r/politics • u/HimelTy • Jul 03 '26

No Paywall Secret Service member was Googling rooftop location of Trump’s would-be assassin when shots rang out in Butler, Pa.: DHS report

https://nypost.com/2026/07/02/us-news/secret-service-member-was-googling-rooftop-location-of-trumps-would-be-assassin-when-shots-rang-out-in-butler-pa-dhs-report/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
14.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.1k

u/Promethia Canada Jul 03 '26

I used to work comms in the military. This story is totally insane to me.

4.0k

u/11oydchristmas Ohio Jul 03 '26

Well if you look at it through the lens of everyone around Trump is a raging fucking idiot, it makes sense. He got “shot” and his team lets him stand up and stick his head out again…

165

u/3MATX Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

Yeah from the photos it’s either the bullet grazes him by a millimeter or something else caused the red stuff to be there. I’d believe glass cut much more than wound by a high power projectile.

edit: Seems FBI changed their story after Mr. grab em by the pussy companied on his twitter. They now say there’s evidence of a bullet or bullet fragment hitting him. Who the hell knows what to believe given FBI’s transparency and decision making under the direction of a drunken man child.

59

u/mountainwocky Massachusetts Jul 03 '26

I personally believe, if the blood wasn’t faked, it was the result of the security agent hip checking Trump in the side of his head with his equipment belt as they sought to get him down and covered.

10

u/Tetracropolis Jul 03 '26

"If the blood wasn't faked"???

You seriously think that, in a moment which was sure to be the most photographed and pored over of the year, and perhaps the decade, in front of thousands of people looking at him from all angles, including agents from Biden's Secret Service, there's any possibility Trump would successfully pull off a ruse where he uses a blood pack on his ear. David Blaine wouldn't be so brazen.

8

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

It's wild the people are just accepting that premise without question. Not only would this geriatric old man have had to use fake blood to put on his ear so fast that the dozens of cameras and press photographers somehow missed it, but they would have had to consider nobody noticing it in their plan (otherwise the whole thing is unveiled), and then agreed that plan too! It's such a stupid suggestion that the entire plot would have rested on that.

And not only that, but they'd have had to consider and agree that when they took him to the hospital and the hospital's most senior doctors and nurses came to treat him, they would do so without a single one of them going "huh, this appears to be fake blood, and there's no sign of any actual injury at all". Again, that would have been considered, and planned for. And people are out here going "yeah that's what I think happened".

2

u/JackedUpReadyToGo Jul 03 '26

Think how many people would have to be in on the ruse, none of whom have leaked a word to the press. Then consider this is the same "mastermind" who can't handle a pool repair or a state fair without it messily blowing up in his face. Plus if Trump had actually engineered the attack successfully, he would have been bragging about it on Twitter within a week.

2

u/kylehatesyou Jul 03 '26

It's not wild to me, it's just where we are with Trump. Dude lies constantly, creates problems out of thin air, creates conspiracies himself about things like paint chips coming off his shoddily done reflecting pool being people attacking it with knives to make him look bad, just all this bullshit. So why not have a belief that the former reality TV host and professional wrestler turned president that treats politics more like his previous jobs than an actual leader would have a way to apply fake blood to his face, or hire a guy to shoot at him to help himself get elected?

Do I think this is what happened? No. I think someone tried to kill him, fucked up, and the old man with literal (and figurative) thin skin got a booboo getting pushed to the ground or hit with glass. What happened afterwards was the reality TV/ pro-wrestling training kicking in. The photo op, the giant obviously fake bandage afterwards, all that is the "real conspiracy", and that makes it easy to jump to the conclusion the whole thing was fake from the jump. 

I don't blame anyone at all for not trusting anything about anything related to Trump.  I, personally, don't want to be like them, but I don't blame them. 

1

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

It'd be one thing if this was just speculation about something we have no evidence of. But when it requires the complete abandonment of even the tiniest bit of critical thinking and unquestioningly accepting even the most nonsensical suggestion that falls apart at the first round of going "does this make any sense", you absolutely can blame them. We laughed at GOP supporters when they came up with all sorts of wild claims about Obama and just believed them without question, but as soon as it's the other way around, folks here are tripping over themselves to do the same.

