Hello Thumper,
Nobody shot Donald Trump. A shard of glass from a broken
teleprompter sliced off part of his right ear. Do get your
facts straight.
Except there is a pic that one of the main news organizations took
that
actually shows the bullets path....
No speeding bullets were shown hitting Trump's ear. That is
a fanciful story concocted by only god knows who. His security
detail checked him for possible bullet wounds and found none.
Health care professionals checked him out at a hospital, and
found a cut on his ear, but no gunshot wounds.
How did Trump cut his ear? Either he did it all by himself
when he slapped himself on the ear, or he was hit by a shard
of glass from a broken teleprompter.
What a bloody mess. And now look at what he has done. The
guy shows up at the RNC with a patch on his ear. And now all
his MAGA idiots are doing the same. What a sight to behold.
WOW..... SMH. Whatever you say "O Great & Knowledgeable One". Now I remember
why I never answer any of your BS I'm constantly seeing out here. Do a little research. This is a cut from Snopes (Plenty of other places too):
I read the article by snopes. Although no evidence was shown that
any teleprompters were damaged, that does not prove a bullet grazed
Trump's ear. That is hearsay, not evidence.
Trump was taken to a nearby hospital that did not have the capability
to treat gunshot wounds. That should have been a big clue for all to
know that he was not seriously hurt or injured.
Trump was hit by flying debris. Flying debris caused by gunfire.
That is not the same thing as having been hit by a bullet(s).
"Immediately following the attempted assassination of former U.S. President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, skepticism over the notion that Trump had actually been hit by a bullet was fueled by anonymously sourced reports that
he was "not struck by a bullet, but hit by glass fragments" from a tteleprompter hat had been hit by a bullet. Reporters from both Newsmax and wAxios reported on a source making this claim, hich was then amplified by fother outlets including Raw Story. Some went so ar as to call the purported disclosure evidence of a "stunt."
There is no evidence that a builet struck or grazed Trump's ear.
Or any other part of Trump's body. His security detail whisked him
away from the scene and into a limousine, looking for any wounds,
and found only a scratch on his ear. The hospital he was taken to
was not equipped to treat gunshot wounds.
There was, however, no evidence to suggest anything other than a bullet caused the wound to Trump's ear,
The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim that Trump
was hit by a bullet. Prove it. So far, all you've got is hearsay.
And that don't cut it.
There is no evidence says it all. No evidence of a bullet striking
Trump's ear. Hearsay is not evidence. No matter how much you might
want to deny it.
Facts are based on evidence. Not fantasy.
and these early reports to the contrary have largely been walked back.
You are the one who is making the claim that a bullet hit or grazed
Trump's ear. Not me. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.
The assertion that glass, not a bullet, caused the injury is undercut by the
fact that photographs show no damage to the teleprompters allegedly hit to produce the broken glass, by a New York Times photograph capturing a bullet passing by Trump's ear, and by the fact that Trump later stated, on Truth Social, that a bullet had, in fact, pierced his ear.
An assertion is not a fact. Trump's assertion is also not a fact
or evidence that such a thing happened. If I say the moon is made
is cheese you are going to believe me just because I said it? Up
to you, but if you do then it is your fantasy as well as mine.
The theory that glass from a teleprompter
A shard of glass may have caused the damage to Trump's ear.
What snopes did was refute the idea that a teleprompter was
destroyed. The object that struck Trump's ear might never
be able to be identfied. However, it was not a bullet, given
what bullets tend to do when hitting a person's ear.
caused Trump's wound requires a broken teleprompter.
A shard of glass does not have to come from a broken teleprompter.
There is no evidence to support the notion that either of the teleprompters at the rally was broken at any point during or after the attempted assassination.
Something other than a bullet hit Trump's ear. That something
might never be known or found. All snopes did was refute the idea
that the cause was a broken teleprompter.
The theory that Trump's injury stemmed from a bullet, on the other hand, requires a shooter and a bullet. Unlike broken teleprompters, a shooter has been identified and a photograph documents the existence of a bullet passing
by Trump's head.
With no evidence to show bullet or bullet fragment it is only a
story. A very farfetched one at that. A real bullet hitting a real
ear would have left Trump with no ear. Or very little of one left.
Because there is photographic evidence of a bullet, and of a wound caused by
a bullet, early and imprecisely sourced claims that Trump's injuries stemmed from broken glass are "False."
There is no photographic evidence of a speeding bullet, or of
any such bullet hitting Trump's ear. Yhe man cut himself shaving.
That was clear enough for all to see, as he walked into the hall
of the Republican National Convention wearing a patch on his ear.
For Life,
Lee
--
The first thing a cult does is claim that everyone else is lying to you.
--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin:
news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)