Trump's Ear wound

[Asherah]

We are in the middle of an election campaign. It's important. When someone with a minor scratch on his ear wants to profit from "stolen valor", he and his handpicked doctor want to spin that to his advantage.

It is perturbing that Trump might be stretching the truth for political gain, but there is not enough evidence to make a strong case that he's actually stretching the Truth here. He's told much bigger lies (e.g. "the election was stolen") that are easy to refute on strong evidence, and are more insidious. Energy is much better spent on communicating those lies than worrying too much about this possible lie.

 

[NoParty]

It is perturbing that Trump might be stretching the truth for political gain, but there is not enough evidence to make a strong case that he's actually stretching the Truth here. He's told much bigger lies (e.g. "the election was stolen") that are easy to refute on strong evidence, and are more insidious. Energy is much better spent on communicating those lies than worrying too much about this possible lie.

I would agree that--in the big picture of Trump's constant lies--this would be 108,548th down the list.

On the other hand, every lie revealed contributes to the body of evidence that might move an objective

person who, so far, has been reluctant to believe that anyone could be that militantly dishonest.

 

[deirdre]

Here's 5 decades worth of data:

i dont think using the original "Summer of Love" (counter culture movement) as a start date really helps debunk his point, just his number of decades.

Try going back to the Old West. Those numbers dance circles over yours. and yes, leaders advocated for gun control back then too. of course these are 'cattle towns', so maybe economic hardship or inadequate police force is the predictor vs guns?.. but still

Article:

Even in Oregon, 1850-1865, which had the lowest minimum rate yet discovered in the American West (30 per 100,000 adults per year), an adult faced at least a 1 in 208 chance of being murdered.

Source: https://cjrc.osu.edu/research/interdisciplinary/hvd/homicide-rates-american-west

 

[Ann K]

Energy is much better spent on communicating those lies than worrying too much about this possible lie.

For political advocacy, I would agree with you, but that is not the purpose of Metabunk. On the other hand, this forum spent a long time debating the Patterson-Gimlin "Bigfoot" film of more than half a century ago. (Nit-picking is often what we do at this site!)

 

[John J.]

there is not enough evidence to make a strong case that he's actually stretching the Truth here.

Agreed.
Whether Trump "took a bullet" or not is a matter of opinion based on what that phrase means,
but he was certainly shot at and wounded (albeit a very minor wound), probably by a 5.56mm round which was fired with the intent of killing him.
That's got to be a major event in his life, and if he makes political capital out of it, well, that's what (many) politicians do.

 

[Mendel]

I think it's a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" situation:

Trump has often blamed others when something adverse happened in his life that he was responsible for. And now that he really isn't to blame, many people still assume he's somehow responsible (especially since he seems to profit from it), and a conspiracy theory appears.

As with other conspiracy theories, there's some belief defense at work, only now the general belief being defended is somewhat well-founded; it just doesn't apply to this instance (as opposed to, say, Flat Earth, which is ill-founded to begin with).

 

[captancourgette]

Agreed.
Whether Trump "took a bullet" or not is a matter of opinion based on what that phrase means,

Did I ever tell you about that time I took a bullet in Laos

 

[Edward Current]

Sorry for the necroposting. I learned today that my two sisters both believe that the assassination attempt was staged. One is a longtime nurse practitioner who believes that there was no injury and that the blood was fake.

It's difficult because I'm not about to mansplain a medical question to someone who has been in healthcare for decades. So, does anyone know of a comprehensive (preferably medical) debunking of the claim that Trump was not at least grazed by a bullet/fragments?

My sister acknowledges that a man in the crowd was killed. So, if real bullets were flying, I have no idea what the conspiracy theory might be — since there's never a coherent theory for evidence-challenged beliefs like this. Just "I don't know what happened, but I do know that the official story is a lie."

 

[deirdre]

debunking of the claim that Trump was not at least grazed by a bullet/fragments?

that's a tough one as there were medical reports, but if she doesn't believe the hospital or doctors what can you do?

 

[Mendel]

I learned today that my two sisters both believe that the assassination attempt was staged. One is a longtime nurse practitioner who believes that there was no injury and that the blood was fake.

It's difficult because I'm not about to mansplain a medical question to someone who has been in healthcare for decades.

Let them explain it to you? What grounds are there for the claim?