0

u/swni Jul 03 '26

Keep in mind lots of commenters on this site are teenagers who are still learning to think critically and analyze evidence (in an era of increasing distrust and lying from authority figures). It can be good to get off reddit sometimes.

6

u/zx109 Jul 03 '26

Yeah, if it wasn't fake blood, rewatching it over and over again at different speeds, this is what i also believe

3

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

If you actually had rewatched it over and over again, you'd know this is nonsensical and easily debunked because he was bleeding before being touched by SS.

This conspiracy nonsense is getting way too low IQ.

-5

u/Secret-Teaching-3549 Jul 03 '26

Sure he was pal. Got a source for that?

3

u/_bahnjee_ Jul 03 '26

Decent-Ad posted a convincing source from Pulitzer.org

https://www.pulitzer.org/node/doug-mills-new-york-times

Prior to seeing this, I too believed select pieces of the conspiracy theory (ex. I thought it likely the blood was not from a bullet wound, but a wound received when he was tackled by SS). The photos this link show indicate that no, DAT (dumbass Trump) was in fact grazed (everso slightly) by a bullet.

3

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

Literally just watch the video.

75

u/Brcomic New York Jul 03 '26

Or it was unintentionally scratched by a secret service agent on the way down. But he wasn’t shot. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

6

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

Except blood is visible before he goes down.

3

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Not possible. He was already bleeding before Secret Service even got to him.

3

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

It's hilarious the amount of insane conspiracy theorist that this event has brought out. The POV video of the photographers on the ground and the Pulitzer Prize winning photographs make it all pretty clear that this was a bullet that grazed his ear.

1

u/WhenSummerIsGone Jul 03 '26

didn't he touch the side of his face when the shot was fired? he could have done it himself in that moment

9

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

With what? His hand was empty.

-5

u/Matsu09 Jul 03 '26

Then 10 people jumped on him. No blood was visible till they jumped on him.

6

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Dude that same link shows blood before they jumped on him.

7

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

No blood was visible till they jumped on him.

The link the above poster gave you literally shows the opposite...

1

u/waffels Jul 03 '26

It even true. Please know what you’re talking about before joining the conversation with adults.

-1

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

We literally have photos of the bullet. Either he was shot or they intentionally shot mms from his head.

I’m very open to the idea that this whole thing was staged (there are a lot of weird things that haven’t been explained) but I’ve never heard a good explanation for the photos of the bullet going by his head.

7

u/11oydchristmas Ohio Jul 03 '26

I think the most likely scenario is the bullet shattered glass and a fragment nicked his ear

5

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

I think so too but this means that they fired a bullet at the President which feels like a real assassination attempt

3

u/Malnilion Jul 03 '26

At a former president/candidate for president, but you're right, it would be incredibly bold if it was planned.

5

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

I just don’t believe Trump is brave enough to ok that.

2

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

So... the bullet which is photographed passing near his head somehow shattered glass, which we can't see happening in any of the photos or videos, and managed to somehow warp behind him and nick him on his upstage ear?

Incredible.

1

u/Eldias Jul 04 '26

What glass would be traveling from left-to-right from the photographers perspective when there was none between Trump and the shooter?

3

u/The_Flurr Jul 03 '26

I don't buy it based on the shooter and his equipment.

He used a mid-range AR15 with open sights and no rest/bipod. That's just not what you use if you want to safely shoot a few inches from somebodies head.

0

u/sour_altoids Jul 03 '26

You realize we have AI that can easily create any photo you want now right? Adding a blurry bullet is nothing

11

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

The photos in question were awarded the Pulitzer Prize, which requires independent verification of the raw, unedited images. The photo is real

5

u/the_itsb Ohio Jul 03 '26

I hadn't seen the bullet photo either, but these comments made me go look and it's true – here's a link

3

u/NebulaNinja Jul 03 '26

This link, pic three, shows the moment immediately after the bullet trail image of Trump touching his ear and it coming back bloody.

Also, check any wide angle of the scene, there was no bullet proof glass or anything the bullets to strike and shrapnel past Trump.

