I looked at the other ap photos of the day and watched an interview with another photographer who captured photos of the bloody ear who described what he saw on close ups of the photos. It appears slightly grazed in two places across the middle of the upper ear. In the newer photo there may be a slight discoloration where the grazing could be. 

I think saying there should be more damage and therefor now not seeing damage some how means he wasn't shot at all is a bit confusing. If there is damage it doesn't matter if it will eventually be seen. My point is the guy has a huge ego and clearly makes a lot of effort in his appearance. Its hollywood, easy to touch up an ear.  

 This is what I would expect from a bullet grazing your ear https://image.nostr.build/a7a93554928bdad42f9831c476c7d81b21fc3e86306ba5eaf266fb5f166ce453.jpg  

 Yes but this is what appears to be the extent of his wounds. It doesn't need to be extensive to be an important event.

https://image.nostr.build/59932b74ba486a7999211fda4f57b5a8a194ceae27046f9a5f6b30c69c5941a9.jpg 

 Assuming it was an actual wound. These people are liars. Why should we trust them? https://image.nostr.build/50ae82803d0323aa3ff5a45bb56ad631c54780eacdb2c93b4f3dc5ab53c6c3de.jpg  

 So don't trust photo of wound but do trust photo of no wound..and also at the same time Trump and SS colluded to kill a bystander while he wwf'd his own ear?

Or how about he got slightly grazed and uses makeup a few weeks later because he is vain. 

 

 Have you ever shot a gun before? A bullet grazing your ear would rip a chunk off.

Feds have killed innocent people before to get people scared and emotional. 

There are plenty of other pictures of his ear that I’ve shared with no wound. Also the vain argument is silly because you can easily argue the flip side: he is so vain that he would actually show off how bad the scar was. This would get more people to simp for him. But saying that it was just a scratch and that somehow trump is using cosmetics to cover it up is major cope. 

 I am here for the conspiracy fun. I have no cope. And yes I have shot plenty of guns. You keep wanting there to be some huge wound. Are you arguing he colluded with SS to kill bystanders?  

 No I’m not arguing that. We don’t even know for a fact that people actually died but that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. I don’t know who did all this or why. I just don’t believe the narrative they’re putting out there. 

 This "if he was grazed, he'd have a chunk missing" just isn't logical man... It depends on how much flesh was actually hit. It's entirely possible that the cut is very small and able to he covered up with make-up or just not large enough to see if a zoomed in picture. 

This conspiracy has zero credible proof beyond general distrust.  

 What was the caliber and distance there? Was it the same angle and weapon?