air all you like, but the picture shows a hole. I'm not even sure you could argue with Kodak at this point as digital images have taken them out of the loop. I suppose sky screaming is always an option.

His own son said there isn't a hole, so you can fool yourself into believing you see a hole but even Donald would probably tell you there isn't one.

Neither you or I know, but his son said it was a laceration at the top of the skin of his ear that didn't even need stitches.

Maybe you should look it up?

a reply to: daskakik
no he did not say there was not a hole. You seem hung up by the word laceration as if that diminishes the fact a hole from a projectile that has pierced or punctured/impaled ones ear flesh is still easily classified as a laceration. A Laceration can be a mangled torn piece of flesh by some definitions. You have the internet, pick any of the scores of sources on its definition .

You are simply attempting to diminish his injury as a way of rationalizing or justifying this attack.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: network dude
you can argue with the air all you like, but the picture shows a hole. I'm not even sure you could argue with Kodak at this point as digital images have taken them out of the loop. I suppose sky screaming is always an option.

His own son said there isn't a hole, so you can fool yourself into believing you see a hole but even Donald would probably tell you there isn't one.

Neither you or I know, but his son said it was a laceration at the top of the skin of his ear that didn't even need stitches.

Maybe you should look it up?

I'm not sure what I need to look up. I have the picture. In the picture there is a hole. Being a picture, it has "picture qualities" such as the ability to see what the picture was a graphical representation of, which in this case, is a hole in the ear.

Now you are free to believe that the underpants gnomes, or perhaps another facist group was able to stop time, and fabricate the blood and hole in the ear, only to remove the hole immediately after Trump's removal from the stage, but I'm afraid that alone won't change the photographic evidence. But Kudos for sticking to your guns.

again, the picture in question for all those who wish to deny it's existence.

a reply to: worldstarcountry
a reply to: network dude
The ex WH doctor said the skin at the top of his ear was lacerated enough to expose cartlidge. You can't even see the top of his ear in the pic some people say they can see a hole in. It is covered with his hair and "blood".

ETA: Trump campaign releases letter on his injury, treatment after last week’s assassination attempt

The bullet track, he said, “produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.”

Than means it was a nick of the skin and not a hole in the cartlidge.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Are you just trying to prove a point or what?

The only point I am making is that someone altered that pic and flipped the video of him on the roof to make it look like the shooter was on the other side of the building.

Why would someone go through the trouble?

Again I say this with all due respect . I just think you don't understand Shooting and the ballistics there in and that's perfectly fine not everyone is an expert mate.

I've spent years shooting in and out of the Military . All it takes is a millimeter of movement to put the Round off or on target from a multitude of angles . 5.56x45 is a very small fast moving round . While yes it is a High pressure round so if it hits the inside of the body or head it has an energetic effect. The Human skull is literally under pressure and so is the chest cavity.

The ear is just cartilage and blood vessels . Whether the bullet put a perfect hole or tore his ear I'm not seeing that as a big difference but rather semantics.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
I've spent years shooting in and out of the Military.

Then you should know that the target doesn't hear the shot until after the bullet hits or misses them.

So this narrative that Trump heard that shot and turned just in time to have the bullet only nick his ear is false.

Besides, the point I was making wasn't about that, it was about why the media was given and put out the altered image and video. Making it seem like the shooter was on the other side of the building.

This is the moment right before Trump reacted to the gunshot. 0.14 seconds was what the bullet would have taken to reach the stage. He was in that position for over .5 seconds. I'm thinking someone caught that and said, we have to make it look like the shooter was on the other side of the building for a nicked ear and not gouging or even penetration of the skull.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
I've spent years shooting in and out of the Military.

Then you should know that the target doesn't hear the shot until after the bullet hits or misses them.

So this narrative that Trump heard that shot and turned just in time to have the bullet only nick his ear is false.

Besides, the point I was making wasn't about that, it was about why the media was given and put out the altered image and video. Making it seem like the shooter was on the other side of the building.

This is the moment right before Trump reacted to the gunshot. 0.14 seconds was what the bullet would have taken to reach the stage. He was in that position for over .5 seconds. I'm thinking someone caught that and said, we have to make it look like the shooter was on the other side for a nicked ear and not gouging or even penetration of the skull.

but you are manufacturing that argument so you can make a post about it. Trump said many times, he turned his head to look at the jumbotron to see the immigration numbers of all the illegals Biden allowed to enter the US.

But if he did say he heard the bullet coming, then yes, that's fantasy. Do you have a link of him claiming to hear the bullet coming at him? (did it say "come at me bro")?

a reply to: network dude

Exactly Daskakik I don't recall Trump saying he moved his head because he heard the shot ......

Trump explained his experience very clearly at the RNC.

a reply to: network dude
I never said that he claimed he heard the bullet coming, I said he reacted to the gunshot after his head head was in the position in that pic for enough time for the bullet to have struck him and in that position, from the position the shooter was at it would have caused more damage than a 2cm nick at the top of his ear.

ETA, you have to remember that the mics wouldn't have registered the sound either until after the bullet hit.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: network dude
I never said that he claimed he heard the bullet coming, I said he reacted to the gunshot after his head head was in the position in that pic for enough time for the bullet to have struck him and in that position, from the position the shooter was at it would have caused more damage than a 2cm nick at the top of his ear.

wait, you think he heard the shot and moved his head? You have been all over the place on this, but it's getting a bit ridiculous at this point.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

How’s that saying go? “If you hear the shot you’re still alive”.

This is always the case unless the round is subsonic.