Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice

txt29

Senior Member.
After the attack by a truck in Nice, as expected, a lot of conspiracy theories appeared on the web. Most of them are really very easy to debunk, with just simple logic, the knowledge of facts, or by googling a few photos or videos. Since I am currently in the Southern France, I have a lot of friends who questioned me about the attack, and presented me some of the conspiracy theories. I could easily enlighten them, and provide evidence excluding most of the CT claims, and the friends accepted it. There is, though, still one claim that I struggle to find solid explanation for: why there are no traces of blood or tissue on the truck? There are plenty of CT websites using it as a proof the scene was staged. The following video summarizes the CT briefly:

[mod removed video: no click policy, no good shots of the truck in video and because its disgusting to show deceased bodies for no reason or give this video publicity]
france-attacks-nice-759.jpg

Of course, I know the claim about a staged attack is nonsense - there are countless photos, videos, and witnesses proving the reality of the attack, but I still fail to find a good argument to explain why there is no blood visible on the photos or videos of the truck. I've read the firemen had to remove body parts from below the truck, but I do not think they would wash the truck immediately after the attack, before any forensic procedures. Blood might have been on the front panel covering the engine, but I understood it fell down already at the beginning when the assassin forced the metallic barriers (unconfirmed). If the cover really fell at the beginning, the more surprising it would be not seeing any blood on the open engine with a lot of sharp elements.

The speed of the truck and its height might have play a role, but I understand that the lack of any traces of blood triggers conspiracy theories. So if anyone of you have some experience in this field, or can find any evidence or explanations, please post it here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Blood might have been on the front panel covering the engine, but I understood it fell down already at the beginning when the assassin forced the metallic barriers (unconfirmed).
i can find ZERO confirmation of this.
since you dont know when it fell off there is no reason it assume it fell off at the start of the trek. Although i personally dont see why there would be blood on the upper truck anyway, deer dont leave blood on cars that i've ever seen.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
Just a note regarding the video that was edited out by the moderator: I explicitly selected one not showing any bodies of victims and no carnage (most of them indeed do). The blood shown on the photos of the video was blood of animals, not the blood of victims in Nice. Chew very correctly debunked one of the photos by showing it was from an exploded giant sperm whale. If you want to verify it, just look at the video at Youtube (video ID Le2cf-qFS9w).
 

txt29

Senior Member.
Eye witnesses say four police vehicles had previously barricaded the road to protect a military parade, but they vanished before the attack commenced.
Not sure whether that's really correct. Most sources tell the truck passed several checkpoints with barriers. He went through one check point by tricking out the police telling them he delivers ice cream; he bypassed another barrier by driving over the pavement; but still multiple sources tell he broke a metallic barrier at the safety perimeter. For example at BFMTV:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
At least once a week I see dead bodies hit by cars and trucks on the road between the freeway and my house. They are so common that they show up on Google's street view. I almost never see blood, just a body laying peacefully by the side of the road.

I mean deer, of course, not people. But it's basically the same (except deer are probably more likely to bleed immediately, as they don't wear clothes).

I think the key in most of the "no blood" conspiracy theories is that in most cases blood comes later. People (and deer) don't explode in showers of blood when hit by a truck a 50mph. They generally bounce off. Injuries are internal and broken bones. When there are cuts and abrasion from which they bleed, then they bleed where they lay. They don't spray blood up on the truck or over the road.

Here are some trucks that hit deer, probably at much higher speed than the Nice truck hit people.

20160723-104804-nqz7u.jpg
20160723-104859-yqled.jpg

Of course you can find photos of cars and trucks with blood on them. But you need either high speed, or for the body to get trapped under the truck.