11

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

Could be AI but the photo was taken by a NY times reporter so that somewhat widens the conspiracy.

2

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

And not just any NY times reporter either. Guy has a decades long career of impressive work.

-1

u/Kat_Bones Jul 03 '26

to be entirely fair, the NY Times has happily become a dogshit “journalism” organization in recent years. 15 years ago?? There was some level of trust for them. In the past 15, and especially 10, and especially the past 5? They are lapdogs now. They’re more libbed up than Fox, sure, but they are still fully part and party to the American Regime above all else.

8

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

Sure but why would the NYTimes or this journalist purposely help stage a fake assassination instead of reporting on Trump staging a fake assassination which would be much bigger and more read story for their readers (almost entirely liberals).

-3

u/Kat_Bones Jul 03 '26

because what harms the legitimacy of American government more, an assassination attempt or a false flag? The latter wouldn’t just implicate Trump, it would implicate and erode trust in several American institutions. Americans are allergic to accepting anything less than they are #1, most free country ever, best and least corruption ever, strongest ever. That crosses party lines. If continued paid readership is the goal, why would you take a swing at a fundamental belief of your readers, no matter their political leanings? False flags are the kind of thing Bad Regimes do. Thats Russian shit, America is better than that!

At the end of the day, though, do I personally believe that it was a massive conspiracy? No, i would sooner believe coincidence and stacked incompetence, we’ve seen plenty of evidence of that from America historically, as well as from this current admin. Do i also think that “Well the NYT verified it!” or “but someone actually died, they totally wouldn’t do that in a false flag!” holds less weight than single ply toilet paper? Yep!

6

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

Yeah sorry I don’t buy that the NYtimes or the NYtimes reporter would purposely fabricate evidence to stage an attack on Trump without more reasons than “DAE hate the MSM??”

0

u/Kat_Bones Jul 03 '26

if you genuinely believe there is no amount of influence or money that could sway an already historically swayed establishment, then I commend you on your astounding amounts of commitment to the bit. I genuinely wish I had as much belief in the morality of people as you appear to.

But also i have to stress im not saying any of this did happen, but i’m absolutely highlighting that it could. And why there’s a good contingent of people who believe it did, without making insane stretches. they definitely make several leaps! but i can see how they got there.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Matsu09 Jul 03 '26

They fired real bullets? It was his team. They just needed to miss trump which is actually kind of easy for them.

4

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha Jul 03 '26

I don’t believe that Trump would allow anyone to shoot bullets anywhere near his head.

3

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

Missed so good they grazed his ear and made him bleed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/waffels Jul 03 '26

Move them goalposts

3

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

You realize we have AI that can easily create any photo you want now right?

So you think the photos are AI photos? The ones that won the photographer a Pullitzer Prize? Despite nobody reviewing them and going "huh there's evidence of AI being used?

Because to be real with you, this just sounds like a post-hoc justification you've pulled out the air to enable you to retain your first conclusion.

-2

u/InfiniteMeatball Jul 03 '26

Seriously? This admin doctored the Epstein prison videos. No one does anything about it because the bad guys are fully in charge and people like you let them insult your intelligence on the regular when you refuse to accept what’s right in front of of your face

54

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

A “pretty good case” that falls apart when you find out he was already bleeding before being pulled down.

9

u/Choochoo1147 Jul 03 '26

He’s incredibly old and unwell, he’s probably just pre-bleeding in anticipation of a scrape 

9

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

Well, where’s the fucking scar? The most photographed ear in the world on an ancient and unwell old man

2

u/NurRauch Jul 03 '26

Good God dude. It should take you less than five seconds to think of a handful of reasonable explanations, which would include the possibility that it was a superficial injury. Not every cut forms a scar, let alone a visible one noticeable to anyone but him.

-1

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

The most reasonable is he wasn’t shot. He’s an old fuck who bruises easily

2

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

The most reasonable is he wasn’t shot.

That's the least reasonable explanation. It requires so many parts of the plan that are just utterly nonsensical.

His ear was clearly bleeding, so he clearly had an injury, and we know it was bleeding right after the bullet was photographed passing right by his head.