 

[Ann K]

Please note: I have no technical references for this. I recall man-in-the-crowd quotations from people who served in combat, and contested that the particular ammunition used could not possibly have nicked an ear without doing far more damage. Their assessment was that a small piece of shrapnel may have done so.

Bear in mind that official statements on this matter have generally come from Trump's chosen doctors, all of whom are loyal to him, and their information should be viewed in that light.

 

[Edward Current]

Let them explain it to you? What grounds are there for the claim?

I asked yesterday:

So what do you think really happened? In order for this claim to have any validity, there has to be a thought-out alternative narrative that makes sense and is consistent with observations. I have never heard any such theory.

She hasn't responded to that, nor has the other sister on the thread. Instead, we have talked about other things. I feel like they don't want to argue about it, particularly since I imagine neither of them has an answer to that question.

I recall man-in-the-crowd quotations from people who served in combat, and contested that the particular ammunition used could not possibly have nicked an ear without doing far more damage. Their assessment was that a small piece of shrapnel may have done so.

If that's not the case, seems like the only other explanation is that the ear wasn't actually touched by the bullet, but that its boundary layer of air whizzing past is what did the little damage that occurred.

Earlier this year, I had a gardening incident where my ear started bleeding more heavily than from any other recent injury I've had. It was dripping on the floor. I joked on Facebook that "I had a fight-fight-fight with a rosebush." But once that stopped, nary a scratch could be seen. Bloody photo:

 

[Bob Jase]

I'll just note that Lord Donald is a good buddy of Vince McMahon and pro-wrestlers are famous for surreptitiously cutting themselves to pretend injury.

 

[Slow Joe]

Please note: I have no technical references for this. I recall man-in-the-crowd quotations from people who served in combat, and contested that the particular ammunition used could not possibly have nicked an ear without doing far more damage. Their assessment was that a small piece of shrapnel may have done so.

Bear in mind that official statements on this matter have generally come from Trump's chosen doctors, all of whom are loyal to him, and their information should be viewed in that light.

The shot was fired close enough that the 5.56mm bullet would still be supersonic, with the displacement being capable of cutting like a knife.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The shot was fired close enough that the 5.56mm bullet would still be supersonic, with the displacement being capable of cutting like a knife.

This myth has already been addressed in this thread.

Post 19:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/trumps-ear-wound.13581/#post-320335

 

[Leekster]

I'll just note that Lord Donald is a good buddy of Vince McMahon and pro-wrestlers are famous for surreptitiously cutting themselves to pretend injury.

Wait... you are on a skeptic site insinuating that Trump faked the injury?

Let's stick to evidence based conclusions.

 

[derwoodii]

to myself it seems a rally patron took the bullet heading for Trump and that Trump was hit by this bullet shrapnel / frag after it passed though victim. 223 projectile can break up after initial impact & Trump upper ear wound could be from small bits of copper jacket or inner lead core either way infecting a minor nick
The other fired bullet impacts where identified on bleacher rails

 

[FatPhil]

Please note: I have no technical references for this. I recall man-in-the-crowd quotations from people who served in combat, and contested that the particular ammunition used could not possibly have nicked an ear without doing far more damage. Their assessment was that a small piece of shrapnel may have done so.

Firing a gun a lot does not make you an expert in flesh wounds. Or mathematics ("could not possibly" is a statement in the realm of probability theory) - they've clearly never heard of a binary chop (if the contact was too great, make it less, if the contact was too little, make it more).

 

[Mendel]

I recommend re-reading the physician's statement in post #8.

 

[FatPhil]

Sources:
...
Ballistics Research, "Bullet Design and Performance." Research papers and studies on the aerodynamics of bullets and the impact of jacket separation on stability and accuracy.

Is that really a source?

 

[FatPhil]

I recommend re-reading the physician's statement in post #8.

He was not the attending physician. He was a friend who happened to previously have been a physician. (Who "never put the needs of the mission or another before his own" and "wanted to be the most favorite guy to the President" - https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/03/2002592287/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2021-057.PDF )

 

[Mendel]

He was not the attending physician.

"I have evaluated and treated his wound daily."

who happened to previously have been a physician.

Has he lost his license to practice medicine?

 

[FatPhil]

"I have evaluated and treated his wound daily."

Has he lost his license to practice medicine?

Tricky question - it depends...