Another reference point is the Santa Monica Farmer's Market crash of 2003, where an elderly driver drove through a crowd, killing 12 and injuring many more. I was living in Santa Monica at the time, and had been to the Market many times. The car is wrecked, there's bodies on the ground (blacked out in this image), but you can't see blood anywhere.
20160723-110327-xljyj.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If you want to verify it, just look at the video at Youtube (video ID Le2cf-qFS9w).
thats not the video you posted originally. Perhaps you accidentally copy and pasted the wrong link? you can post this new video you found.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Most sources tell the truck passed several checkpoints with barriers. He went through one check point by tricking out the police telling them he delivers ice cream; he bypassed another barrier by driving over the pavement; but still multiple sources tell he broke a metallic barrier at the safety perimeter
i'm not sure what the barracade situation is eithr but your quote there only mentions what you posted, there is nothing else about barriers on that page and certainly nothing about telling police he is an icecream truck.

The point is, MB examines claims of evidence. The hoaxers need to present evidence the nose of the truck fell off before hitting people if they are going to claim that. (or even more than 1 link that sound like saw horses to me, claimign there were barriers.). What is Le Monde reporting about it?
 

txt29

Senior Member.
The point is, MB examines claims of evidence. The hoaxers need to present evidence the nose of the truck fell off before hitting people if they are going to claim that. (or even more than 1 link that sound like saw horses to me, claimign there were barriers.). What is Le Monde reporting about it?
I am afraid you are a bit delusional about hoaxes and conspiracy theories, Deidre. Show me a single hoaxer or conspiracy theorist who ever used any evidence to support their claims. I am afraid they are not many, if any at all. They simply mostly come with claims based on wild speculations. It is our role here at MB to present the evidence clearly debunking their claims, not vice versa.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
thats not the video you posted originally. Perhaps you accidentally copy and pasted the wrong link? you can post this new video you found.
Yes, it is exactly the same video I posted originally (unless there was some change under the link content in the meantime), and the same video with the sperm whale photo, Chew so nicely debunked. Here you go:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, it is exactly the same video I posted originally (unless there was some change under the link content in the meantime),

No, you originally posted n7p9RbjxloM which contained graphic images of piles of broken bodies.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am afraid you are a bit delusional about hoaxes and conspiracy theories, Deidre. Show me a single hoaxer or conspiracy theorist who ever used any evidence to support their claims. I am afraid they are not many, if any at all. They simply mostly come with claims based on wild speculations. It is our role here at MB to present the evidence clearly debunking their claims, not vice versa.

You seem to misunderstand. Metabunk is about debunking specific claims of evidence. So if you want to debunk something someone is claiming, then you need to find what evidence they are claiming to back it up.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
Here are some trucks that hit deer, probably at much higher speed than the Nice truck hit people.
Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for. Personally I only saw smaller wild animals hit by cars (and did not see much damage or blood there either), so I did not feel it was sufficient as an argument in this case. Your experience and the photos are more convincing. I think people expect too much blood, because it is overused in movies.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
No, you originally posted n7p9RbjxloM which contained graphic images of piles of broken bodies.
Strange, the video I wanted to post is exactly the one above (Le2cf-qFS9w) with no atrocities.
You seem to misunderstand. Metabunk is about debunking specific claims of evidence. So if you want to debunk something someone is claiming, then you need to find what evidence they are claiming to back it up.
Strangely, as far as I can see almost no claim being debunked here on MB comes with any evidence. Almost all (if not all) are just wild claims or speculations, just like this one. If we asked every hoax to be supported by evidence, then we would not need to debunk anything at all (or almost), would we?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Strangely, as far as I can see almost no claim being debunked here on MB comes with any evidence.

Perhaps there's a language problem here. What were are talking about are claims of evidence. These are thing that people say are evidence to support their theory.

For example, the lack of blood on the truck is something that the conspiracy theorists are saying is evidence that supports their broader claim that the even was a false flag.

Nearly everything that is addressed on Metabunk is something that someone is claiming as evidence to support a theory. The fact that it is not actually evidence is generally made clear by subsequent debunking.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That isn't your original video. Your OP video started with the triple image, the top one which I debunked.