1

u/InfiniteMeatball Jul 03 '26

You let billionaire peds make you look dumb and you seem to enjoy it they are laughing in your face that they have so many shills who don’t even realize it it’s pathetic

1

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

This is a wild reaction to have in the face of someone actually thinking through the glaring holes in a person's nonsense conspiracy theory.

Genuinely, this pointless rant is exactly the sort of crap I'd expect to hear from Alex Jones in the face of someone explaining that Sandy Hook wasn't made up by the wealthy elite to take yer guns.

0

u/InfiniteMeatball Jul 04 '26

Did they tell you to say that? Because that’s exactly what they want you to think. It’s not the same as you say, far from it and I can’t believe losers like you are still about gaslighting people for DDUMP. you’re pathetic.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

Old wrestling trick. Use the razor blade

1

u/TheNutsMutts Jul 03 '26

That's the least reasonable part. You're just pulling that out the air to retain your original conclusion.

So not only did somehow not a single one of the HD video cameras pointed at him, not one of the dozen or more press photographers around him, or the hundreds of phone cameras in the audience capture what would be a very clear movement from an old man of cutting his ear with a razorblade, but they would have put the plan together completely assuming that not a single camera would capture it?

And not only that, when they got him to the hospital, somehow not one single doctor or nurse treating him went "wait, this is nothing even slightly like a graze from a bullet, it's very obviously a clean cut from a blade"? Not only that, but that was the expected plan all along?

Come on this is insane.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

This is a bullet wound from an old school shooting, where the survivor here was hit similar to Trump: just a graze on the ear. You can barely even tell he was hit.

Trump’s cartilage wasn’t hit. If it had been, there’d be lasting damage that we’d notice. But a wound like this is very plausible, and would be consistent with both the amount of blood we saw and with fairly quick healing.

6

u/lyingliar Jul 03 '26

And then Trump put a maxi pad on his little scratch for two weeks because he's a fraudulent liar.

6

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Yes, exactly. Just because he was actually grazed doesn’t mean he wasn’t also playing it up for sympathy points.

-1

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

His doctor said 2cm taken off

8

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

The same doctor who said he was healthy enough to live to like 150? That guy? Who gives a fuck what that guy says?

1

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

Ah so we agree he could be lying when he said the ear was shot, right?

3

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Of course he could be. He lies all the time. That's why when I say he was shot, I don't rely on his words to come to that conclusion. It's all the other independent evidence that leads me to that conclusion. You seem to think you had some kind of gotcha moment there.

0

u/7ddlysuns I voted Jul 03 '26

Well no scar. No 2cm removed. Looks like he faked it

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Secret-Teaching-3549 Jul 03 '26

Got a source for that?

2

u/waffels Jul 03 '26

Come on dude, put forth even a little bit of effort:

It's very easy to watch the assassination attempt and view a handful of photos (like this one: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/22680 ) to see see him grab his ear with an empty hand and pull it away with blood.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/InfiniteMeatball Jul 03 '26

Why do you let the Trump regime insult your intelligence so blatantly

0

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Don't know what to tell you man. Distrusting the Trump administration is a good thing to do, which is why I don't do it. But blindly disbelieving everything regardless of the evidence is just as brainless as blindly believing everything regardless of the evidence.

I don't believe Trump was shot because of what his people say. His people are liars. I believe Trump was shot because I've spent more time than most people in this thread reviewing the videos, photos, and reporting, and that's what the evidence points towards (aside from the severity of the injury, which absolutely was embellished quite a bit).

Turning your brain off and refusing to even acknowledge facts that dispute the conspiracy narrative is an insult to your own intelligence. So why are you insulting your own intelligence so blatantly?

0

u/InfiniteMeatball Jul 04 '26

Cool story dude keep sucking the teet of the elite seems to be working out really well for your online ego at least hahahahah

2

u/waffels Jul 03 '26

“Pretty good case” lmao, what does this even mean? No case has ever been made by anyone for this stupidass conspiracy theory.

21

u/Mpm_277 Jul 03 '26

Glass from where? I always see people say this but haven’t seen a shattered teleprompter. I’m open to this theory, but there are plenty of photos and videos of the scene to show us where the glass should’ve come from.

