The photographer says the speed used was 1/8000. The streak in the picture is a foot or more long. My understanding is that the fastest bullets travel 4000 fps. If it was the fastest bullet possible it would travel 1/2 foot or 6 inches in the picture, which is closer to Trump's shoulder width than the long streak shown. This was probably a slower bullet. Is this picture more fuckery?
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Most 223 rounds away from muzzle velocity are going to be under 3000 fps, and in the right conditions all bullets will leave a vapor trail / bullet trace. The camera shutter speed would have shown the trail although maybe not the actual bullet. I didn't see the bullet in the pic. I saw the vapor trail.
The Sony 1A (I think) shoots really good video. It could have been caught on video and frame grabbed. Not sure how to calculate the fps (photo) / (ballistic) fps? Haven't found a hi-res pic worth running through ELA analysis. EXIF data can be manipulated.
Yeah I remember firing some hot 44 magnum loads (probably about 1700 fps) out of my lever-action rifle that I had a laser mounted on at the time and the beam lit up a vapor trail all the way out to the end of the range which was 25 yards so I imagine vapor will still be visible in the right lighting conditions for every further.
(If you don't know what I mean, a laser beam is only visible when passing through a scattering medium like smoke or fog. The rounds I fired left enough of a vapor trail that the laser was visible for over 25 yards.)
No, the speed you were given was the film speed. The reason the trail in the picture was longer was because of shutter speed. A DSLR camera the photographers use has a shutter speed a lot slower than the film speed.
Film speed as in ISO? Last I checked 1/8000 is a shutter speed format. Shutter speed also makes a lot more sense when talking about the motion blur on fast moving objects.
It makes you wonder if there was any cameras set up and ready to actual see the vapor. Or did they have it all set up to take the picture to make us think the bullet came from this direction or we're they trying to fool us?
They needed the head shot to demoralize us.
Someone tipped them off to use the high speed camera.
I've done high-speed photography on bullets, and your assumption is correct. The camera would NOT have been able to capture an image of the bullet. However, it now appears that Trump was not struck with a bullet, but rather, glass from a shattered teleprompter. If true, those objects could be traveling significantly slower than the bullet and possibly slowly enough to be captured. Of course, the whole thing could simply be part of a scripted movie like the one that Q says that we're watching.
Where's the video of the teleprompter exploding though? That streak from the "bullet" seems to be coming from the correct trajectory to be an actual bullet.
I said this all along , I’m no expert , but I would think speeding plastic / glass from the teleprompter or something did this , wouldnt a bullet rip his ear off . I would appreciate any knowledge because to me with the knowledge I have , honestly nothing compared to most on here , I don’t understand how a bullet, even grazing him , didn't rip his whole ear off ! I thank God he is safe but damn I’m suspicious that a bullet did this !
I believe spinning shards of teleprompter debris would actually do more damage than a bullet. Bullets wouldn't necessarily 'rip' an ear off unless they were deflected and spinning or deforming due to hitting solid objects. A bullet hole, relatively clean and hot, could reasonably be expected if the projectile had not encountered anything else prior to the soft tissue of the outer ear. MSM talks about teleprompter but no one has shown that, as far as I've seen, anywhere... a shattered teleprompter would likely have injured many more people, but all we have are gunshot victims so far, not debris victims. I got the impression that MSM was reaching for any way to avoid saying Trump was shot.
Thank you so much . I love learning !