Both videos contain the same image, although the one that @txt29 mistakenly posted starts with it. In the second video it's at 0:12. The image seem to have originated on twitter
eig5abcr60ax.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The "One Deer" image is actually a cow. A 1,000lb cow hitting a truck at 70 mph. Pretty much liquid at that speed.
(Slight more graphic photo in the article) http://www.sportsgrid.com/real-spor...ow-so-naturally-heres-a-photo-of-the-carnage/

Which reminds me of the classic essay "On Being the Right Size"

http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html
 

txt29

Senior Member.
That isn't your original video. Your OP video started with the triple image, the top one which I debunked.
In that case I apologize. I explicitly searched and picked the one that was as little disruptive or offensive as possible, but have probably miscopied the link - both these videos were posted on the same page (http://laveritetoutecrue.fr/2016/07/21/attentat-de-nice-hoax/ - and I deliberately violate the no-click policy in this case). So again, my apologies for the wrong video, the later was intended to be posted.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
Perhaps there's a language problem here. What were are talking about are claims of evidence. These are thing that people say are evidence to support their theory.
I am getting lost a bit. So what exactly are you accusing me of? I posted a claim that I wish to debunk. The claim is there is no blood on the truck which they tell it points to a staged attack. When I try to tell them the blood might have been on the front cover, they argue, it should be all over, and that the cover was anyway likely lost already at entering the barriers, or perhaps later during the ride. It cannot be seen at the proximity at the place the truck was stopped. The cover indeed appears to be missing on some videos showing the truck on the road (for example the one showing the scooter chasing the truck). On others it may still be on, but I am not certain - the footage is pretty bad in most cases, so I have no good evidence to counter the claims of the conspiracy theorists.

The closest evidence of the cover perhaps still on, might be on the YT video ID MOeWw4rQn_w (no link, it might be disturbing to some). Below, there is the best frame I could get from it. I think the cover is still on, but I do not know where exactly the video was taken, and whether it the cover is really still in place.

nice_01.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and I deliberately violate the no-click policy in this case)
actually the wrong video would be a Posting Guideline violation about explicit material. The no click policy means you should have added a photograph with timestamps of the truck (and perhaps the 3 other blood pics they are using as evidence) so people dont have to watch the video ie. people dont need to click the link to see all the alleged "evidence" being presented.
https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/
 

txt29

Senior Member.
Deidre, you misunderstood. I wrote I deliberately violated the no-click policy when posting the link to the website where I found the videos, and might have mistakenly copied and pasted the wrong one. I did not speak about my opening post. I violate the no-click policy deliberately in this case, because the content of the page is otherwise irrelevant (although related to this topic) and contains even more offensive content.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I am getting lost a bit. So what exactly are you accusing me of?
noone is accusing you of anything.

The claim is there is no blood on the truck which they tell it points to a staged attack.
and thats a fine "claim of evidence" for Metabunk.

When I try to tell them the blood might have been on the front cover, they argue, it should be all over, and that the cover was anyway likely lost already at entering the barriers,
this is not a fine "claim of evidence" for MB. That is only speculation. (unless they can provide evidence of that).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Deidre, you misunderstood. I wrote I deliberately violated the no-click policy when posting the link to the website where I found the videos, and might have mistakenly copied and pasted the wrong one. I did not speak about my opening post. I violate the no-click policy deliberately in this case, because the content of the page is otherwise irrelevant (although related to this topic) and contains even more offensive content.
oh. yea we really dont need you to explain how the mix up happened. the first thing i said to you was that you probably accidentally pasted the wrong link in.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
"You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes." — J.B.S. Haldane, biologist
That's a nice quote, but what we need are numbers, more specific data. Not knowing the threshold, the quote can be used in both ways, and it is unclear whether it supports or denies the CT.
 

txt29

Senior Member.
this is not a fine "claim of evidence" for MB. That is only speculation. (unless they can provide evidence of that).
The evidence they can use is that there is no cover on the final destination and on at least some of the videos available on the net.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The closest evidence of the cover perhaps still on, might be on the YT video ID MOeWw4rQn_w (no link, it might be disturbing to some). Below, there is the best frame I could get from it. I think the cover is still on, but I do not know where exactly the video was taken, and whether it the cover is really still in place.
it is tough to see because the uncovered looks very similar to the covered. your pic there is good, it does seem the cover is still on. heres a pic of the killer and the truck before the rampage.
killer.JPG

But Txt, the point is you dont have to argue with them about that. "That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

It is fine and good to find pics of the cover still on to combat them, but ultimately it is their job to prove the hoax with something resembling evidence. And if youre going to bring it up on MB then you have to present links if asked... for ex. i finally found the "ice cream" thing finally on an RT article. so when you first mentioned the ice cream thing you would add a link to where you saw the ice cream assertion. This way i can easily see that RT made the assertion and they provided no quotes or evidence to back the assertion up.