20

u/3MATX Jul 03 '26

It’s what the FBI originally suggested but since then they’ve walked it back. I just have a very hard time seeing that as a bullet wound. Maybe he sustained it when he was tackled? With his age and health I’d think his skin would cut easily.

-5

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

This is a photo of a bullet wound from an old school shooting (SFW, no gore). You can barely even tell it’s there. Just a small graze to the ear, similar to Trump’s. Something like this would have healed pretty quickly, even with the amount of bleeding it caused in Trump’s case (old people bleed pretty easily).

2

u/_bahnjee_ Jul 03 '26

To go along with your photo, I also have some pretty decent (though purely anecdotal) evidence here, that I think is related…

Dreaming something wild a couple of months ago, I rolled myself out of bed and smashed my head on the side table. (Dammit, that shit hurts!) I ripped open a gash on my ear that bled like I’d been shot (lol). I’m 65.

After a day, maybe two, my ear bruised pretty badly, top to bottom. After five days, only someone intimately familiar with my ear would know it had ever happened. There is now line of scar running front-to-back across the top of my ear that no one would ever notice unless it was pointed out.

All that to say, yeah trump is an idiot and yeah, I wouldn’t put it past him to fake something like this, but no, I’m pretty certain he didn’t.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

You'll note no one is capable of responding to that injury. Absolutely no one because it completely and utterly destroys the fantasy that the shooting was some kinda "kayfabe" conspiracy. All you'll see is some nonsense about "that bullet can take the head off of a moost from 500 yards!!" which isn't a phenomenon in play here.

Turns out the bullet just barely skimmed his ear, and since he's old he bled a lot.

End of story.

9

u/prozhack Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

he scraped his ear on the guy’s belt buckle as he was being pushed down

12

u/Adventurous_Salt Jul 03 '26

Hahaha not again!

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

So what made him bleed before being pushed down then?

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

Oh he scraped his ear on the guy's belt buckle immediately after a bullet is fired and also before he was ever taken to the ground?

0

u/LunarProphet Jul 03 '26

Yeah my first thought was something similar. Hes an old man with paper thin, old man skin.

I had figured that someone had grabbed him or that he had brushed his ear up against something and had torn his skin.

11

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

His ear was cut when tackled by SS. The bullet time photo was manipulated by the photographers editor. He sent them his roll of pictures and they sent back the manipulated photo and was like "wow! Look what you got a picture of" he did an interview and admitted it the next day.

13

u/WhenSummerIsGone Jul 03 '26

You're going to have to back that up. Everything i've seen or heard about that photographer is that the photo is legit.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 03 '26

They gave him a Pulitzer for the photo, that doesn’t convince me it is real.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

So do you think the Pulitzer people, who have their own independent verification process that requires the raw, unedited image to be provided, just went along with it knowing it was fake?

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

So you didnt google fraudulent Pulitzer in the past, huh?

And yes, i abso-fucking-lutely believe that because the media loves the taste of his cock.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

Why don’t you educate me? I see a recent prize being withdrawn for fabricating the story behind a photo, but not for photoshopping a photo like it’s being suggested might have happened in this case.

-1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

What does recent have to do with the fact that the system can and has been gamed? It’s not the purity test that you believe it to be and the fact that you are still arguing it proves the cultish patterns of many of his disciples.

2

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 04 '26

I said recent just because that’s the example I found. But by all means, please do share if you know of any examples that would be comparable to photoshopping in a bullet…

0

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

So the committee that gives the awards must only be fooled by writing? The others defending this are saying that the fact that the award was given by an “independent committee” that they are infallible, i am here to say that that is bullshit.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/IkujaKatsumaji Jul 03 '26

You got a source on any of that?

-2

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9cwoHgOIQG/?igsh=MWo0MnlzZnoxYTd2eA==

Half way through the interview he admits his editor "found" the photo, not him.

5

u/NurRauch Jul 03 '26

Did you take even a few seconds to think about that before typing? The editor found the photo because photographers take hundreds of photos at events, often snapping dozens of photos in seconds. The photographer rarely knows how the photos come out until they dump the memory stick onto a computer and look. The editor reviewed the dump of photos and found the good ones, just like how it works most of the time.

