I find your lack of blood disturbing

I would post a bunch of pictures of the alleged events in Woolwich to back up my thoughts, but, quite frankly, somebody already has.

I am no expert on the topic, but, I do understand that there is a red fluid contained in most mammals which tends to leak all over the place when one's head is detached from one's body... Especially if that somebody was alive at the time the aforementioned head became a separate entity. Maybe the Brits have a special kind of fluid that evaporates before it makes a mess of the pavement which warrants further scientific study, and possibly the full-out quarantine of the Corporation of London to prevent possible contagion --OR-- maybe there is something not quite right about the whole scene. Sure there is some blood on the sidewalk, but the body has leaked less fluid than the car did... Chances are that the official story on what has transpired here will be changed a few times, so pay attention and take notes, because eventually people involved will begin to have mysterious life-terminating accidents, and there will be nobody left to tell the gruesome truth.


As I was saying yesterday, London is a massive surveillance grid of police CCTV cameras. For example, The youtube video was shot within range of 2 cameras that I can see in google street view as I have demonstrated in this picture:

The smashed car and reasonably small blood smear was across the street at this sign:

Which may, or may not also be in view of this camera on the side of the Queen Victoria building

And here is a composite of the entire scene with some warped overlays of photos of the scene all fit into one google street view:

So, here are the questions I have. And for posterity, I will not ask the same questions that are asked in this blog. (Though I do quite like his montage of the woman in the grey sweatshirt, who does appear to lie down on her back next to a supposedly headless corpse as most humans would instinctively do when confronted with a headless corpse).

My questions are:

1. Why waste the time and energy to drag the body into the street? 
1. For a good aerial shot?
2. Because you hope to have it in the backdrop your one camera interview?
3. Because you take pride in your work and need to clearly demonstrate that the job is done?
2. If there was a camera rolling while the attackers were alive enough to speak, where is the footage of them allegedly attacking police officers?
1. oops had to change batteries?
2. sealed in an evidence bag?
3. I thought all the important stuff had happened until after the 2 suspects were on the ground 150m away when I started recording again?
4. It's too graphic for a televised news report and was edited?
5. There was no attack?

There are the more obvious questions like why is there so little blood anywhere? and why does some of this footage show bloody hands while other examples do not? Obviously, there were 2 cameras rolling one in landscape view, the other a cell phone held in portrait view which pans over to the body before he walks back to it...
Let's look at these... Here is an unedited frame of the news exclusive:

And here is a zoom on his hands and the knife:

I know, they are not very clear because the quality of the video are not fantastic, but there is a definite red aura on both hands and the knife... In fact it almost looks as if his knife blade firmly gripped in his left hand contains red LEDs and is shining through his fingers... All I have done to this is blow up portions using photoshop, nothing else. I am not attempting to compensate for the horrible artifacts in the video at all.

OK, maybe it's coincidence, so let's try another frame:

This frame is even more intriguing because of his right hand, but again let's look at all of the 'blood'...

So, we have pink spots in the right hand, and the one on the thumb that is in contradiction to the lighting because this is lit by the cloudy skies of London which are, in case you failed to guess... UP! and not off to our left which, as we see in my first street view, is trees and a wall.

Now the second video:

Funny, this video appears to be of much better quality so I will assume that it is shot from a newer cell phone... I don't feel I need to expand his hands, but I will anyway:

There are still artifacts in the video, because this is what MPEG compression does to video, but there is little halo to speak of. If the guy didn't speak with his hands so much there'd be less motion blur in his left hand, where we are seeing a partial ghost of his fingers from either the next or previous frame, but his right hand is still quite clear and does not appear to have a 'pink halo'.

Beginners luck maybe... Let's try again.

Here we have very little artifacts, and very little motion blur, and very little of what one might mistakenly call blood unless we are calling that rusty looking cleaver 'blood soaked'... It might be, again, I am not an expert in this field, but let's check the hands again.