That's all. its no big deal. noone is accusing you of anything, honest.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The evidence they can use is that there is no cover on the final destination and on at least some of the videos available on the net.
yea but that doesnt prove anything. It only came up because you also felt there should be blood and suggested it might be on the cover (which, there might be blood on the cover), i'm sure in a few weeks or so we will know more. But i myself wasnt able to determine WHEN the cover came off as far as the bulk of people being run over. I think the information out now is too "all over the place" to make a definitive study of this cover-topic. and you cant debunk squat without a photo of the cover on the ground.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am getting lost a bit. So what exactly are you accusing me of?
I'm not accusing you of anything. I just think you misunderstand what we mean here by "claims" and "claims of evidence"

I posted a claim that I wish to debunk. The claim is there is no blood on the truck which they tell it points to a staged attack.

Which is quite reasonable. We have some actual facts here, i.e. the photo of the truck, and some other photos. This is being presented as "evidence" (i.e. people are claiming it is evidence, it's a claim of evidence). You can debunk it by pointing out:

  1. The truck was likely not going fast enough to "splat" people, and deer bounce off trucks all the time without blood.
  2. The other photos are mislabeled, and show an exploding whale and a cow hit by a truck on a freeway, very different to the Nice incident
  3. The front of the truck is missing, so we can't see if there's blood there.
And that's really all you need.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
there are also pics of people being hit by trucks, pedestrians and cyclists. i dont want to link pics of the people half stuck under the truck as even though the photos arent graphic in themselves, the thought as it relates to France is too gruesome for me. The few truck fronts i'm seeing have no blood, seems the people get knocked over and run over or pinned.
This guy must have flown off the bike, so i think its ok to post.
tr.png
 

DougW

Member
I would have thought the blood would be on the ground and not on the truck. I don't know how densely packed the crowd was that he drove into - the more people the slower the speed one would think.
Interesting that the bullet holes in the windscreen - none were where the driver would be seated.
 

DougW

Member
It is interesting comparing the two clear before and after truck pics. The whole front end covering of the truck is gone.....headlights included and it appears that the windscreen has bullet holes so can we assume that whole front of the truck was hit by bullets and would this cause it to fall off?
 

txt29

Senior Member.
so can we assume that whole front of the truck was hit by bullets and would this cause it to fall off?
I do not think so. On some videos the front panel appears to be missing already during the ride, but it is unclear where exactly it was lost. Practically all the bullets were shot at the final location, where the truck came to the halt due to the fight of the truck driver (Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel) with the civilian who tried to stop him (Franck). So if it fell due to the shots, it would have to be directly at the truck where it stopped, which was not the case (panel missing also on the video of the police shooting at the truck)
Interesting that the bullet holes in the windscreen - none were where the driver would be seated.
That's another claim often used as evidence of a staged attack in the conspiracy theories. But this one is easy to debunk, since detailed descriptions and even videos are available. One of the three policemen who intercepted the truck the first describes the details for example at http://www.midilibre.fr/2016/07/17/...comment-le-tueur-a-ete-neutralise,1367261.php:
So the front panel was really already missing, and the have shot only once when the driver was on his seat, before hiding and reappearing on the passenger seat. It is there where the most shots were fired. Simple as that. And the video confirms it. No conspiracy.
 