Jackson holds an active license in Florida, according to the state's online license verification system. However, it's listed as "military active," which means "the licensed practitioner, serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, is only authorized to practice in a military facility," per the Florida Department of Health website.

-- https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/111214

Bedminster's a golf club.

 

[Edward Current]

This video disproves that.

Hole in card from .50 BMG bullet which passed through a house of cards. The house of cards is still standing.

That demonstration doesn't address the claim. The question is whether any damage at all can be sustained by a bullet passing (for example) 1mm from of an object. And we aren't talking about tearing an arm off or killing a person, we're talking about a superficial grazing wound. That the house of cards is otherwise undisturbed debunks the claim that there's a blast of wind which sustains long enough to sufficiently accelerate the cards so that the structure is knocked over; that's about it.

A demonstration for this claim would show in closeup super-slow-mo that a bullet missed, say, a banana by 1mm, or 0.5mm, or 0.25mm (etc.) and the banana was completely unaffected.

Think about it. If a bullet was constantly putting out that much kinetic energy, how far could it travel?

Argument from incredulity. A .22 bullet from a long rifle has ~220 joules of KE (according to Grok), and it loses all of that during its flight. Where does that energy go? At least some of it goes into accelerating the surrounding airspace, particularly at the nose of the bullet, which (unless there's some mechanism of supersonics that I don't know) should produce high velocities in the air surrounding the body of the bullet at very short distances.

I think there are YouTube videos showing the damage that high-velocity air can do.

 

[deirdre]

Bear in mind that official statements on this matter have generally come from Trump's chosen doctors, all of whom are loyal to him, and their information should be viewed in that light.

Bear in mind this statement comes from a MB hardcore left winger, who hates Trump, and their information should be viewed in this light.

A .22

it was a .223

(not that any of these conversations about bullet specifics address your sisters' claims. But whether the discussion is "a bullet cant do that" or "officials and hospital staff and the FBI cant be trusted", this thread is giving me Sandy Hook Hoaxer flashbacks which is depressing as hell since i'm on MB, not FB. )

 

[yoshy]

@Edward Current
I've found myself in a similar position with family before (not this particular conspiracy theory though), and I eventually just gave up on ever trying to convince them to use reason (or even have internally consistent beliefs lol). I concluded that it was harming my own mental health and harming my relationships with that particular member, as well as others, and wasn't worth it. Just curious to hear your thoughts on the question "is this worth it?".

One additional aspect in my case is that these family members have respected my boundaries and do not bring up these topics with me anymore. If they were the type of people who constantly brought up these conspiracy theories, that would significantly change the situation and how I handle it.

I'm sorry that you're going through this. It's surprisingly heavy on one's mental health to be in that situation.

 

[Ann K]

Bear in mind this statement comes from a MB hardcore left winger, who hates Trump, and their information should be viewed in this light.

Ah, but remember, I'm not a source of "official" medical information about the President, and they are.

 

[Edward Current]

I've found myself in a similar position with family before (not this particular conspiracy theory though), and I eventually just gave up on ever trying to convince them to use reason (or even have internally consistent beliefs lol). I concluded that it was harming my own mental health and harming my relationships with that particular member, as well as others, and wasn't worth it. Just curious to hear your thoughts on the question "is this worth it?".

One additional aspect in my case is that these family members have respected my boundaries and do not bring up these topics with me anymore. If they were the type of people who constantly brought up these conspiracy theories, that would significantly change the situation and how I handle it.

I'm sorry that you're going through this. It's surprisingly heavy on one's mental health to be in that situation.

I wouldn't say I'm going through anything, since I only asked a few questions on Facebook that went unanswered. I have a feeling that if it were brothers rather than sisters, the battle would still be raging.

This incident is nothing compared to what happened with my mother about 10 years ago. She became enamored with a certain highly polarizing political figure, and her media consumption did a 180. Within a year, her entire view of society changed. We got in fights and it was very distressing, and then I realized the only way I could move forward and have a normal relationship was to completely ban any conversation about politics and things like socioeconomics and race. And it ended up being fine. We talked about family memories, food, nature, music, etc., and it was the same old Mom.

 

[Edward Current]

After looking into this some more, I'm abandoning my claim that it was a near-miss (even within 1mm). It appears to have been a true grazing wound, with the bullet passing perhaps 1 or 2mm deep into the tissue rather than an equal distance away from it. I couldn't find any support for the idea that a fired bullet of this type produces any boundary layer of high-velocity air whatsoever.