Yes, I am aware that video editing is very similar to photoshopping but it is a much more time consuming (or CPU intensive) process depending on the level of automation involved. So ask yourself, who has a room full of professional video editors as well as what is likely some very high end computer equipment at their disposal? The people who were able to overlay "itv NEWS EXCLUSIVE" over their entire video or the other video which frequently looses the guy's head from the shot, and does not appear to have unnaturally glowing pink hands, who's only obvious edit is to kindly block out the face of the woman passing by on the street?

Which the NEWS did not even do.

There is already a HOAX debunk video out there which is claiming that the 'no blood' video had it's colour filtered. Then states that the 'red route' lines on the road are supposed to be red:

Maybe I am colourblind but their cited example looks more like the orange found in the video with no blood than the faded pink in the video with blood...

OK let's go back to the beginning, I am not questioning that somebody was killed gruesomely in the middle of the afternoon, and I am not hiding the blood trail on the sidewalk near the car... I am not even suggesting that the knives have no blood on them, they are simply not clear enough to say one way or the other. What I am saying is in one video his hands glow like he's holding pink lights and that his hands appear to have halos on them, while in the other, they do not. The degree of orange vs red in the lines on the road could also be attributed to the camera having selected a different white balance. The google street view has the redder lines as seen in the 'with blood' video, but it also went down that street on a sunny day which completely changes the white balance and colour perception... What else can we look at?

That sign which is pale yellow, vs bright yellow-orange?

That's odd, according to google street view the 'hoax; bloodless video has more it correct.

Not all cameras were created equally, this is why when you take a picture of an awesome sunset, some cameras will capture it much better than others... I guess it's time to play with filters...

Photoshop "Selective color" Reds= -100% Cyan + 100% Magenta -100% Yellow +100% black
I am actually overshooting the mark for effect, and because I found something interesting in the bloody video:

Sliding the cyan between +/- 100% with this filter can make the lines purple, as well as some other things:

In neither case does his hand look bloody... BUT! the other video has some really cool effects when sliding these around. here is "red" with -100% cyan, -100% magenta, +100% yellow, and +100% black:

Now my sign is closer to the right colour, there is no blood and there is a huge halo around his left hand. When I switch +100 magenta -100% yellow, the edge of the sidewalk becomes pink, just like his hands the lines, and the knives:

Pink halos on a whole bunch of things, which to me, indicates that a whole bunch of things have been individually colour shifted... And in none of these recoloured photos do his hands look even remotely bloody.

Now. Somebody could have been killed and beheaded, and there is blood on the sidewalk across the street (even if I don't think there is enough of it)... This is not what I am questioning here. What I am questioning, is:

why doctor the video to illustrate 'bloody hands' when an amateur analysis can prove in a couple of hours that this is not true?

Why is this woman in blue casually walking by the ranting knife-wielding man who's been flailing his arms about in an agitated manner? Though I shudder to think that the answer may be that she's completely oblivious to everything.

Why wait around long enough to get 2 people filming you, and, later, police shooting you?

Why take knives to a gun-fight that you started by threatening police with knives?

Why is only one person in danger (or he would be were he not dead) in this whole scene?

Why not take the grey sweatshirt lady as a hostage?

Why let the grey sweatsuit lady get right up close and personal with your "prize" beheaded body?

Why is grey sweatsuit lady so apparently calm?

And what the hell kind of lame riot is this?

It also does not help that the 'debunked hoax' video is from the Alex Jones dis-information de-truthed-truther channel... When I found that I had to triple the length of this post and dig deeper into the whole which video is real.

The other important thing to note, is that this happened despite the massive camera grid in London... More, more, more, would not have prevented this.

-DIrtyKID©

Found the entire rant here, curious how most of it is edited in other clips... Also this is a third camera, with a red double-decker bus, proper sign and line colour, and his hands still don't look all that blood-stained to me.