Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

Or any other kind of expert.

A doctor who looks at bullets and sees similarities can mean any number of things. It can mean the doctor isn't used to bullets and see any bullets as similar looking. It can mean the bullets are of a similar shape and size, which is the fact with many rifle bullets. It can even mean that the bullets came from the same type of weapon, or even the same weapon.

This is why we have experts conduct an examination of bullets used in crimes. These experts use newfangled technology like "microscopes" and "compare" the bullets before spouting off on how they are similar-looking.

Could, could, could. True enough. Could be right, could be right, could be right. Also true.

The government usually would hold the evidence and run the investigation for a thing like this. I hear the Interior ministry is doing a "serious" investigation, but it's got strange conclusions (Russia did it). And just hours before they told us that, we heard from FM Paet that the new government, beneficiaries of the snipers, don't want to investigate. But once that was out, they wanted to be seen as "seriously" looking into it.

Clearly the ideal would be a scientific investigation, totally neutral, with access to all physical evidence or proper photos, considering all the circumstantial evidence too, comprehensive video and scene photo analysis, and unafraid to tell the truth - whatever it is. But it may not happen.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hey! Lady whose name was leaked - outed as suggesting her new shady government might have false-flagged its way to power - gets a call from AP. Hey lady, is this true? As a neo-Nazi gang walks slowly by her door in the absence of police, for all we know, guess what she says? It's a bit more vague than when talking to Paet, privately, off-the-record. The photo investigation she did and brought to him, he must've made that up. Later, she was also called out of touch with reality, and then was unreachable by the media. That also suggests that she's some CT nutter, or Paet is, or whatever.



And Paet said "the same Olga told that, well all the evidence shows uh, that the people who were killed by snipers..."

What did all the other evidence say when AP called?

 

[uke2se]

Could, could, could. True enough. Could be right, could be right, could be right. Also true.

The government usually would hold the evidence and run the investigation for a thing like this. I hear the Interior ministry is doing a "serious" investigation, but it's got strange conclusions (Russia did it).

Why is that stranger than your conspiracy theory?

And just hours before they told us that, we heard from FM Paet that the new government, beneficiaries of the snipers, don't want to investigate. But once that was out, they wanted to be seen as "seriously" looking into it.

The new government were the beneficiaries of the snipers? You do understand that the snipers were primarily targeting demonstrators, right? Are you making the argument that the new government are happy that their people got killed? If so, you're going to have to provide some pretty darn good evidence for that, and globalresearch isn't going to cut it.

Clearly the ideal would be a scientific investigation, totally neutral, with access to all physical evidence or proper photos, considering all the circumstantial evidence too, comprehensive video and scene photo analysis, and unafraid to tell the truth - whatever it is. But it may not happen.

Or it will happen in the hands of the official investigators. It is true that it will not happen in your hands, though.

 

[Caustic Logic]

you'd have to explain all of that video footage of government employees shooting people.

I bet you can't cite one. There are Berkut seen in the open shooting, yes. In the air for all you can tell, and often to cover their retreat. There are also people getting picked off relentlessly from a window at the hotel Ukraine, or a spot very near that. Just after the big Berkut retreat. You don't see who that is. "Accepted facts" are primarily imagined, filling in the gap between these with nothing but what's convenient. Blame-a-regime. Not scientific.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Why is that stranger than your conspiracy theory?

For obvious reasons if you don't want to look like a numbskull. As Muisy: "In fact if there hadn't been this provocation, this action from a 'third sector,' I think Yanukovych would have remained in power." Evidence that Russia wanted Yanukovych out of power? Evidence for the other side? Reason to circumvent that standard logic?

Last question I'll take from you thx

 

[LSSBB]

A hallmark, if real, is evidence of a thing. If the logic is wrong, well, it is. Do you have an argument to that effect?

Let me add the evidence already cited by credible people - the bullets being the same for police and "protesters."

I have no argument to any effect regarding the snipers. I don't pretend to know who they were. I look forward to any real evidence, and not conjecture. The good doctor's impression of whether bullets are similar obviously doesn't count - maybe they looked the same. They evidently were not signed.

What else you got, besides out of context quotes and conjecture by obviously biased sources? Up to you or anyone else posting here to provide that.

 

[uke2se]

For obvious reasons if you don't want to look like a numbskull. As Muisy: "In fact if there hadn't been this provocation, this action from a 'third sector,' I think Yanukovych would have remained in power." Evidence that Russia wanted Yanukovych out of power? Evidence for the other side? Reason to circumvent that standard logic?

Maybe if you believe everything anyone ever does is according to a master plan and that nothing is ever done that could come back and haunt someone in the future, yes, I can see how it would seem illogical to you for Russia to employ snipers to fire at protesters.

If, on the other hand, you think that maybe the Berkut snipers, and whomever this third party was (if we assume for a moment that there was a third party - the evidence for it is flimsy at best) were shooting protesters because they were under orders to suppress the insurrection, it makes perfect sense.

