Armed and dangerous: Trump's Secret Service bodyguard 'wore prosthetic hands during inauguration parade so he could hold a gun beneath his coat'

[mystery-ak]

Armed and dangerous: Trump's Secret Service bodyguard 'wore prosthetic hands during inauguration parade so he could hold a gun beneath his coat'

     Trump and Melania were surrounded by Secret Service agents in DC on Friday
     One of them, a bald man, seemed to have his hands in same position whole time
     This led to speculation they were prosthetic hands, his real hand on gun trigger
     But images have now emerged showing the agent's hands in other positions
     Ex-military man Adam Linehan said he was 'a human man with functional arms'

By Chris Summers For Mailonline

Published: 06:22 EST, 25 January 2017 | Updated: 08:06 EST, 25 January 2017


Social media is awash with claims one of the Secret Service agents protecting President Donald Trump had prosthetic arms, with his real hands on the trigger of a gun under his coat.

The theory stems from analysis of video footage as President Trump, his wife Melania and son Barron went on an informal walkabout down Pennsylvania Avenue after Friday's inauguration.

The Trumps were surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards in the standard-issue trenchcoats.

But one of the agents came in for particular scrutiny because his arms did not appear to move and his hands remained in the same position for several long minutes.

The theory that he was holding a gun under his coat was only dispelled when emerges and video emerged of him moving his arms and using his hands.



more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4155480/Was-Trump-s-bodyguard-wearing-prosthetic-hands.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Maybe he wore smaller size so as not to anger Trump?

[EC]

Good old Mail Online - publishing conspiracy bullshit again.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The theory that he was holding a gun under his coat was only dispelled when emerges and video emerged of him moving his arms and using his hands.

W.  T.  F.

This is the epitome of a garbage article and headline.  They tease with the headline, then go through all the photos, etc.. that support the claim.  But it's not until near the very end where the article itself admits that the claim turned out to be false.  Unless you read all the way to the end, you'd think this was true.  And the paper knew it wasn't.

[Just_Victor]

W.  T.  F.

This is the epitome of a garbage article and headline.  They tease with the headline, then go through all the photos, etc.. that support the claim.  But it's not until near the very end where the article itself admits that the claim turned out to be false.  Unless you read all the way to the end, you'd think this was true.  And the paper knew it wasn't.

A lot of news outlets appear to write articles and then tack additional info onto the end as new info becomes available.  I see AP doing it all the time, just modifying the original article to match new info.

SO this article started with the internet buzz about the prosthetic hand, and then added to the article when the new video became known.

[LateForLunch]

The hands were real but his head was fake. WHAT!?! You've never heard of a head-fake? heh

[TomSea]

I'm thinking, Trump may not go on some foreign trips like to places like Kenya maybe?

A lot of money was spent just to protect Obama in these places.

In this day and age, perhaps it is just as easy and more secure to fly these foreign leaders in.

[EC]

I'm thinking, Trump may not go on some foreign trips like to places like Kenya maybe?

A lot of money was spent just to protect Obama in these places.

In this day and age, perhaps it is just as easy and more secure to fly these foreign leaders in.

I'll disagree. It's horrible international optics to do that. If they have to physically meet at all (and I see no reason why video calls can't take care of 99% of business) leaders "taking turns" to go to each others countries is more respectful.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

A lot of news outlets appear to write articles and then tack additional info onto the end as new info becomes available.  I see AP doing it all the time, just modifying the original article to match new info.

SO this article started with the internet buzz about the prosthetic hand, and then added to the article when the new video became known.

If that was true, then it would be crappy journalism to raise the issue in the first place based on nothing more than completely unverified "internet buzz."  And it's even crappier journalism to "fix" such an error by tagging on the relevant facts at the end without modifying the headline, because people still may be misled.  The article should be withdrawn at the point the premise is proven false, or at least clarified at the beginning of the article that the rumor turned out to be false.

I'm not blaming the poster -- I'm just pointing out the incredibly crappy journalistic standards of the Daily Mail.

[geronl]

loose lips sink ships