Someone with more motivation than me could probably calculate whether the amount of bullet streak in the frame would make sense for the frame’s exposure time calculated against the speed of 5.56 at ~150 yds
I did this in another thread. Using the values for the speed of a bullet from an AR-style rifle quoted from the NYT, and the shutter speed that the NYT photographer claimed, the streak is about 3x too long for the streak to only be the bullet.
In that comment I said that I was skeptical of what we were looking at. Now I wonder if part of the streak is also a refraction effect from the air displaced by the bullet, allowing the streak to be longer than the velocity*exposuretime calculation predicts? I’m not sure!
“It absolutely could be showing the displacement of air due to a projectile,” Mr. Harrigan said in an interview on Saturday night after reviewing the high-resolution images that Mr. Mills filed from the rally. “The angle seems a bit low to have passed through his ear, but not impossible if the gunman fired multiple rounds.”
Simple ballistic math showed that capturing a bullet as Mr. Mills likely did in a photo was possible, Mr. Harrigan said.
Mr. Mills was using a Sony digital camera capable of capturing images at up to 30 frames per second. He took these photos with a shutter speed of 1/8,000th of a second — extremely fast by industry standards.
…
“If the gunman was firing an AR-15-style rifle, the .223-caliber or 5.56-millimeter bullets they use travel at roughly 3,200 feet per second when they leave the weapon’s muzzle,’’ Mr. Harrigan said. “And with a 1/8,000th of a second shutter speed, this would allow the bullet to travel approximately four-tenths of a foot while the shutter is open.”
Someone in another thread did, and it doesn’t quite add up from the muzzle velocity of the average AR load and the shutter speed NYT quoted. But there are a lot of factors at play
I suspect their math was actually off when they used the head size as the frame of measurement. I think the angle makes the head longer in the picture, but I am far from qualified to understand the intricacies of this kind of math.
I’ve seen careers ended over weirder, dumber shit, but if this was the unaltered version of what they posted I’d assume it was more likely than not real.
Someone with more motivation than me could probably calculate whether the amount of bullet streak in the frame would make sense for the frame’s exposure time calculated against the speed of 5.56 at ~150 yds
I did this in another thread. Using the values for the speed of a bullet from an AR-style rifle quoted from the NYT, and the shutter speed that the NYT photographer claimed, the streak is about 3x too long for the streak to only be the bullet.
In that comment I said that I was skeptical of what we were looking at. Now I wonder if part of the streak is also a refraction effect from the air displaced by the bullet, allowing the streak to be longer than the velocity*exposuretime calculation predicts? I’m not sure!
The NYTimes has an article about it here.
…
Someone in another thread did, and it doesn’t quite add up from the muzzle velocity of the average AR load and the shutter speed NYT quoted. But there are a lot of factors at play
Yeah, a little off could just be a factor of different load, barrel length, etc.
I suspect their math was actually off when they used the head size as the frame of measurement. I think the angle makes the head longer in the picture, but I am far from qualified to understand the intricacies of this kind of math.
It would be a weird thing to photoshop and lie about given the inevitable scrutiny.
I’ve seen careers ended over weirder, dumber shit, but if this was the unaltered version of what they posted I’d assume it was more likely than not real.
Not necessarily a photoshop. It could be a bug or bird at a different distance causing a forced perspective type thing.
That’s a good point, but in this case it looks like it’s the real deal.