 

[yoshy]

I wouldn't say I'm going through anything, since I only asked a few questions on Facebook that went unanswered. I have a feeling that if it were brothers rather than sisters, the battle would still be raging.

This incident is nothing compared to what happened with my mother about 10 years ago. She became enamored with a certain highly polarizing political figure, and her media consumption did a 180. Within a year, her entire view of society changed. We got in fights and it was very distressing, and then I realized the only way I could move forward and have a normal relationship was to completely ban any conversation about politics and things like socioeconomics and race. And it ended up being fine. We talked about family memories, food, nature, music, etc., and it was the same old Mom.

Ugh such an awful situation to go through. It's great you had the emotional intelligence to handle it the way you did. I also give her credit for respecting those boundaries you set.

I'm happy to hear that the situation with your sisters is much less serious than I had assumed. I assumed it more serious, closer to what you went through with your mom.

 

[deirdre]

It's great you had the emotional intelligence to handle it the way you did.

AI Overview


Is censorship a part of emotional intelligence?

No, censorship is not a recognized component or part of emotional intelligence, based on the generally accepted definitions and frameworks of emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is typically defined as the ability to understand, use, and manage your own emotions in positive ways to relieve stress, communicate effectively, empathize with others, overcome challenges, and defuse conflict. It encompasses several key components:

• Self-awareness: Recognizing and understanding your own emotions, strengths, and weaknesses.
• Self-management (or Self-regulation): Managing your emotions, particularly in stressful situations, and maintaining a positive outlook despite setbacks.
• Social awareness (or Empathy): Understanding the emotions, needs, and concerns of other people and picking up on emotional cues.
• Relationship management (or Social skills): Developing and maintaining good relationships, communicating clearly, inspiring and influencing others, working well in a team, and managing conflict.

Censorship, on the other hand, involves the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, ideas, films, news, etc., that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. It's an act of controlling information and ideas, which is distinct from the individual and relational skills that constitute emotional intelligence.
While managing one's own emotions (self-management) can sometimes involve choosing not to express certain feelings in a given situation, this differs significantly from censorship, which is about controlling the expression of others or suppressing information. In fact, constantly censoring oneself can be detrimental to mental health, leading to stress, anxiety, and hindering emotional resilience.

I believe most families, including mine, have a "no politics" rule. I just dont want any younguns reading to confuse censorship with "emotional intelligence".

 

[fizzBuzz]

I wouldn't say I'm going through anything, since I only asked a few questions on Facebook that went unanswered. I have a feeling that if it were brothers rather than sisters, the battle would still be raging.

This incident is nothing compared to what happened with my mother about 10 years ago. She became enamored with a certain highly polarizing political figure, and her media consumption did a 180. Within a year, her entire view of society changed. We got in fights and it was very distressing, and then I realized the only way I could move forward and have a normal relationship was to completely ban any conversation about politics and things like socioeconomics and race. And it ended up being fine. We talked about family memories, food, nature, music, etc., and it was the same old Mom.

My two cents - intellectual humility (particularly accepting you may be wrong) is just as important as emotional intelligence. Just because someone does a 180 on their views doesn't mean they're wrong. I try to make sure I always look at things in this way. I'm not perfect at it, but I definitely try.

A similar thing happened between my mother and I about 25 years ago. She's southern Baptist. I told her I don't really believe in God. It caused a drawn-out argument over like a year. So, I accepted maybe I should look into this more. And over a period of 10-15 years or so, studying scripture, religions, science, etc. I was thoroughly convinced I don't believe in God - and nothing can turn me now. So... thanks, Mom? Point is - that first argument made me realize "I don't know as much about this as I thought I did, I should dig deeper" - and I think that's a good lesson for everyone.

 

[Mendel]

@deirdre confuses the right not to listen with censorship.
Which, if I knew nothing else about her, would already afford me a good guess of her political leanings.

 

[deirdre]

@deirdre confuses the right not to listen with censorship.

banning a topic is censorship. i didnt say i dont agree with doing it in regards to politics (i think politics should be banned on MB and always have). I think in some cases (family, MB etc) it is intelligent to do so...but it's not "emotional intelligence".

