Donald Trump photo without ear bandage raises eyebrows
www.newsweek.com
Famous photographer Pete Souza has seemingly deleted his X account after a post doubting whether Trump was shot in the ear.

Updates:

Might be best for mods to lock this post at this point (is that a thing on Lemmy?) because this story is basically wrapped. The FBI says a bullet caused some ear damage. Maybe it was bullet shrapnel from a ricochet or something like that, but later photos show the teleprompters in-tact so it wasn’t shards of glass from those. Trump’s usage of the bandage (and the assassination attempt) as symbols and political tools has been discussed at length and I don’t think conspiratorial thinking beyond that is very productive. Pete Souza took his own account down after getting a lot of harassment, so no further conspiracies are needed regarding X-formerly-known-as-Twitter at this time.

A photo of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump taken on Saturday without his ear bandage has sparked a wave of speculation.

The image, taken by Alex Brandon of the Associated Press on July 27 and shared by photojournalist Pete Souza on X, formerly Twitter, shows Trump walking up an airplane staircase with an apparently fully healed ear wound just weeks after he was shot with a high-powered rifle.

Souza, known for his tenure as the chief official White House photographer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, posted Brandon’s photo on his now-deactivated X account on Saturday, writing, “AP photo this morning. Look closely at his ear that was ‘hit’ by a bullet from an AR-15 assault rifle.”

Souza’s profile, @PeteSouza, which had over 200,000 followers, now reads, “This account doesn’t exist, try searching for another,” implying that he has deleted or deactivated it. If he had been banned, it would read, “Account suspended. X suspends accounts which violate the X rules.”

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    01·
    3 months ago
    Newsweek Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Newsweek is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Right-Center
    Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News:
    - https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdonald-trump-photo-without-ear-bandage-raises-eyebrows-1931403
    - https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ftopic%2Frepublican%29
    - https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ftopic%2Fdonald-trump%29
    - https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ftopic%2Ftwitter%29%2C
    - https://ground.news/find?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Ftopic%2Fbarack-obama%29%2C

    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    01·
    3 months ago

    There’s just no fucking way his ear was hit by .223 (let alone the hotter 5.56) and there’s still an ear left.

    There would be a hole and massive damage, at least. Most likely just a twisted stump.

    It’s much more likely that someone scratched it with their fingernail in the chaos and it just bleed a lot because: adrenaline of being shot at, adrenaline of a rally, how high blood pressure is in the ear, and how blood thinners making even a small scratch look like a murder scene.

    If he’d really have been shot there’d never have been a bandage and trump wouldn’t go anywhere without 15 doctors in tow to explain how brave and strong he is to survive a gunshot wound.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      At minimum he was struck by glass. His reaction was instantaneous with the shots and clearly he was reacting to being hit in the ear. It could have just been reacting to a close fly by at his ear, except the chances of him then being injured and bleeding from the same ear from an agent are slim to none. But however he was injured, it clearly wasn’t much of an injury regardless.

      It would be kind of a moot point as he WAS shot at and injured, and a bystander and the shooter were both killed. Those are the important facts here. But then Trump had to throw a fit over the FBI saying they weren’t sure he’d actually been struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. He made such a stink out of it that now that he was clearly barely injured, it just makes him look silly and egotistical (go figure!) for so vehemently insisting he was hit with a bullet.

    • jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I think you overestimate the size and power of a 5.56 round. Much of the destructive force comes from speed and the area it hits - such as the chest or hips. Bones can cause it to ricochet and spin, causing cavitation and greater destruction.

      They can leave a tiny entrance wound. With how thin the ear is, it’s unlikely to have left an exit wound any larger than the entrance. It may have even hit the tip of the ear.

      Either way, I think there would still be a visible wound unless it just nicked the tip of the ear. The bleeding may be due to blood thinners or something, considering his cardiovascular health.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        3 months ago

        Much of the destructive force comes from speed

        You should’ve stopped there.

        If it had hit his ear, it would have ripped a chunk of the ear off, not just caused a scratch that was unnoticeable days later. This isn’t the first time he’s been seen without a bandage. He was photographed like a day later and it was fine.

        I think there would still be a visible wound unless it just nicked the tip of the ear

        You’re missing the point.

        The bullet “nicking” his ear isn’t possible because (due to speed) it would have ripped a chunk off.

        • CM400@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          The bullet “nicking” his ear isn’t possible because (due to speed) it would have ripped a chunk off.

          Please demonstrate this. If a paper target can get hit by these rounds every day in target practice and not get blown to pieces, why would an ear (especially if the ear was only “nicked” by the bullet) be any different?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            01·
            3 months ago

            Compare the size of the whole to the bullet

            The holes is always bigger, and an ear has much more tear resistance than an ear. But Trump doesn’t even have a bullet sized hole in his ear.

            He has literally zero visible wounds…

            There’s not even a “nick”