The Trump Bullet Photo

[captancourgette]

Well one thing is likely, we will have more footage that the JFK assassination to study

Apparently this is a bullet captured

I assume one can work out if it comes from where the gunman was meant to be

EDIT: Seems the above photo is taken with 1/8000 shutter speed.
My personal take is it looks like the bullet is moving from left to right, though I'm no expert (so that jives with where the shooter was)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well one thing is likely, we will have more footage that the JFK assassination to study

Apparently this is a bullet captured

I assume one can work out if it comes from where the gunman was meant to be

EDIT: Seems the above photo is taken with 1/8000 shutter speed.
My personal take is it looks like the bullet is moving from left to right, though I'm no expert (so that jives with where the shooter was)

A bullet of this type at that range would be doing about 2,600 feet per second.

Chop 2,600 into 8,000 sections - means less than a foot.

Almost idle speculation at this point but...

divide 2,600 by 8,000 = 0.35 (of a foot)

so about 3 to 4 inches travel during the exposure???

If that were the case, due to the apparent size of the 3 to 4 inch long streak, the bullet would be closer to the camera, not behind Trump. Close, either way.

As I said, almost idle speculation, though.

What is clear is that this is not the bullet that hit Trump, as he is already reacting.

If this bullet passed in front of him, he was bracketed.

 

[Greene]

A bullet of this type at that range would be doing about 2,600 feet per second.

Chop 2,600 into 8,000 sections - means less than a foot.

Almost idle speculation at this point but...

divide 2,600 by 8,000 =0.35

so about 3 to 4 inches travel during the exposure???

If that were the case the bullet would be closer to the camera.

As I said, almost idle speculation, though.

What is clear is that this is not the bullet that hit Trump, as he is already reacting.

62gr M855 out of a 16" barrel?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I was thinking 223 Remington

Just initial speculations, though

 

[Mick West]

1/8000th of a second might not be the actual exposure time of that photo. It's the shortest possible exposure of the camera (likely a Sony A1) that you can manually set. But we'd have to see the EXIF to verify it.

There's some similar analysis here:

Article:

"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."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

I think it's more likely the photo was taken at 1/1000 to 1/2000, which seems a more typical exposure for a sunny day when not shooting sports. The photographer would want to get Trump in focus, so probably would shoot either in full auto or aperture priority.

 

[JMartJr]

With the recognition that "shoot" is the proper term for what photographers do, in context of this discussion and to avoid confusion I'd suggest hunting about for another, perhaps the more cumbersome "take pictures/photographs." Just a thought, do with it what you will.

 

[deirdre]

perhaps the more cumbersome "take pictures/photographs." Just a thought, do with it what you will.

snap. (not snap like the kids say .."oh, snap" but snap as in snap a photo)

 

[JMartJr]

I don't have enough firearms knowledge to know if this is helpful in narrowing down whether that is indeed a bullet flying by, and what its velocity might be, but for what it is worth:

The "AR-style"semi-automatic rifle, the weapon law enforcement officials have said was recovered from the scene of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on Saturday, is one of America's most popular, recognisable and notorious weapons.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/ar-15-rifle-weapon-donald-trump-rally-shooting-pennsylvania

I'd assume if it is not already out in other reporting that a more exact identification of the rifle will be forthcoming pretty quickly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Does this photo match up to the right moment? Or was this pose just a gesture during an earlier part of the speech?

Frames from video
101

102

103

104

105

Frame 103 seems a good match

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

We'll have to wait for the EXIF to verify the shutter speed.
We'll have to wait to verify the ammo type.


-1/1000 to 1/2000 seems way too slow to capture a 223 round.

-Too big a coincidence to call this a bug... or whatever.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Whatever this is, it's not the bullet that wounded Trump. That bullet was long gone.

 

[deirdre]

if it was as humid in PA as it was here..maybe its a bullet contrail. can you make an aerodynamic trail with somethign so little?

 

[Gary C]

I was thinking 223 Remington

Just initial speculations, though

Not unreasonable so I looked it up. At 150 yards the estimated residual velocity is roughly 2,500 ft/sec

Source: https://www.remington.com/rifle/core-lokt/29-22111.html

 

[Greene]

Not unreasonable so I looked it up. At 150 yards the estimated residual velocity is roughly 2,500 ft/sec

Source: https://www.remington.com/rifle/core-lokt/29-22111.html

We're really going to need more info on the rifle & cartridge combination before we can zoom in on the velocity.