 

[yoshy]

banning a topic is censorship. i didnt say i dont agree with doing it in regards to politics (i think politics should be banned on MB and always have). I think in some cases (family, MB etc) it is intelligent to do so...but it's not "emotional intelligence".

Knowing one's own boundaries, being able to communicate those boundaries, and respecting/reciprocating boundaries are all examples of emotional intelligence. They are all actions that require understanding what affects the mental health of yourself and those around you. Placing human relationships above the urge to argue about conspiracy theories is absolutely emotional intelligence. People who "can't help themselves" and destroy relationships over it have poor emotional regulation, which is, again, a major component of emotional intelligence. Just using the definition from Google Gemini, you can see how it relates here:

Emotional intelligence (EI), also known as emotional quotient (EQ), is the ability to understand, use, and manage your own emotions, as well as recognize and influence the emotions of others.

 

[John J.]

It appears to have been a true grazing wound, with the bullet passing perhaps 1 or 2mm deep into the tissue rather than an equal distance away from it. I couldn't find any support for the idea that a fired bullet of this type produces any boundary layer of high-velocity air whatsoever.

You beat me to it!
Grazes from bullets are not unknown, where the bullet flies parallel and just in contact with a skin surface.
Entry wounds from bullets can be little larger than the bullet calibre.
Those statements are supported in "Practical Pathology of Gunshot Wounds", J. Scott Denton, Adrienne Segovia and James A. Filkins, 2006, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 130 (9); Be advised, photographs of gunshot injury and fatalities, https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/130/9/1283/459975/Practical-Pathology-of-Gunshot-Wounds

I recall man-in-the-crowd quotations from people who served in combat, and contested that the particular ammunition used could not possibly have nicked an ear without doing far more damage.

The perpetrator, Thomas Matthew Crooks, used a 5.56x45mm AR-15 -style rifle. 5.56x54mm is the standard US/ NATO rifle calibre, and is also used by many other nations and by private individuals, local circumstances allowing. There are different manufacturers using different propellant loads and bullet designs, but differences in energy imparted are a matter of degree (within 15% across common types for a given barrel length, as far as I can tell).

The 5.56mm round is faster, but significantly less energetic, than its predecessor in US/ NATO service, the 7.62x51mm:

(Wikipedia 5.65x45mm NATO; 7.62x51mm NATO).
Most rifle rounds of the WW2 combatants were a little more powerful still, often firing 10-13g bullets at speeds of 800-850 m/s, with energies very approximately in the range of 3400-4000 J.
The 5.56mm round is fearsome but not unusually powerful.

Bullet tumbling, deformation or fragmentation are probably irrelevant in this context of (at most) a glancing contact at approx130 metres, other than to say there are modifications a shooter can make to a bullet, in the hope of causing increased damage to a target, which might increase risk of fragmentation in flight; such modification also impairs accuracy. We have no evidence Crooks used ammunition altered in this way (but it is possible).

The original ammunition for the M16 was the 55-grain M193 cartridge. When fired from a 20 in (510 mm) barrel at ranges of up to 300 feet (100 m), the thin-jacketed lead-cored round travelled fast enough (above 2,900 ft/s (880 m/s)) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber. These wounds were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.
...With the development of the M16A2, the new 62-grain M855 cartridge was adopted in 1983. The heavier bullet had more energy and was made with a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. However, this caused less fragmentation on impact and reduced effects against targets without armor, both of which lessened kinetic energy transfer and wounding ability.

Wikipedia, M16 rifle (former US service rifle derived from the original military AR-15, and using the same 5.56x45 ammunition).

The M16 has a 20" barrel and imparts a higher muzzle velocity and therefore energy than a 16" barrel as used by Crooks.
Even if Crooks were using ammunition more prone to fragmentation (e.g. M193), it is unlikely to have fragmented at the range (c. 130 metres) used,

Above is based on part of a ballistics reference chart posted by RockyMtnTactical, post #34 on The Firing Line Forums.
Can't vouch for its origins or accuracy, but muzzle velocities and energies are in line with other sources.

Combat veterans may have seen the terrible damage that bullets (including 5.56mm and equivalents) can do. Depending on the bullet's path through the target, cavitation effects- damage to large volumes of tissue much larger than the bullet's size- might be visible; exit wounds are sometimes (but not invariably) much larger than entry wounds. Large cavitation usually requires the bullet to travel through several cm/ approx. 2+ inches of tissue before occurring.


