The coincidences oh the coincidences.
Last week it was discovered that austin capital might have opened a 120m short options position on Trumps stock (DJT) the day before the assassination...
This has started to make national news and then austin capital comes out to deflect by sayig its a filing error... ok... guess we will have to trust our 3 letter agents to determine truth on that. The anons digging also linked them to the Bush family.
But then there's Doug Mills. Doug also has connections to the Bush family and was the man responsible for photographing Bush in the elementary school the day of the 911 attack. Doug is the photographer who was at the Trump rally and caught the bullet streaked photo.
Any optical engineer or professional photographer, such as Doug Mills knows this photo taken is very suspicious... why would Doug Mills be at a Trump rally and have a camera capturing that many frames per second? First a high speed camera that can capture a bullet traveling at 3000 feet per second is not something you would be usig at a Trump rally. The exposure time of that speed would drown out the light and be useless to capture still photos. It would also fill any memory card up so quickly with over exposed garbage photos.
Maybe Doug is just a stupid photographer... or maybe he knew and was expecting the photo of Trump's head explodig, to seed everywhere and literally start a civil war.
Im sure META had no knowledge of it either, which is why Trumps FB account magically is unbanned the day before so all those who use FB could see the coincidental Doug Mills photo being tagged for DJT to really piss folks off.
Anyways... im sure we just have a big coincidence here and shouldn't look at it as anything but that. ,(Sarcasm)
Shutter speed doesn't fill up your memory card, this isn't video, it's photography. Also this man has been shooting political events for decades, so he's been around lots of politicians, doesn't mean he has as meaningful connection to them. The shutter speed was 1/8000 which doesn't drown out the sunlight with professional lenses that can be set to f2 and lower.
With all that said, the shutter was overkill and shooting with such a small aperture risks blurring critical details so I found his choice of camera settings to be unusual yes, but not out of the realm of reality. Would he have captured the most perfect shot of a head being blown off that day? Yes. Did he have foreknowledge? Honestly his camera settings aren't proof of anything. He simply may have wanted a shallow DoF at that point and cranked up the shutter to compensate. I would not have used those settings myself, but I shoot nikon, he has a different rig and different style. So who knows.
Doubt they would tell him EXACTLY what is up, he is just their trusted GOTO guy. He doesnt ask questions, his works get promoted and he lives a comfortable life as one of their servants.
I mean we are talking about about NYT, as DS mouthpiece.
He doesnt have to be explicitly told details of 9/11 or the Assasination attempt or whatever he is sent to cover, just to be sure to focus on Trump at a certain time.
Just seems odds they send their TOP GUY to this ordinary rally and he is the ONLY camera guy to have a primo spot right in front of Trump, Seems odd they send him to take pictures of Bush reading a book to kids as well ......I might go through and view a history of his more famous picks and see if anything else looks timely.
He wasn't the only photographer. There were lots of photographers there firing off their shots in that moment. He's shots were mostly used because he probably just had the best shots.
I understand being suspicious of things right now but being suspicious of this man being there doing his job that he's been doing for decades is like being suspicious of a wedding photographer being at a wedding.
The only thing I thought was weird was his choice of using 1/8000 shutter speed for a subject who's virtually standing still. But a bunch of other photographers have chimed in here saying that's not unusual for them. It is for me, I would never shoot at 1/8000 unless I was at a sporting event. But photographers are all different and all shoot differently. So even if i find that shutter speed utterly overkill, it's simply not enough to accuse this man of knowing anything.
"I would never shoot at 1/8000 unless I was at a sporting event."
So with an fstop of 1.6 and an ISO of 50 to 100 you're telling me that wouldn't give you a proper exposure? Especially when you are trying to include a fluttering flag in the background?
I often shoot at 1.4 and it never required that high of a shutter speed. And wtf about a fluttering flag, omg you don't need 1/8000 to capture a fluttering flag, are you serious?
Didnt say he was the ONLY photog.....he was the ONLY one who had a spot in the front row right in front of Trump....somone posted a photo of his spot and you can see him in the videos as well.
And if the wedding photographer kept taking once in a lifetime type photos during unforseen tragic events at the wedding then suspicion is warranted.
He wasn't the only photog in the front right under Trump. There were several and they all were trying to get shots of a lifetime up there.
Also a wedding photographer's job is to shoot the wedding, a photojournalists job is to shoot the story, no matter what happens. That's not cause for suspicion. That's his literal job. These are the photographers who shoot wars.
With a 24mm wide angle, assuming he was using a full frame camera, depth of field wouldn't be as critical as say a 85mm @F1.6. Still, an odd setting to use at 1/8000 unless he wanted to stop the bullet in mid flight or capture the head exploding. No other movement was happening (or supposed to happen) that would have called for such an extreme setting. Hand gestures, flag waving, facial expressions could have be stopped at 1/1000. IMHO, he was expecting something very fast to happen.
As stated and seen in uncropped photos, he was capturing the flag in the sky. Which was moving. He was also shooting at f1.6.
Also when I was shooting sports events, I would set toe A Priority for DOF and let the camera choose the shutter speed. If he set the A too open it would automatically shoot at a higher speed. My Mark IV had a max of 8000 sec.
Can't imagine he'd shoot with anything other than fully manual. When I shot weddings I only shot in manual, can't trust the cameras built in light meter to correctly expose a subject. But I shot nikon and I find it notoriously underexposed.
"a small aperture risks blurring critical details"
Even wide open a 24mm lens has a large focal plane unless you're on top of your subject. It's enough to blur the audience but barely blurred the podium. And face tracking nails focus 99% of the time on flagship camera's now regardless of aperture.
I saw someone else saying that 1/8000 is not accurate, and it's more likely 1/4000. Sounds reasonable.
I do think he was probably "filling up his memory card" with rapid fire photos. I would like to see his camera and memory card made into evidence, and that would be the first thing I would look at (what do the photos before and after the famous one look like?). I suspect he was shooting in "Continuous Shooting" mode, which is the Canon setting for capturing many photos in rapid succession with one shutter press. One does this when one is trying to capture something very fast and hard to predict, like a hummingbird moving, etc.
The "exposure triangle" is Aperture, Shutter, ISO. I say this for the others on this link, as it appears you understand this. Anyways... it is unlikely that a professional photographer would want a shutter speed that high for a semi-stationary object/person. The photos would not be "over-exposed" because one would manage the aperture and ISO to ensure good exposure.
This smells. I am not sure if it stinks. But it sure does smell.