Barrel length & twist as well as bullet weight and composition will all play a role. Fortunately ballistics is a very mature science and once we have the variables plugged in we should be able to narrow it down to +/- 50fps or less.

 

[JMartJr]

if it was as humid in PA as it was here..maybe its a bullet contrail. can you make an aerodynamic trail with somethign so little?

Looks like yes:

Source: https://youtu.be/LZ2a80vxvrY?t=138


From this angle they seem a bit bendy to be what we're seeing in the pic in this thread, and a bit persistent, but I suppose that might vary by relative humidity, and whether you're looking along the contrail as in this vid or across it like we would be if that's actually what's in the photo.

I have no opinion as to whether that's in fact what we're seeing, just relaying that I found a video purporting to show bullet contrails on a humid day...

 

[Greene]

if it was as humid in PA as it was here..maybe its a bullet contrail. can you make an aerodynamic trail with somethign so little?

Looks like yes:

Source: https://youtu.be/LZ2a80vxvrY?t=138


From this angle they seem a bit bendy to be what we're seeing in the pic in this thread, and a bit persistent, but I suppose that might vary by relative humidity, and whether you're looking along the contrail as in this vid or across it like we would be if that's actually what's in the photo.

I have no opinion as to whether that's in fact what we're seeing, just relaying that I found a video purporting to show bullet contrails on a humid day...

Yes, it's possible. In shooting circles it's known as 'bullet trace'.

If you've ever seen a movie or TV show with a sniper team where the 2nd person is looking through a scope and telling the shooter where the rounds are in relation to the target ( "high and to the left" for example), the spotter is reacting to bullet trace.

This video does a good job of showing bullet trace:

Source: https://youtu.be/t43PzWMHoiY?si=l33yA9sYBGHV_2DY&t=25

It's visible even in low humidity conditions as you're seeing the actual wake of the bullet as it displaces the air.

As a Marksmanship Instructor in the Marines, we would plot recruits' shots using 7x35 binos.

-----That being said, seeing it captured from the side is new to me and pretty amazing.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

In light of this... 1/1000 or 1/2000 shutter speed is totally consistent. The "bullet trace" would be tight, without time to spread out, as we see them spreading out in this video. And this kind of shutter speed could capture it.

The question now, is why is it just a dash, instead of stretching across the frame? The answer may be that it was a transitory event. It only lasted a fraction of a second.

So the end of the trace, on our left, is where it has dissipated into invisibility. The water droplets, that were scattering sunlight, have dissipated back into normal humidity. It's like a short lived contrail.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If this is the case, there's no way to estimate how far away it was from the camera... or from Trump. It could have passed in front of him or behind; there's no way to tell which.

 

[captancourgette]

In light of this... 1/1000 or 1/2000 shutter speed is totally consistent. The "bullet trace" would be tight, without time to spread out, as we see them spreading out in this video. And this kind of shutter speed could capture it.

The question now, is why is it just a dash, instead of stretching across the frame? The answer may be that it was a transitory event. It only lasted a fraction of a second.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/shocking-photo-captures-moment-bullet-165156018.html

The Times reported that Mills captured the image while shooting with a shutter speed of 1/8,000th of a second, a speed that the outlet said was "extremely fast by industry standards."

 

[Trailblazer]

I assume one can work out if it comes from where the gunman was meant to be

I've seen a few people claim that the streak doesn't fit with a shot from the claimed location, because it's "horizontal".

Clearly it's not horizontal: it's angled down at the right. Eyeballing it does seem consistent with a rooftop shot from a low building some distance away: the angle from horizontal would not be that great. Presumably it would be possible to reconstruct the shot from the photographer's location (or at least angle, using the podium perspective, even if the distance wasn't known)?

 

[Greene]

I've seen a few people claim that the streak doesn't fit with a shot from the claimed location, because it's "horizontal".

Clearly it's not horizontal: it's angled down at the right. Eyeballing it does seem consistent with a rooftop shot from a low building some distance away: the angle from horizontal would not be that great. Presumably it would be possible to reconstruct the shot from the photographer's location (or at least angle, using the podium perspective, even if the distance wasn't known)?

Again this is hard to answer without knowing more about the rifle, specifically the settings on its sights.

As I'm sure you know as soon as a round leaves the muzzle it is subject to the effects of gravity. To compensate, the angle of the barrel (bore axis) will need to be raised slightly to launch the bullet at a slight angle as the range increases.
Just like throwing a ball. If you want it to travel farther you need to add an arc.

source = https://i0.wp.com/primaryandsecondary.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FOTO_20170627_184920.jpg?ssl=1

Adjustable sights are graduated to help facilitate that. If you know your target is at 500m, you raise the sights to the corresponding setting.