"Wound profiles in ballistic gelatin", Wikipedia M16 rifle. The diagram is for a 5.56x45mm ss109/ M855 NATO fired from a 20" barrel. (Ballistic gelatine does not perfectly model human tissues; the temporary cavitation on the entry surface, vertical line at left of diagram, is not evident in entry wounds portrayed in the Practical Pathology of Gunshot Wounds article.)

Bones may be shattered with predictably grim results, particularly for skull injuries.
Such injuries observed in a casualty surely draw the attention more than, e.g., grazes perhaps sustained by the same individual.

The ballistics reference tables for 5.56x45mm ammunition posted at The Firing Line Forums provide this information on the M855 round (and equivalent tables for other 5.56x45 types, including the earlier M193). I don't know what specific ammunition Crooks used or what types are commercially popular in America; but I'm guessing M855, the standard military round, might be popular, and it is broadly representative of 5.56x45mm ammunition:

(Original capture edited; figures unchanged). Crooks' AR-15 -style rifle had a 16" barrel, as per the two middle columns above.

From this, we can get an impression of the energy lost over distance by 5.56mm bullets shot from a 16" barrel:

I think @Edward Current is right, it's unlikely that kinetic energy "lost" from a 5.56mm bullet to the surrounding air will be able to cause injury to the skin.

All credible evidence very strongly suggests that Thomas Matthew Crooks, using his AR-15 -style rifle, took several shots in the direction of Donald Trump at the rally near Butler, Pennsylvania, 13 July 2024 (Wikipedia, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania). One man was killed, two others seriously injured. Crooks was wounded when his rifle stock was struck by fire from a local policeman, and killed by a US Secret Service sniper a few seconds later.
It must highly, highly likely that Crooks was attempting to kill Trump; the 16" barrel AR-15 provided him with a very real chance of being successful over the distance involved.

I'm not sure it's credible that Trump was equipped with the means to fake or self-inflict a minor injury should a would-be assassin miss, while the attack is still underway!

On balance, I think the most likely explanation is that Trump's right ear was -just- clipped by a 5.56mm round, deliberately fired at Trump by Crooks.

 

[deirdre]

Crooks was wounded when his rifle stock was struck by fire from a local policeman, and killed by a US Secret Service sniper a few seconds later.

im not sure that is accurate.

2. Cartridge Casings and Bullet Fragments The two available bullet fragments were those recovered from Crooks' person and on the roof of a AGR building. The bullet fragment found on the roof of a AGR building tested positive for Crooks' DNA. For the bullet recovered on the roof next to Crooks, although a microscopic comparison was inconclusive, the grooves on the fragment were consistent with the rifling characteristics of test rounds fired through the Secret Service rifle and not consistent with those fired by the LLE officer.

The rear part of the stock on Crooks' rifle was damaged, thought by the FBI to have been damaged through a projectile impact.770 A presumptive chemical test for lead performed on the impact area returned a positive result for lead.771 Although the FBI did not determine the origin of that lead, the PSP concluded in their officer-involved shooting report that "[t]he buttstock of the rifle had a section of the plastic dislodged and missing from along the cheek piece, which was later determined to be a result of the USSS counter-sniper's projectile impact after traveling through Crooks' head."772

(PSP is Pennsylvania State Police. LLE is local law enforcement.)
https://fallon.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tf.finalreport.pdf

 

[deirdre]

I think the most likely explanation is that Trump's right ear was -just- clipped by a 5.56mm round,

oh and just cause i saw it (while skimming for autopsy wounds -i only saw one wound mentioned from the sniper). i personally think .223 and 5.56 are the same thing, but some gun guys are anal about it.

