We're away camping, so I haven't been able to keep up with the flow. On Monday while driving I did some calcs in my head because I wanted to know, with regard to that 'bullet trace photo' from Saturday whether it was even feasible, or not.
I concluded that it was feasible to catch a trace like that on camera (although improbable, not impossible.)
To help guide me, I used these calcs. My conclusion: the projectile in the photo was travelling left to right and is visible after it nicked Trump's ear; the bullet slowed down from maybe 2,500 ft/sec to (maybe) 1,600 ft. sec.
The trail is tissue/fluid. HOWEVER, to match my estimated trace length from the photo, it only makes sense if the shutter speed was 1/800 and not 1/8000. If it really was a shutter speed of 1/8000 then I have difficulty making sense of the apparent length of the bullet trace (e.g. it should be around 4", not approx. 24".)
I used rough numbers, but this is where I landed.
I concluded that it was feasible to catch a trace like that on camera (although improbable, not impossible.)
To help guide me, I used these calcs. My conclusion: the projectile in the photo was travelling left to right and is visible after it nicked Trump's ear; the bullet slowed down from maybe 2,500 ft/sec to (maybe) 1,600 ft. sec.
The trail is tissue/fluid. HOWEVER, to match my estimated trace length from the photo, it only makes sense if the shutter speed was 1/800 and not 1/8000. If it really was a shutter speed of 1/8000 then I have difficulty making sense of the apparent length of the bullet trace (e.g. it should be around 4", not approx. 24".)
I used rough numbers, but this is where I landed.