This works fine in a target shooting setting but it's not practical in combat.

The compromise is to 'zero' the sights for a specific distance and leave them there. So at that distance, the rounds will impact where the sights are aimed.

Unfortunately, that means that at distances other than that for which the sights are zeroed, the round will impact higher or lower than the line of sight, but the variation is such that they will still land within a roughly man-sized area. So a case of 'good enough'.

The following image gives an example. Each target shows sights zeroed for a specific range (50, 100 & 300 yards). The red dots are for the point of aim. The black dots show where a bullet would land using the point of aim at the listed ranges.

So for example the far right target shows sights zeroed at 300 yards. The 300-yard dot is in the center of the red dot as expected. Look at the 100 & 200-yard dots. They are several inches higher than the point of aim.

source = https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/07/14/awesome-free-targets-from-arma-dynamics/

The TLDR version is that the exact angle of trajectory of the round will depend upon how the rifle was zeroed.

Has anyone gotten a good estimate on the relative elevations of both the shooter & Mr Trump? That roof was not very high, and the former President was standing on an elevated stage.


----As an aside, USMC & Army SOP has been to zero rifles for 300 yards. That would allow any round fired from 0-300 yards to land within that vertical string on the target.

We know the rifle belonged to the shooter's father. We don't know who zeroed the rifle, what range it was zeroed for, or if it was zeroed at all. If the rifle was zeroed for 300 yards, it's possible the shooter was aiming center of mass and the rounds were higher than the point of aim because the shooter didn't understand how the weapon was setup.

 

[jesseconnell]

Looks like a recently deployed Starlink train TBH. /sarc

 

[Mendel]

Looks like a recently deployed Starlink train TBH. /sarc

The Starlink satellites are shot into space in a pattern that spreads out with distance because they are intended to end up a fair distance apart. The patterns look similar for the same underlying reason.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Claims and issues about the still photo that I'm seeing over and over.

-This bullet is too low to line up with Trump's right ear.
That's true and it takes a good eye to see that. The camera is shooting from a low angle and that could be confusing. You have to be able to "see" the elevation of the bullet and be able to notice that this cannot be a bullet behind Trump's head on the level of the top of his right ear.

But this is not the bullet that wounded Trump. It's one that was fired shortly after the bullet that wounded Trump.


-This bullet is going the wrong way. It's coming from Trump's left.

It's impossible to tell the direction an object was traveling by looking at the streak it left in a photo. People are "seeing" it travel from our right to our left, but that's just mis-perception.


-This bullet is in front of Trump. It couldn't have hit his right ear. This is another magic bullet that zig-zagged in mid-flight.

The assertion that this bullet is in front of Trump is true, but for the wrong reason. You can't tell from a 2D photo if this bullet was traveling behind Trump or in front of Trump. There's such a thing as forced perspective. I do think that it's true that this particular bullet is in front of Trump, but that's because of a mathematical argument about the absolute length of the streak and the apparent length of the streak in the photo in relation to the apparent size of Trump's head in the photo.

But this is not the bullet that wounded Trump. It's one that was fired shortly after the bullet that wounded Trump.



-There's no Pink Haze. We should be able to see a spray of blood.

Nonsense based on intuition and what bullet hits look like in movies. This was a graze. It hit cartilage. A type of tissue that is not very vascular. At the moment of bullet impact there would only be a tiny amount of blood in the tissue at the point of impact. It took a long time for that rivulet of blood we see later to accumulate. The wound was bleeding slowly because there's not much blood flow in ear cartilage.

I'd be very suspicious if we did see a spray of blood.

 

[deirdre]

This was a graze. It hit cartilage. A type of tissue that is not very vascular. At the moment of bullet impact there would only be a tiny amount of blood in the tissue at the point of impact. It took a long time for that rivulet of blood we see later to accumulate. The wound was bleeding slowly because there's not much blood flow in ear cartilage.

I'd be very suspicious if we did see a spray of blood.

heres a video of a surgeon cutting open the cartilage area of an ear. (for the non squeamish who are interested). granted its not the very top of ear but gives a good idea of amount of blood and its slow flow into the ear.
https://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/video/plastics/4/1-harvesting-ear-cartilage.htm#gsc.tab=0