How 10/10 Scum Blew Up A Child : Warning – Graphic Content

I develop video editing/effects software professionally. Here is a frame-by-frame dissection of how they blew up a brainwashed child actor.

You may want to skip this article if you are squeamish.

The explosion occurred on the second frame, and the pile of exploded brain matter appeared in the ninth frame. The scene shift occurred on the third frame, where the child actor was removed from the scene and where everyone else shifted to their post-explosion positions. A simulated arm came flying off starting in the third frame. Blood appears on the lens in the ninth frame.

Each frame occupies one 1/30th of a second real time, which is fast enough to fool your mind into believing you are seeing motion rather than stills. The entire animation above is less than one second of the film.

These idiots may think they can cover their tracks now, but the cat is so far out of the bag ….

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Child Abuse Filmakers. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How 10/10 Scum Blew Up A Child : Warning – Graphic Content

  1. AndyW says:

    It’s ironic that this has caused a lot of upset in the USA mainly, where children are actually far more likely to be killed in real life in the classroom than the UK. But that is seems to be acceptable, but this isn’t.

    Go figure.


  2. Byz says:

    No this is unacceptable full stop.

    I live in the UK and I like the work of Richard Curtis 🙂 but this has a very nasty undertone 😦

    If you don’t tow the line you will be got rid of, I’ve been through some nasty situations myself were because I wouldn’t fall into line about the victimisation of others, I also became victimised.

    It is the context that makes this sinister, had this been a comedy sketch poking fun at AGW believers and what they’ed like to do then it would have been funny, however this was produced by them and shows their mind set 😦

    It is interesting given the political situation in the UK, in the last few years of the Labour government I felt that society in the UK was becoming more centralised and again quite sinister (I’m no Tory supporter) and the recent visit of the Pope highlighted this as the media hate religious belief in this country.

    My view has always been I may not agree with your views but as long as you don’t want to do others harm I will defend your right to hold your views. I don’t extend this to extreme rightwing or leftwing groups as my Father had to live for a few years under Nazi and Soviet occupation during WWII and what he has told me is horrifying, plus I have visited a preserved concentration camp and I believe all our children should be shown them as it is a real warning from history about where the intolerance of others leads us 😦

  3. AndyW says:

    “It is the context that makes this sinister”

    That’s the whole point, it’s not how bad it actually is, it’s because it is done by the people batting for the other side that it is seen as such a poor show.

    I’ve used British terminology here on purpose.

    Compare it to US mainstream films, like this

    But that was for $$ and not a point about AGW so it is ok? Er …

    Like I said at WUWT, this is just a handily place baseball bat to hit your critics with. It’s not worth the huge amount of crocodile tears shed. I’d say that if it was the other way around and produced by someone critical of AGW.


  4. rw says:

    As far as I know there has so far been a radical (or complete) asymmetry between warmists and skeptics regarding threats and fantasies of violence. This is certainly significant, which is why I find tendencies to dismiss it disingenuous. If you disagree, I suggest having a look at accounts of the last few weeks in the life of Pim Fortuyn – that should be locate-able on the Web. The point is that this kind of stuff isn’t just meant to intimidate; it also involves habituating people to violence. It’s also a kind of scatter-shot strategy – tossing a meme out into the population with the intention (just as malevolent if unconscious) of someone picking it up and going further.

    There’s another aspect to this that I think is just as significant. Especially when one realizes the utter futility of the CO2 reduction plans (noted in a recent posting on this site), it’s difficult to decide whether these people really believe the AGW hypothesis themselves. Seen in this light, threats (a la Greenpeace) or fantasies of violence, may also have the function of protecting a belief that cannot stand the light of even-handed inquiry. (And 2 reasons for going to such lengths can be suggested: (i) the AGW belief supports core attitude/beliefs in a Weltanschaung, so contradicting it is a threat to these beliefs, (ii) these people are very far out on a limb in this case, in full view of ‘everyone’.)

    Of course, all this is speculative, but some such explanations are required, I think, to account for these sorts of activities.

  5. Nobama says:


    Your logic on this comparison is exactly like that of CAGW theorists: Plausible sounding, but fatally flawed. You even manage to throw in your disdain for free market enterprise by disparaging profit.

    In the clip you suggested, totalitarian invaders are shown in the cruel and heartless light they have earned. You’re expected to feel empathy for the victims of violence.

    The 10:10 clip is just the opposite. It makes light of violence in the name of a cult religion. You’re expected to believe murder is appropriate in this snuff film because of a difference of opinion.

    Compare the most popular climate realist video: (caution, acts of violence against cartoon characters)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s