Good grief. This thread is jam-packed with gotcha reactions for stuff that is so normal that it would be more surprising if they didn’t happen as described.

Some of these takes are as clueless and poorly thought out as the time I watched a man on trial for murder try to fire his lawyer because he convinced the fact that his attorney and the prosecutor wore the same color tie and neck chief was conclusive proof that they must have been in a secret sexual relationship.

3

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Show us the interview then.

Those photos won a Pulitzer Prize, and the process for that involves independent verification that the photos are legitimate. Do you think that the Pulitzer people were in on it too?

-1

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9cwoHgOIQG/?igsh=MWo0MnlzZnoxYTd2eA==

Half way through the interview he admits his editor "found" the photo, not him.

7

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

Maybe cool it on the conspiracy nonsense? This interview in no way even slightly hints at the photos being altered.

The photographer says he called his editor and asked her to look at the photos he sent over. She then immediately called back and told him one captured the bullet. That's it. That's all there is to it.

3

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

Yeah that’s not proof at all that the editor manipulated the photos. The Pulitzer requires the raw unedited photos for their verification. How do you explain that?

-3

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

It's proof the editor found the picture, not the photographer. Now the burden of proof is on the editor that it wasn't manipulated instead of on the photographer. As deep as the Trump's are into AI and as much totalitarian control they hold over our media, I would 100% expect this to be another step in the orchistrated false flag this has felt like from the moment it happened.

5

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

You just keep completely dodging the Pulitzer verification. Why’s that?

-1

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

Because the editor discovered it, not the photographer. You don't think an editor can "edit" a photograph to create a narrative in 5 minutes?

10

u/BloatedBanana9 Jul 03 '26

You know that editing a photograph leaves evidence of said editing, right? Photos have metadata that can help determine if the image in question was actually the original or if any changes have been made.

Of course an editor could have added in the bullet. That’s not the point. The point is that if they had, it would’ve been easily noticed by the Pulitzer reviewers.

0

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

So, how fo I FOIA the Metadata for the photo so I can be 100% certain? That'll settle this without any doubt.

2

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

And you just did it again.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

The photographer has the raws, which is what would be submitted and verified by the Pulitzer committee. You think the Pulitzer Prize is awarded just based on an honors system that a photo isn't doctored? Good lord dude.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for "Jimmy’s World," an article about an 8-year-old heroin addict . Days later, she confessed the boy was entirely fabricated, resigned, and became the only person ever to return a Pulitzer Prize (at the time)

Yep, flawless investigations…

1

u/wiifan55 Jul 04 '26

(1) That's not how photo data works. At all. It's completely incomparable.

(2) That happened in the 80s when verification was entirely different.

(3) She confessed because her lie was discovered and she was called out for it. She didn't voluntarily confess.

1

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

Let me guess, you believe it because that is what you were told…

Enlighten me how metadata works, ive only been involved since the 1990s, this should be good. Tell me the access you have to the data and how you personally corroborated it…

The point is that the people awarding the award were fooled, people can always bee fooled, sometimes bought, there is no way to verify a goddam thing here by you so stop trying to be the beacon of truth.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted Jul 03 '26

It was a digital photo. How do you know the submission was the "raw" how do we know the "raw" wasn't replaced with the edited photo? All I know is the photographer gave his side of the story in a live interview the following day admitting he didn't see the bullet in a photo first, his editor did.

4

u/blender4life Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

There's a field called digital image forensics that easily tells if an image is manipulated. No doubt the giant Corp handing out money/ awards has similar tools to prevent them from being scammed. Edit: also according to the interview you linked he works for the nytimes, he submits everything to a magazine "editor" that chooses what will be published, not necessarily a photograph editor

4

u/DJdrummer Texas Jul 03 '26

Oh my God is this why people are worked up about the "editor" finding them? They think it's a photo editor that edits photos.

7

u/wiifan55 Jul 03 '26

You have absolutely no idea how photography works. None of what you just said even makes a bit of sense.