Your tendency to see conspiracies everywhere is completely clouding your ability to properly assess a situation.

Last question I'll take from you thx

You're not holding a press conference. You're attending an open forum. You can ignore anyone you want at any time. I'm going to keep pointing out the stupid dredge you spout, and if you don't want to engage with me, that'll just leave my posts unchallenged. Win-win for me.

 

[Joey McGee]

Hey! Lady whose name was leaked - outed as suggesting her new shady government might have false-flagged its way to power - gets a call from AP.

Ugh, the Telegraph! "Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people." Which only makes sense... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.html

Hey lady, is this true? As a neo-Nazi gang walks slowly by her door in the absence of police, for all we know, guess what she says? It's a bit more vague than when talking to Paet, privately, off-the-record. The photo investigation she did and brought to him, he must've made that up. Later, she was also called out of touch with reality, and then was unreachable by the media.

Wait, where does it clearly state that she was of the opinion that it was the opposition? Isn't it far more likely that this is all just confused together by people reading too much into the translated words of Paet?

That also suggests that she's some CT nutter, or Paet is, or whatever.

No, actually, it doesn't, but it's telling that you depend on either/or logic to get through the day holding fringe beliefs like this.

 

[MaGZ]

I haven't really kept up with this one as well as I should have. From what I read the abdication of Yanukovich was precipitated by snipers killing both cops and protesters in Kiev and the claim in the West has been that the snipers were on Yanukovich's payroll somehow or other, sort of like the Reichstag fire thing.

That turns out to be BS and several videos dealing with the leaked phone conversation between Estonian foreign minister Paet and Catherine Ashton have been going viral on youtube over the past three or four days, e.g. at about location 8:20 of this item:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

A few other takes:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/06/russian-un-ambassador-comes-out-swinging-on-leaked-call/#
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...ilians-as-a-pretext-for-regime-change/5370705
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html



In other words, our rogue government has found yet another bunch of barbarians to support.

I mean, this is several tads beyond your garden variety villainy... Shooting cops is usually a bad thing but shooting your own people to achieve some ulterior political end is unusually nefarious.

Didn’t the Mossad do this same thing in Syria and before that in Iran?

 

[LSSBB]

Ugh, the Telegraph! "Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people." Which only makes sense... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.htmlWait, where does it clearly state that she was of the opinion that it was the opposition? Isn't it far more likely that this is all just confused together by people reading too much into the translated words of Paet?No, actually, it doesn't, but it's telling that you depend on either/or logic to get through the day holding fringe beliefs like this.

Its so strange that folks feel they have to resort to Conspiracy Theory to defend bad behavior by opponents of "The West". They'd be on much solid footing in attacking the bad behavior no matter who does it. It's like it's not the behavior they're upset about, it's all about choosing sides.

 

[LSSBB]

Didn’t the Mossad do this same thing in Syria and before that in Iran?

Off topic, and I say the Mossad didn't. Prove me wrong.

 

[MaGZ]

Thread super-derailed. I suggest move to wherever.

It seems to me you don’t want a discussion on who these snipers really were.

 

[MaGZ]

If the snipers were planted by "Western imperialists" in order to make it look like Yanukovich's government forces were killing protesters in order to justify Western intervention to remove Yanukovich, why were they also shooting the police that Yanukovich was using to crack down on those protesters?

The Mossad wanted to spark a civil war in Ukraine like they did in Syria.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The new government were the beneficiaries of the snipers? You do understand that the snipers were primarily targeting demonstrators, right?

Sorry, missed that part. If this is where you're hung up, you are really behind and that helps explain your overall confusion on this topic. Yes, someone murdered enough demonstrators that the deal agreed earlier on the 20th - by the government and opposition - was suddenly nullified and the President had to be gone by morning. Nothing else would likely have sufficed to achieve that goal with any appearance of moral legitimacy.

This is pretty obvious to most people, by the way. The why of an opposition provocation usually doesn't need explaining, even to people who doubt it happened.

Ugh, the Telegraph! "Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people." Which only makes sense... www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.htmlWait, where does it clearly state that she was of the opinion that it was the opposition? Isn't it far more likely that this is all just confused together by people reading too much into the translated words of Paet?No, actually, it doesn't, but it's telling that you depend on either/or logic to get through the day holding fringe beliefs like this.

Check the "translation" against the original audio - go to about 7:00 for the main part. I can tell you haven't yet. You're spouting off from a slightly less ignorant position now. Why not keep improving?

 

[Joey McGee]

Its so strange that folks feel they have to resort to Conspiracy Theory to defend bad behavior by opponents of "The West". They'd be on much solid footing in attacking the bad behavior no matter who does it. It's like it's not the behavior they're upset about, it's all about choosing sides.

Yeah, you got one guy saying it's the NWO, another blaming the Jews, here's a guy saying this is probably all about aliens.

Is hacked phone call of Ukraine sniper attacks evidence of exopolitics conflict?