. For example, the FBI identified two .223 caliber (5.56 mm) copper bullet jackets as having been fired through Crooks' rifle.777 One bullet fragment, despite having limited physical markings, was found to be consistent with the rifling characteristics of test rounds fired from the Secret Service counter-sniper rifle.778 Another bullet fragment, which also lacked distinct markings for comparison, had rifling characteristics similar to test rounds the FBI fired through Crooks' and the LLE rifles.779

While the FBI was unable to definitively determine which rifle fired that bullet fragment, they ruled out the Secret Service's firearm due to "differences in class characteristics."780 The FBI also identified two lead bullet cores that were consistent with a .223 caliber bullet.781

An examination of the ammunition collected by the FBI found .223 Remington caliber cartridges with a federal ammunition headstamp, 5.56 NATO cartridges with an Advance Armament Corporation ammunition headstamp, and .223 Remington caliber cartridges with a Hornady ammunition headstamp.782 The ammunition with the Hornady headstamp is consistent with Crooks' purchase of 50 rounds of Hornady .223 Remington caliber cartridges in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania on July 13 while en route to the rally.783

https://fallon.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tf.finalreport.pdf

 

[John J.]

im not sure that is accurate.

You might well be right.

I can't remember what my source was, but it might be outdated or inaccurate. It might have been Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania) which says

Aaron Zaliponi, a member of Butler County's Emergency Services Unit, fired the first shot four seconds after Crooks began shooting at Trump. The bullet is believed to have struck Crooks's rifle stock, causing it to fragment and send debris flying, which hit his face, neck, and right shoulder. The impact forced Crooks to stop shooting and reposition himself. Located on a building behind Trump's left shoulder, a team of Secret Service countersnipers were facing in a different direction and reoriented toward Crooks to aim the second shot at him before he could resume firing; a member of that team then fatally shot Crooks 16 seconds after Crooks had begun firing.

-but your reference is much more authoritative!

i personally think .223 and 5.56 are the same thing

Right again, for most practical purposes.

The .223 cartridge was developed by Remington in the late 1950s. It was used in the original (military, not civilian spec.) prototype ArmaLite AR-15 rifles.

In July 1962, operational testing ended with a recommendation for the adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle chambered in .223 Remington. In September 1963, the .223 Remington cartridge was officially accepted and named "Cartridge, 5.56 mm ball, M193". The following year, the ArmaLite AR-15 was adopted by the United States Army as the M16 rifle, and it would later become the standard U.S. military rifle.

.223 Remington, Wikipedia.

The current NATO 5.56x45mm cartridge, designed by FN of Belgium and adopted by NATO (including the USA) in 1980, is the SS109 / M855. (Wikipedia, 5.56x45mm NATO). It is very similar but not identical to the .233" cartridge.
The "original" .223" cartridge continues to be made by a number of manufacturers, mainly for civilian use.

5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington
The exterior dimensions of the 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington cartridges are identical. While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, the chamber leade, i.e. the area where the rifling begins, is cut to a sharper angle on some .223 commercial chambers. Because of this, a cartridge loaded to generate 5.56mm pressures in a 5.56mm chamber may develop pressures that exceed SAAMI limits when fired from a short-leade .223 Remington chamber.

Wikipedia, 5.56x45mm NATO ; the "5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington" section carries on for a while and I won't pretend to understand it all, but cut a long story short, the NATO round causes higher chamber pressure, so
(1) 5.56mm NATO-chambered weapons can fire .223 Remington cartridges safely
(2) Most (but not all) .223 Remington-chambered weapons can fire 5.56mm NATO cartridges safely
(3) If you use 5.56x45 NATO in a .233 Remington-chambered weapon not built to handle the pressure of the NATO round, you might be severely injured or worse.

i personally think .223 and 5.56 are the same thing, but some gun guys are anal about it.

Rarely have I spent so long on a post only to think, " I set myself up for that."
I'm not a gun guy, but somehow I'm not sure I feel any better...

On the serious side,

An examination of the ammunition collected by the FBI found .223 Remington caliber cartridges with a federal ammunition headstamp, 5.56 NATO cartridges with an Advance Armament Corporation ammunition headstamp, and .223 Remington caliber cartridges with a Hornady ammunition headstamp

...If Crooks was carrying mixed ammunition types, it suggests (to me) he was buying it "as and when" he came across it or could afford it; perhaps a "professional" assassin- or at least someone who had made a methodical plan, over some time, to attempt an assasination with a rifle- would use a preferred/ optimal type of ammunition.

 

[Brian Dunning]

I continue to be shocked at how prevalent this conspiracy theory has become — surely among the most absurd of the decade. It's yet more proof that there is just as much conspiracy ideation on the far left as there is on the far right. As the saying goes: "It doesn't matter whether you go around the left side of the goat or the right side; go too far and you end up at the asshole."