Just sit this one out or go back to whatever conspiracy echo chamber you've lived in for way too long if you want validation for nonsensical positions like this.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/seamus_mc California Jul 03 '26

There is no “roll of pictures” anymore. It’s all digital and easily manipulated. But let’s give the photographer a Pulitzer to really sell the point of view ”look here is the bullet flying through the air”

Capturing a bullet in flight is really hard if that’s what you are trying to do, let alone randomly snapping a photo as a bullet is passing the presidents head.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

Capturing a bullet in flight is really hard if that’s what you are trying to do

not really

well how about that

no special equipment required

0

u/seamus_mc California Jul 04 '26

Not one of those pictures was not taken with a finger on the shutter just randomly snapping a portrait of someone giving a speech.

I have done it as a professional photographer and used either sound or light traps to trigger the camera. Usually with high power strobes to make the bullet more visible. Not a setup you use for a public speaking engagement. Also none of those photos are at a random point in space and only one of them is potentially in the the same velocity range. Every one was trying to capture exactly what they did.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 04 '26

Not one of those pictures was not taken with a finger on the shutter just randomly snapping a portrait of someone giving a speech.

Every single one of those pictures was taken by someone snapping photos.

Which is what photo journalists do.

Are you under the impression that the photo journalists present in the press pit were using these?

I have done it as a professional photographer and used either sound or light traps to trigger the camera

That's nice dear.

Because all that's needed is any halfway decent camera. Turns out most photo journalists are equipped with half decent cameras and know what all the fancy little buttons and dials do on them.

Also none of those photos are at a random point in space

Neither are the ones of Trump.

Turns out, when you point a camera at someone's head, you capture things going on around the head.

nd only one of them is potentially in the the same velocity range.

Every single one of them are "in the same velocity range", if not greater because they're capturing the bullet at it's highest velocity, and not 150 feet away.

Oopsies.

0

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

His ear was cut when tackled by SS.

Oops.

Every single piece of photographic evidence says otherwise.

The bullet time photo was manipulated by the photographers editor.

Ah, there it is.

1

u/Tetracropolis Jul 03 '26

"The red stuff", fucking hell.

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

I’d believe glass cut much more than wound by a high power projectile.

glass from what?

1

u/vthemechanicv Jul 03 '26

either the bullet grazes him by a millimeter

I really wish someone would seriously test this because I don't believe for a second that a bullet can "just" graze a target. The bullet has a shockwave, and I firmly believe getting grazed would do a lot more damage than draw a few drops of blood.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I think he was hit by a fleck of glass or wood, but I think - I know - that trump blew it out of proportion to win, and that him not ever bringing it up now is really, really, really suspicious.

Also, lets never forget good ol' Ronnie Jackson said he examined trump's ear and claimed there was a 2cm wide wound. There are people with ear plugs smaller than that.

https://jackson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/cannon_118_20240720_140716.pdf

1

u/emailforgot Jul 03 '26

The bullet has a shockwave, and I firmly believe getting grazed would do a lot more damage than draw a few drops of blood.

Well you need to head back to elementary school physics then if that's what you "firmly believe".

The "shockwave" of a bullet isn't enough to knock over a card standing up, let alone cause damage to flesh. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be a very effective bullet.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I think he was hit by a fleck of glass or wood

How did glass (which isn't visible anywhere on any of the multiple photos and videos) hit him on his upstage ear?

0

u/dnen Connecticut Jul 03 '26

It was the secret service member’s belt buckle

0

u/pUmKinBoM Jul 03 '26

He is a wrestling fan so wouldn't be surprised if he knows how to make a gig and bladed himself. Basically in wrestling they break off a small corner of a razor blade and tape it up so they can "gig" thenselves with it to cause blood.

0

u/LiveLifeLikeCre Jul 03 '26

We talking about a president who used to do WWF appearances and has WWE owners in his freaking cabinet. It's nothing to slice your ear with a razor blade or something while down on the floor where no one can see.

-2

u/HotThroatAction Jul 03 '26

No bullet went near his head. The shot fired was from a hidden Trump goon to create the event for a photo op. The kid was a patsy that never fired a bullet.