Warning Graphic Images – Close-up of DJT’s wounded ear to debunk naysayers

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Encia22

So he is both and I saw an interview Eric Trump gave also saying he had no stitches. at around 1:00.

From the same Washington Post article I posted:

Jackson told the New York Times in 2022, that he had allowed his medical license in Florida to expire because he did not have time to see patients. But his medical license remains in “military active” status until early 2025, which the Florida Department of Health states means that “the licensed practitioner, serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, is only authorized to practice in a military facility.”

So, unless I'm mistaken, Jackson was probably allowed to preside, but not personally treat Trump, as I believe the Butler Memorial Hospital is not a Military facility. Nonetheless, I recognise that he had first-hand experience of the fresh wound.

Therefore, a "2 cm wide wound" is confirmed and is about the size of the area I indicated in my OP.

However, as I'm mentioned in an earlier post, I lean towards the ear being grazed and not perforated.

For sure, I dont Disagree this photo could be faked as I’ve seen many many false videos and images shortly after the events.

I was just critiquing what I saw in the imagine not that the imagine was true which in this day and age hard to prove.

But we know for sure he was shot at. We know for sure he got grazed with something and that something is probably a bullet. We know the dates and times of it happening and we have medical testimony.

To argue it didn’t happen is as many pointed out pretty silly.

But what I am more interested in is if it happened the way we are told that’s the important distinction to make for me.

a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: Encia22
But he has been caring for the wound daily, so he would know what it is.

It is Trump's campaign who put the letter out there. You are going to contradict what they have seen and decided to say?

Therefore, a "2cm wide wound" is confirmed and is about the size of the area I indicated in my OP.

But it isn't where they say it is. They said it was 2cm wide at the top of the ear but just enough skin to expose cartilage. The area you circled would be through the cartlige.

a reply to: daskakik

I have not attacked anyone, nor debated against the doctor's memo, or the press release. I'm unsure where you're getting that from within my posts?

I haven't insisted on the bullet perforating his ear. Yet that area I circled appears to be where the ear is traumatised, be it grazed or otherwise. The ear being flexible could have been enough for the bullet to 'push' the helix backwards and 'out of the way', so to speak, thus limiting the damage to a flesh wound.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Encia22
But he has been caring for the wound daily, so he would know what it is.

It is Trump's campaign who put the letter out there. You are going to contradict what they have seen and decided to say?

Therefore, a "2cm wide wound" is confirmed and is about the size of the area I indicated in my OP.

But it isn't where they say it is. They said it was 2cm wide at the top of the ear but just enough skin to expose cartilage. The area you circled would be through the cartlige.

there are pictures of the wound. To argue about the wound is miles beyond ludicrous.

originally posted by: Encia22
I haven't insisted on the bullet perforating his ear.

But the area you circled would have been a perforation through the ear.

Also 2 cm wide doesn't mean 2 cm in diameter. It seems they are saying it is a 2 cm long gash in the skin just deep enough to expose cartlidge.

a reply to: network dude
Well the letter put out by Trump's campaign says there wasn't a hole.

So everyone saying they can clearly see a hole are the ones being ludacris.

originally posted by: daskakik

I haven't insisted on the bullet perforating his ear.

But the area you circled would have been a perforation through the ear.

It just happens I overlaid a circle, I could have just as easily used a rectangle... it was a quick minute Photoshop job.

That's why I left the enlarged image untouched, so that everyone can make of it what they want.

Also 2 cm wide doesn't mean 2 cm in diameter. It seems they are saying it is a 2 cm long gash in the skin just enough to expose cartlidge.

Fair enough, and again, I never insisted it was a hole. Perhaps it's more of a chunk of flesh that is gouged out, but not enough to make a hole. However, I don't see a 2 cm wide gash in the lower part of the ear; I expect it would have left a rip on the outer edge of the helix.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Encia22
But he has been caring for the wound daily, so he would know what it is.

It is Trump's campaign who put the letter out there. You are going to contradict what they have seen and decided to say?

Therefore, a "2cm wide wound" is confirmed and is about the size of the area I indicated in my OP.