Someone else probably thinks it's about Christianity, etc etc... pretty sad, but also, very funny.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It seems to me you don’t want a discussion on who these snipers really were.

Thanks, Magz is here. The derails will end.

That derail there was about Crimea and related stuff, and I think ended. I wanted to only discuss the snipers. I'm happy to see any solid evidence MOSSAD is involved, but I think we need zero further distraction by your pointlessly jerking knee.

 

[uke2se]

Sorry, missed that part. If this is where you're hung up, you are really behind and that helps explain your overall confusion on this topic. Yes, someone murdered enough demonstrators that the deal agreed earlier on the 20th - by the government and opposition - was suddenly nullified and the President had to be gone by morning. Nothing else would likely have sufficed to achieve that goal with any appearance of moral legitimacy.

This is pretty obvious to most people, by the way. The why of an opposition provocation usually doesn't need explaining, even to people who doubt it happened.

What the hell are you even talking about? The deal was struck, impeachment proceedings were started, and then Yanukovich fled.

What is obvious to most people is that your attempts to white wash the Yanukovich regime and the Russian invasion are blatant and quite disgusting.

 

[Joey McGee]

Check the "translation" against the original audio - go to about 7:00 for the main part. I can tell you haven't yet. You're spouting off from a slightly less ignorant position now. Why not keep improving?

HA! Yeah I've heard the tape already, thanks. Not everyone will interpret things the same way you will, aren't you aware of that yet? It all seems incredibly vague to me, to you as well, you need to invent the idea that she's been threatened into changing her "story" which is really just a sad admission that you really have no evidence of the false flag narrative except for the supposed opinions of one person! I mean honestly...

 

[MaGZ]

What the hell are you even talking about? The deal was struck, impeachment proceedings were started, and then Yanukovich fled.

What is obvious to most people is that your attempts to white wash the Yanukovich regime and the Russian invasion are blatant and quite disgusting.

There was never a Russian invasion of Crimea. There was a Russian deployment of troops that were already in Crimea.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Visual Refs, the Hotel

What's obvious is obvious.

Moving on then, to the evidence. Anyone who wants to engage their eyes, for reference:
Scene map
41-minute video (filmed roving amongst events - main massacre sequence is about 12:00-20:00, and sporadically thereafter)
2.5 minute video (filmed from the hotel)
A list of analysis videos

Reports say the hotel Ukraine was generally taken over by the protesters/insurgents on the 18th. They had their field clinic there on the 20th, and "armed protesters" were in charge of security, at one point going room to room "looking for snipers." (these background details still need added to and organized to be more clear, but that's a good reading thus far). Any sniper shots fired by anyone not invited in by them would have a pretty narrow room to operate. It's possible, but a problematic notion.

There was a BBC news report, filmed on the 20th but only released a week later, which is interesting (we'll see why). In this, BBC reporter Gabriel Gatehouse films the aftermath of the mid-day sniper massacre by the Ukraine Hotel, no clues to that. Some reports though said that was from the hotel. But later in the day, just after sunset it seems, the BBC team came "under sniper fire" from the hotel. Gatehouse saw which window, and that the shooter was "wearing one of the protesters green helmets." About an hour later it was a Sky News reporter who had more protesters come to their room, looking for the/a sniper. The room he was in was identified. He must have escaped that room, and they probably never did find him.

Okay, report not filed yet, Gatehouse comes with British forensic experts and opp. activists on the 24th to get their best overall reading of where the snipers were in Kiev, analyzing supposed bullet holes and such. Report aired the 25th.. Four positions identified - the National bank, balcony - the Bankova Vultysya tower - a roadblock between and just north of the two - #4 unclear, either the National Bank roof, or they mean the October Palace, which was of course vacated of Berkut and taken over by insurgents just before the sniper massacre, so let's hope not.

As for the roadblock cited, just past the Metro station, Here's video of, I believe, three Berkut vacating that very area under gunfire (sniper? From the hotel?), and another person following, aiming a rifle in their direction. Just minutes before the victims were sent in and the massacre started. That's your "third force" in action.

They didn't once in this early but supp. comprehensive look say anything about the hotel, except that there was shooting towards it. Then he released his report with a green-helmet "sniper" in the hotel.

Then and more so now, people started realizing the hotel is the main place that matters. That's where the well-documented brutal stuff happened (see analysis videos, above - doesn't the overall direction suggest the west half of the hotel, and only slightly above the victims? It's one a steep slope behind so ground = maybe 3rd floor). On the 5th, as the Paet-Ashton call was published, the Interior Ministry says it's got three firing locations identified for this "third force" - the National Bank (there were casings on the roof!), the "house of Chimeras" (an official residence next to Y's presidential administration building) and ... of course the hotel. (see AP March 7)

So there's another clue. The role of the hotel sniper(s) shifting all over like that suggests conflicting attempts to limit our awareness. When it became clear there might be serious attention, they cut short the stupid game of denying the hotel, and started a new one of having sooper-seekrit Russian snipers in there. Or that's my suspicion anyway.