Withheld

New Member
After the attack by a truck in Nice, as expected, a lot of conspiracy theories appeared on the web. Most of them are really very easy to debunk, with just simple logic, the knowledge of facts, or by googling a few photos or videos. Since I am currently in the Southern France, I have a lot of friends who questioned me about the attack, and presented me some of the conspiracy theories. I could easily enlighten them, and provide evidence excluding most of the CT claims, and the friends accepted it. There is, though, still one claim that I struggle to find solid explanation for: why there are no traces of blood or tissue on the truck? There are plenty of CT websites using it as a proof the scene was staged. The following video summarizes the CT briefly:

[mod removed video: no click policy, no good shots of the truck in video and because its disgusting to show deceased bodies for no reason or give this video publicity]
View attachment 20034

Of course, I know the claim about a staged attack is nonsense - there are countless photos, videos, and witnesses proving the reality of the attack, but I still fail to find a good argument to explain why there is no blood visible on the photos or videos of the truck. I've read the firemen had to remove body parts from below the truck, but I do not think they would wash the truck immediately after the attack, before any forensic procedures. Blood might have been on the front panel covering the engine, but I understood it fell down already at the beginning when the assassin forced the metallic barriers (unconfirmed). If the cover really fell at the beginning, the more surprising it would be not seeing any blood on the open engine with a lot of sharp elements.

The speed of the truck and its height might have play a role, but I understand that the lack of any traces of blood triggers conspiracy theories. So if anyone of you have some experience in this field, or can find any evidence or explanations, please post it here.

Why should there be? I'm not one of those "well anything goes!!" annoying people who shut down legitimate questions, but human bodies aren't extremely fragile and thinly-covered blood baloons filled with extremely viscous blood. The first thing that happens in an incident like that is that the bodies suffer blunt force trauma when they hit the car, and only then might a bit of blood jump out. I can think of two explanations:

1: The truck is mostly bent black plastic and metal, and blood will not show up well against that, so while it might be there, it might not be significantly visible to us. (we don't have the truck to examine first hand up close do we?)

2: Blood is not viscous, and can be easily smeared and run down. This goes along with the first point, whcih means that the red part of the blood dripped down and only left a shade of itself which dried up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West Pete Santilli's Malheur (Burns, Oregon) FBI False Flag Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theories 4
Mick West Fear From Above: Chemtrails vs. Conspiracy Theory in the Bay Area Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Spectrar Ghost Claim: Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America Conspiracy Theories 0
Idrinkyourmilkshake My experience believing in a CT. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 24
Auldy Why is The Monarchy The Subject of Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 19
Mick West Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories - Ignore or Address? Conspiracy Theories 255
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
NotQualified Claim: Pictures show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliot General Discussion 13
Tunnelvisionary Community aspects of Conspiracy Theory Practical Debunking 96
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Lode Claim: "The Conspiracy Theory Is True: Agents Infiltrate Websites" General Discussion 12
Karen Chun Who is Making Money off the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 45
dunbar Usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory" Practical Debunking 134
Willie The 440Hz tuning frequency conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 42
BlueCollarCritic Conspiracy Theory Update - Theres No Monsanto Act General Discussion 34
Alchemist The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory 9/11 8
Soulfly Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs General Discussion 1
Mick West Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory About People Calling him a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theories 155
Mick West Glen Beck's Oklahoma Tornado Atheist Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theories 90
WavedRhyme The royal presidential bloodline conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart "THEY" Don't Want You To See Practical Debunking 3
Mick West Conspiracy Theory Poll Results Shows Party/Age/Race Splits on Chemtrails, etc. Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Four Types of Event Conspiracy Theory Practical Debunking 14
FreiZeitGeist Australian Science: Chemtrails – Conspiracy Theory? Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Mick West Debunked: The CIA invented the term "Conspiracy Theory" in 1967 with memo 1035-960 Practical Debunking 28
Danell Zorn Facebook and CIA conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 116
scombrid Infowars/AlexJones are pushing the Chemtrail/Geoengineering Conspiracy Theory Forward Contrails and Chemtrails 2
J Janet D's Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Story (Part I) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 7
J Janet D's Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Story (Part I) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
J Penultimate conspiracy theory Conspiracy Theories 1
Leifer Conspiracy Theory Theory Conspiracy Theories 0
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top