Fact check: Were all the bullet trajectories accounted for in the alleged trump assassination attempt?

1. Why the question about “all trajectories” surfaced — dramatic footage and a single visible wound

The event’s chaotic visuals and a visible graze to Trump’s ear prompted intense scrutiny about whether every bullet path was identified and matched to recovered evidence, and early analyses by major outlets focused on reconciling video, audio and still photography with official statements ^{[2] [3]}. Journalists and experts mapped sound and motion to estimate timing and number of rounds; audio experts and CBS News video analysis concluded eight shots occurred in under six seconds, which aligns with sworn Pennsylvania State Police accounts and on-scene forensic observations that a Secret Service sniper killed the shooter ^[1]. These converging lines of inquiry were intended to account for trajectories, but coverage also highlighted gaps in single-frame photos that can be ambiguous about exact angles and point-of-origin ^[3].

2. What the forensic and media analyses actually documented — convergence, not perfection

Multiple analyses reported a consistent set of facts: eight rounds fired quickly, one graze to Trump’s ear, and at least one spectator fatality; photo analysis suggested a visible disturbance possibly from a projectile while audio/video experts timed shots to trajectories and reactions ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The New York Times and CBS teams used synchronized footage and audio to trace the sequence; a veteran FBI agent quoted about a photograph suggested the image may show air displacement from a projectile but noted limitations about angle and certainty ^[3]. These methods provide corroboration rather than absolute closure, and the reporting emphasized that complex scenes yield interpretive uncertainty even when multiple sources align ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Where reporting diverged — photographic ambiguity and the limits of single frames

Photo analysis highlighted disagreement about what any single image can prove, with a notable Doug Mills photograph interpreted by some experts as capturing a projectile’s path while others cautioned that angle and motion blur complicate definitive identification ^[3]. The New York Times’ broader trajectory analysis synthesized multiple frames and audio to argue for a grazed ear from the first of eight rounds, yet the same reporting acknowledged that photographic evidence alone could leave room for alternative readings ^[2]. This divergence fueled online speculation as viewers seized on one piece of media to assert total certainty despite more measured, multi-evidence journalism.

4. How later legal coverage shifted focus and what it leaves unanswered

Coverage from September 2025 centers on the conviction of Ryan Routh for a separate attempted assassination plot and trial details, which largely do not revisit the bullet-trajectory forensic record from Butler in July 2024, focusing instead on courtroom process and defendant actions ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Those articles do not provide new ballistic accounting for the Butler shooting, so the July 2024 investigative matrix — audio/video synchronization, eyewitness statements, police sworn reports and photo analysis — remains the principal public record for trajectories ^{[1] [2]}. The legal reporting’s omission of trajectory details has allowed some audiences to treat the trial coverage as if it confirmed different narratives, though the texts themselves avoid those forensic claims.

5. Why conspiracy theories gained traction — psychology meets incomplete public evidence

Conspiracy narratives flourished because ambiguous visual evidence plus the high-stakes political context created a vacuum ripe for speculation, and fact-checking outlets documented how both pro- and anti-Trump social media communities latched onto alternative explanations despite lacking corroborating evidence ^{[9] [5]}. USA TODAY and PolitiFact reported that misinformation persisted even after official accounts and forensic analyses were published, noting the pattern of selective attention to single frames or isolated claims rather than the totality of audio, video and sworn statements that established the eight-shot sequence and the graze ^{[4] [5]}. The reporting stressed that debunking requires presenting the full evidentiary chain rather than isolated anomalies.

6. What remains material and what would close remaining questions

The public record assembled in July 2024 — synchronized audio, multiple camera angles, sworn police statements, and photographic analysis — gives a robust but not infallible account that eight shots were fired and Trump was grazed; closing remaining uncertainties would require public release of full high-resolution raw footage, ballistics reports, and consolidated forensic timelines from investigators ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Later legal reporting from 2025 provides no new forensic data to alter that account and therefore cannot be treated as an update to the trajectory record ^{[6] [7]}. Transparency from investigative agencies would reduce ambiguity and undercut conspiracy narratives that exploit gaps rather than contradictory facts ^[5].

7. Bottom line: documented accounting exists, but absolute closure is limited by available public evidence

Multiple reputable outlets and experts converged on the core facts — eight shots in under six seconds and a graze to Trump’s ear — based on cross-checked audio, video, photographs and sworn law-enforcement statements; these findings form the best public accounting of trajectories ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Later trial coverage in 2025 focuses on a different defendant and does not change the forensic conclusions from 2024, leaving the original analyses as the authoritative public record while also leaving modest ambiguities that only full forensic disclosure could eliminate ^{[6] [4] [5]}.