Why begin with an ad hominem? Does it add anything to the conversation?
albeit a lucky snap
As I said, lottery winning luck. A rolling shutter doesn't change the odds of capturing that perfect image. There are maybe 5 ft of photographic space where such an image could have been taken. Really, there is less, because the drama is substantially decreased if the bullet is further away in the image, or it is behind his head. So, being generous, 3000/5 = 600. So a 1 in 600 chance of capturing that image, assuming the person was taking photos once per second on a continual basis (which is itself HIGHLY unlikely).
Given the number of bullets being fired
There was ONE BULLET that went near Trumps head. One single bullet. Watch the film, that information is obvious. That particular bullet in the photo was also the first register, so, given that the bullet velocity is 3000 fps and the speed of sound is less than 1200fps, the decision to take that picture would have had to have happened BEFORE the first shot was fired.
Lucky shot indeed.
the abundance of photogs in the area
And yet, it was provided by the same person who was front and center for 9/11. What are the odds?
Even still, it was at best a 1 in 600 shot (I think I'm being very generous there). Did > 600 people simultaneously decide to take a close up picture of Trump at the highest shutter speed, on their professional quality camera, during the second before the first shot was fired?
Go and check out what the Sony A9iii
Well, I don't have the A9, but I do have an A7. I probably average 200 pictures per week on it. I have some idea what I can do with the camera. Assuming ignorance, without actually addressing the argument being made is not a good rebuttal.
Why begin with an ad hominem? Does it add anything to the conversation?
As I said, lottery winning luck. A rolling shutter doesn't change the odds of capturing that perfect image. There are maybe 5 ft of photographic space where such an image could have been taken. Really, there is less, because the drama is substantially decreased if the bullet is further away in the image, or it is behind his head. So, being generous, 3000/5 = 600. So a 1 in 600 chance of capturing that image, assuming the person was taking photos once per second on a continual basis (which is itself HIGHLY unlikely).
There was ONE BULLET that went near Trumps head. One single bullet. Watch the film, that information is obvious. That particular bullet in the photo was also the first register, so, given that the bullet velocity is 3000 fps and the speed of sound is less than 1200fps, the decision to take that picture would have had to have happened BEFORE the first shot was fired.
Lucky shot indeed.
And yet, it was provided by the same person who was front and center for 9/11. What are the odds?
Even still, it was at best a 1 in 600 shot (I think I'm being very generous there). Did > 600 people simultaneously decide to take a close up picture of Trump at the highest shutter speed, on their professional quality camera, during the second before the first shot was fired?
Well, I don't have the A9, but I do have an A7. I probably average 200 pictures per week on it. I have some idea what I can do with the camera. Assuming ignorance, without actually addressing the argument being made is not a good rebuttal.
You are welcome to try again.