www.forbes.com
Why not? Has it been recovered and/or reconstructed? If they don't know whether bullet or fragment, they probably have neither to examine. So how do they know it was from that rifle? Many little fishies in that pond.
Ah, the "second shooter"! Was there a grassy knoll nearby?
This closes it for me. Unless further evidence comes to light, I'll take their word.
Not even close! I don't think he was shot at all. Maybe a chip of wood or glass grazed him - obviously did not enter or pass through any part of his body - but the actual bullet went into the fireman. If 'shrapnel', where did the bullet have a chance to fragment? What would it have hit first?
How do you explain the FBI conclusion?
Damn sloppy forensics? Facile fob-off? Don't want to tell you what we actually know, because we don't know squat?
OK, but isn't that pretty far into Conspiracy Theory territory? I mean, one one side we have the org that is the authority, saying they have made their conclusions (which, presumably, they would only do once they had sufficient grounds to do so), and on the other we have un-evidenced speculation. With all due respect, is this more than an armchair do-your-own-research! kind of thing? Based on what?
I don't think a conspiracy is required for a law-enforcement agency to be careless in the wording of its news release. Sure, something grazed the guy's ear. Of course there was a shooter. It's fair enough to conclude that what grazed the ear either came from the gun, or was in some way connected to the shooting. The FBI only has a clearance rate of about 60% - far better than most US police forces, but they're hardly infallible. In this case, the perp was put out of action, so what more needs resources wasted on it?
Why? Why not a bullet? If it just nicked his ear, it should not open a giant hole, and I don't think there is a lot of blood in the upper ear lobe - it's mostly cartilage.
True, this is something I wondered about.
Operating from scant information. You know Trump is not cooperating with the FBI, lest they say anything that contradicts his carefully constructed narrative.
But that presupposes the FBI would publish their conclusion prematurely, as opposed to saying "All the information we need has not been forthcoming. or merely "we're still gathering facts." or some such.
Nope. No need to assume anything. The FBI had enough information to draw their conclusions, so they did. Since this is not part of an active investigation, anything deeper would be a waste of time and money.
But they have said that they're not sure, at least in as much as they have said they don't know whether he was struck by a whole bullet or fragment. That suggests they don't know the precise trajectories of the bullets fired, and thus quite a bit remains in doubt.
OK, so you just disagree with them. You think he wasn't shot at all.
Yes. this one: A bullet hit him. He did not then and does not now, in many publicly available images, look like someone who has been hit by a bullet. Simple enough?
I'm okay with that, even though I see no trace of a wound only two weeks later. If cartilaginous tissue doesn't bleed copiously, by the same token, it does not heal prodigally. This healing is spectacularly fast.
I wasn't multiplying; I was subtracting. Less happened to him than is reported. The spokesperson used one careless word, nothing more.
just so. Everyone is satisfied and the FBI has more important things to do. The early news release was no doubt in response to pressure to close it and get themselves out of there asap. I don't blame them.
Simply that he is not shot. There is no bullet in his body. There is no bullet-hole in his body. Either a whole bullet (unlikely) or a fragment of something whizzed past his ear, superficially grazing it. That is not being shot.
Well, winged. Its pretty apparent that projectile did not penetrate sufficient tissue to impart any significant kinetic energy.
Have we, in fact, seen his ear since the incident? I have not. How do we judge whether it is healed or healing?
OK, so it seems that you're making a distinction between shot and winged. Fair? I'm OK with that.
Which is strong evidence that there was no tomfoolery. Shooter > gun > projectile > ear.
OK, hang on.
Again, do we know that? If you have a pic of his ear since the event, I would be very interested in seeing it. I know there are already pics out there pretending to be recent but are, in fact, years old.
Ineed. And I am very interested in this physical evidence. Is my news-crawling out-of-date?
That would be a flesh wound to the arm. Not shot, not hit, not nicked (no missing wedge), just grazed.
No - on not seeing a wound, then or later.
He only just disgraced himself at the NABJ interview yesterday.
He's on television every single day. Sans square bandage tag.
Of course not. One careless word, inflated by many, many lies.
Look with your eyes. The absence of a wound is physical and very much in evidence. The bullets fragments would be useful for police purposes if they needed to support a court case. Finding and reconstructing bullets is painstaking work, very difficult at that kind of site - it probably wasn't deemed necessary in the circumstances.
Right. And no one cares which one it is, other than people like you. The shooter is dead.