Orange wolverine

You mean when in the video they shoot a round from an AR15 into the ear of a ballistic gel head and the ear remains thus disproving you statement "Hey MAGA, did you know if struck in the ear by ammunition from any AR15, you would more than likely lose your whole ear and possibly suffer burns and abrasions to that side of the head?"? They also shot it from a much closer distance and shot the same ear twice.

Correct. A human ear would have more rigidity due to cartilage and skin, therefore it would not have the expansion of the second shot in the video by Brendon Herrera. However only the immediate area around the point of impact would be effected because the energy transfer of the bullet would overmatch the tensile strength of the skin of the ear, thus only ripping out a small chunk of Trump's ear about the size of the bullet.

The assertion that the human ear, particularly the part struck by a bullet, is "mostly solid" and therefore immune to cavitation damage is inaccurate. While the outer ear (auricle or pinna) is composed of skin and cartilage, which are indeed solid tissues, the internal structures of the ear, including the middle and inner ear, contain fluid-filled spaces. The middle ear contains air, but the inner ear houses the cochlea and vestibular system, which are filled with perilymph and endolymph, both liquids. A bullet passing through or near these fluid-filled cavities could induce cavitation, leading to significant tissue damage. Ballistic gel, being primarily water, is an effective medium for demonstrating cavitation effects due to its liquid composition, and the damage observed in such experiments, even if the ear is not "ripped off," can still be severe and catastrophic to the delicate structures within the ear.

Yes, you think grazing the ear would tear it off... so dishonest...

You continue to display a lack of understanding of what you are saying, either through deliberate obtuseness or lack of mental acuity. When I'm off work and have more time I'll do a detailed explanation.

There is an old expression that says "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." You have assuredly removed all doubt with your verbal dysentery. Let me break it down for you and give you an education.

Your words.
"Hey MAGA, did you know if struck in the ear by ammunition from any AR15, you would more than likely lose your whole ear and possibly suffer burns and abrasions to that side of the head?"

The only burns associated with a gunshot wound are caused by the muzzle flash of the gun, never by the bullet. Anyone who has ever shot a paper target knows this. The bullets put holes in the paper, not burn marks, and paper is far more combustible than human flesh. There also would not be any abrasions other than that of the wound tract caused by the bullet. I've already demonstrated your ignorance about the "likely lose your whole ear" in previous replies, no need to repeat.

Your little "anatomy lesson" about the inner ear left out two crucial facts. The inner ear is separated from the outer ear by the ear canal, average distance in adults 1 in. and is also INSIDE THE SKULL. To even assert that it could be damaged by a bullet nicking the helix of the outer ear is ludicrous and shows how little you understand the anatomy you are discussing or how bullets actually cause damage to the body. There is no possible way for any energy from the bullet to be transferred from the outer ear to the inner ear from the angle that Trump was shot.

Here are two links you should read to educate yourself on the facts I have laid out.

Gunshot Wounds https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK556119/
Ear Canal Anatomy https://wellwisp.com/how-far-in-is-eardrum/

Proof it was faked ..
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/16voUANZ2u/

9v7o7b.jpg (click to show)

This helmet is definitely not bullet proof or impervious to penetration or abrasions...but it will definitely tune out basic logic and reason.
Lol

You made an assertion that should be very easily provable. I asked for a real world example. You can't produce one. Basic logic and reason suggests you are full of shit. Prove me wrong with a real world example of a high velocity bullet causing friction burns. You won't be able to because none exist.

The Lucien_Thornbow account also needs to research the difference between grazed and penetration. More so specifically when it involves small metal projectiles moving at intense velocity making contact with human flesh and tissue. The result from a bullet penetrating human flesh and tissue will ultimately differ from result of being grazed...hole vs burn/abrasion.

Good luck out there.

And the real world examples of this happening? still waiting for you to produce one, should be easy to do

Human tissue, unlike ballistic gel, is highly elastic and can be severely damaged or "killed" by the stretching and tearing forces of cavitation, even if not directly hit by the bullet. The ear, being a relatively delicate appendage with complex cartilaginous structures, would likely experience catastrophic damage, including avulsion (tearing away), fragmentation of cartilage, and extensive soft tissue destruction, if struck by a high-velocity AR-15 round. Furthermore, the energy imparted by the bullet can cause a "swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path," meaning even a near miss could severely compromise the ear's integrity.

You're using words that you teally don't understand their meaning. The catastrophic damage you keep arguing for would be by cavitation, the rapid expanse and collapse of a bubble inside a liquid body. The human ear is mostly made up of skin and cartilage. The outer layer of skin would act as a solid, thus the makeup of the ear, especially the part of the Trump's ear that was hit by the bullet, is mostly solid. The second shot into the ballistic gel ear in Brandon Herrara's video demonstrates the most extreme damage by cavitation that would occur because ballistic gel is majority liquid, and even then the ear was not ripped off the head.

901rpc.gif (click to show)

Perhaps it's a new type of ammunition?
Lol

Lol...is the Lucien_Thornbow account not familiar with friction and kinetic energy?

A paper combustible burn is not the same as a flesh or tissue burn from result of a transfer of energy....one being from a metal projectile.

The Lucien_Thornbow account can research friction and kinetic energy, it's a grade level 5 or 6 topic.

Not to be rude, but until the Lucien_Thornbow account brushes up on the basic fundamentals of simple modern science...I refuse to debate any further.

If gunshot wounds leave burn marks from friction, there should be plenty of documented examples and research on it. Please give me an example, show me how ignorant I am.