But it isn't where they say it is. They said it was 2cm wide at the top of the ear but just enough skin to expose cartilage. The area you circled would be through the cartlige.

there are pictures of the wound. To argue about the wound is miles beyond ludicrous.

Absolutely, in fact, the whole point of my OP was to show clearly that there is a real wound that would have been almost impossible to fake in those few seconds that had elapsed.

originally posted by: Encia22
It just happens I overlaid a circle, I could have just as easily used a rectangle... it was a quick minute Photoshop job.

That isn't the point, the point is that the Trump campaign said it was just skin deep, enough to expose cartilage. You could have put a triangle or any other geometric shape in that area and it would still have not matched what they said.

Fair enough, and again, I never insisted it was a hole. Perhaps it's more of a chunk of flesh that is gouged out, but not enough to make a hole. However, I don't see a 2 cm wide gash in the lower part of the ear; I expect it would have left a rip on the outer edge of the helix.

They say it was at the top of the ear. That is why I said earlier, pinch the skin at the top of your ear, you'll see that there might be around 1/8 of an inch of skin before you feel the cartlidge. The area you circled is the antihelix and part of the triangular fossa. That is all cartilage.

originally posted by: Encia22
Absolutely, in fact, the whole point of my OP was to show clearly that there is a real wound that would have been almost impossible to fake in those few seconds that had elapsed.

I can appreciate that this was the point of the OP, but you don't show it clearly and it doesn't match what Team Trump said the wound was like.

Also look at the pic network dude posted. Open it in another tab and zoom in and you will see that it doesn't look the same as the one you posted. In this pic the top of his ear, even the area you circled is covered by his hair.

a reply to: daskakik

I never said it was anymore than skin deep. If I entertained the notion that the ear had been pierced, I did qualify that with a hole that would not be visible in any case.

I believe the whole ear is mainly composed of cartilage, leaving only the lobe as the flashy part. When I pinch the top of my own ear, I feel the cartilage immediately below the skin... but that's probably just me not having excessive skin.

a reply to: daskakik

The two images show slightly different points in time. Notice the grimace in my one and a different mouth expression in the other.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go figure out the timeline between the two images. However, in all the mayhem, being manhandled by SS personnel, his hair could have easily shifted. I'd be interested to see which one of the two came first.

a reply to: Encia22
Sure, if Trump also has little skin, then the graze was even shallower.

Also, if what they meant was above the midline of the ear as being the top, it could have been on the outer side towards the top. But that is still not where you placed the circle.

Some are saying you can clearly see the hole, and Team Trump said it was just skin. So, obviously it isn't clearly seen and as a matter of fact they point out an area close to what you circled. I pointed out, like I did here, that pics published soon after the attempt show that area covered in bloody hair.

How can you see damage through his bloody hair?

a reply to: daskakik

Well, that's research for another time. I've got a two hour commute to look forward to and won't have time to do much of anything.

a reply to: Encia22
Sure, there are different times and different angles but even in the one below, you can see they his bloody hair is still in the same place while he made his way down the steps.

There was no way to clearly see the damage there, and they have already said that wasn't where the damage was anyway.



ETA: I hope you were not having a beer every time you gave me one. Here is one for the road.

originally posted by: Kurokage
for comparison..

It doesn't look any different?

Sure it does. see the notch in his shot ear, THAT is not in the original. That notch is above the little knot on the ear we see in the unbloodied version of Trumps ear.

PLUS there is fleshy debris at the bottom of his ear after the wound.

a reply to: daskakik

zoom



zoom


ZOOM

I am not using your eyes to do my thinking

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: network dude
Well the letter put out by Trump's campaign says there wasn't a hole.

So everyone saying they can clearly see a hole are the ones being ludacris.

Not a hole but a rip with debris at the bottom of his ear that looks like fleshy matter to me. Former Dental/Medic in the Army NG here while studying in college. I have some experience with wounds, but not going to say I see a hole. I do see a rip or tear.

originally posted by: MetalThunder

That is bloody hair just like in this one: