Actually there seem to be two distinct strands here; the usual anti-Americanism but also one that seems to come out of that Tea Party belief that anything Obama does is wrong so if he opposes Russia's actions the Russians must be in the right.
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?
Claiming something is obvious without support, misuse of a quote, reversed burden of proof, threatening to disengage, and selectively responding to parts of your oppositions posts while ignoring the rest.
I took a break and then revised my forum policy - wherever it is, a dedicated thread is good for a subject. This one was getting better in my absence. I observed the thoughtful and fair "challenges" piling up and gather the type of research I was doing was delusional, disgusting, Putin-apologist, "anti-imperialist" (fake, actually PRO-imperialist), Youtube investigoogling of made-up anti-West false-flag sniper theories. Any worries about some possible disconnect between "accepted facts" and physical facts is baseless. On this side of the iron curtain, what we accept is what is real! With diligent work, the resident skeptics here proved once again that the corporate-owned model is the best and only reliable way to get truth consistently.
Damn am I ever standing here corrected and duly chastised. It's simply epic.
On one level I'm aware of this basic fact, but through some character flaw or set of them, I'm still doing my reflexive rebel thing. No surprise, huh? The latest vile addition is in video form and - surprise - conveys another conspiracy theory: the green helmet sniper BBC's Gatehouse reported (on the 11th floor, 5th window from the left) firing a single shot at sunset, and some bullet fired from high in the hotel at sunset, conspired to kill another protest helper on Yanukovych's open tab.
Victim: Volodomyr Melnichuk, some kind of supporter of the uprising but not involved in the violent parts ("protests"). Reports say he was standing with his wife, sipping coffee, as we can see in the main plaza in front of the October Palace, 110 m from that window (plus 11 floors down). The injury suggests a high shooter - entry at the jaw, exit through neck, in the span of a man's head. Probably the BBC sniper, with so little else happening to confuse it with ... hours after the sniper massacre of around 16-20 that was also run mainly from the hotel (per bullet trajectories seen on video). They claimed to catch one guy immediately after that, but again I'm aware of no details on him revealed since.
After the BBC/Melnichuk incident, Protesters with helmets and rifles even looked from room to room for the villain, or made a show of it to some media rooms, about 3 hours later ("just" before an 8:41 PM tweet from a Sky News reporter). But despite that, and maybe an earlier search, it doesn't seem the dusk sniper ever was caught.
There's a false-flag CT to explain this, if one is so inclined (some here are). The guy Gatehouse saw was another Yanukovych Berkut/whatever sniper, wearing the green helmet to implicate the protesters. Huh! There's a logic to that. And he only let Gatehouse incidentally see him, afterwards pulling in and pulling the curtain half-closed to NOT implicate the protesters provably on camera. That adds realism, right? A guy like that could then just blend in with the other green-helmet opposition riflemen we see and vanish. Very clever.
There's also a more straightforward explanation for those who prefer that kind of answer. Philosophies differ.
---
Side things also in the video:
Now reports have Andriy Parubiy of the Euromaidan "self-defense" accused of running that show from his office and other rooms of the hotel (Yakimenko) - Early evasiveness about any hotel snipers (see post #80) - and now reports that the same guy, as National Security Council chairman, is tasked with invesrtigating the "third force" snipers. (English catch of reputable German report - will look for Ukrainian and authoritative next)
There's video, maybe faked, of green helmet snipers being rushed into hotel elevators by obvious Maidan militants. A team of two is seen - one with an air rifle, another with an AK-47. (original footage with bloody victims too, enhanced - see 3:15 in this video, or in mine, below)
But maybe the only thing that matters about the snipers is that they worked and let us stick it to Putin real good. If so, the only due response to anyone talking of locations, time-stamps, lines of sight, etc. is to swiftly bypass it all with a flick of the wrist and a giggle. It seems to be an easy position to support with a diagnosis of what motivates some people to poke holes in another freedom narrative.
In other words, folks, you should "challenge" me some more. And whatever you do, please ignore this video, and with it the obscure but interesting bit of RT censorship I uncovered along the way (RUSSIAN cameraman right near the sniper, and footage missing, hm!)
I took a break and then revised my forum policy - wherever it is, a dedicated thread is good for a subject. This one was getting better in my absence. I observed the thoughtful and fair "challenges" piling up and gather the type of research I was doing was delusional, disgusting, Putin-apologist, "anti-imperialist" (fake, actually PRO-imperialist), Youtube investigoogling of made-up anti-West false-flag sniper theories. Any worries about some possible disconnect between "accepted facts" and physical facts is baseless. On this side of the iron curtain, what we accept is what is real! With diligent work, the resident skeptics here proved once again that the corporate-owned model is the best and only reliable way to get truth consistently.
Damn am I ever standing here corrected and duly chastised. It's simply epic.
On one level I'm aware of this basic fact, but through some character flaw or set of them, I'm still doing my reflexive rebel thing. No surprise, huh? The latest vile addition is in video form and - surprise - conveys another conspiracy theory: the green helmet sniper BBC's Gatehouse reported (on the 11th floor, 5th window from the left) firing a single shot at sunset, and some bullet fired from high in the hotel at sunset, conspired to kill another protest helper on Yanukovych's open tab.
Victim: Volodomyr Melnichuk, some kind of supporter of the uprising but not involved in the violent parts ("protests"). Reports say he was standing with his wife, sipping coffee, as we can see in the main plaza in front of the October Palace, 110 m from that window (plus 11 floors down). The injury suggests a high shooter - entry at the jaw, exit through neck, in the span of a man's head. Probably the BBC sniper, with so little else happening to confuse it with ... hours after the sniper massacre of around 16-20 that was also run mainly from the hotel (per bullet trajectories seen on video). They claimed to catch one guy immediately after that, but again I'm aware of no details on him revealed since.
After the BBC/Melnichuk incident, Protesters with helmets and rifles even looked from room to room for the villain, or made a show of it to some media rooms, about 3 hours later ("just" before an 8:41 PM tweet from a Sky News reporter). But despite that, and maybe an earlier search, it doesn't seem the dusk sniper ever was caught.
There's a false-flag CT to explain this, if one is so inclined (some here are). The guy Gatehouse saw was another Yanukovych Berkut/whatever sniper, wearing the green helmet to implicate the protesters. Huh! There's a logic to that. And he only let Gatehouse incidentally see him, afterwards pulling in and pulling the curtain half-closed to NOT implicate the protesters provably on camera. That adds realism, right? A guy like that could then just blend in with the other green-helmet opposition riflemen we see and vanish. Very clever.
There's also a more straightforward explanation for those who prefer that kind of answer. Philosophies differ.
Now reports have Andriy Parubiy of the Euromaidan "self-defense" accused of running that show from his office and other rooms of the hotel (Yakimenko) - Early evasiveness about any hotel snipers (see post #80) - and now reports that the same guy, as National Security Council chairman, is tasked with invesrtigating the "third force" snipers. (English catch of reputable German report - will look for Ukrainian and authoritative next)
There's video, maybe faked, of green helmet snipers being rushed into hotel elevators by obvious Maidan militants. A team of two is seen - one with an air rifle, another with an AK-47. (original footage with bloody victims too, enhanced - see 3:15 in this video, or in mine, below)
You don't know that either of those are snipers. You simply assume they are because it fits your narrative. Another explanation is simply that they are barricading positions in the hotel, or any number of other explanations. For the record, the AK-47 is a relatively close range assault rifle. Not a sniper rifle.
But maybe the only thing that matters about the snipers is that they worked and let us stick it to Putin real good. If so, the only due response to anyone talking of locations, time-stamps, lines of sight, etc. is to swiftly bypass it all with a flick of the wrist and a giggle. It seems to be an easy position to support with a diagnosis of what motivates some people to poke holes in another freedom narrative.
In other words, folks, you should "challenge" me some more. And whatever you do, please ignore this video, and with it the obscure but interesting bit of RT censorship I uncovered along the way (RUSSIAN cameraman right near the sniper, and footage missing, hm!)
More whine and yet another plug for your youtube videos.
The long and short of it is, your theories aren't rejected because we are biased towards Western media. They are rejected because they don't contain any critical thinking.
... hours after the sniper massacre of around 16-20 that was also run mainly from the hotel (per bullet trajectories seen on video). They claimed to catch one guy immediately after that, but again I'm aware of no details on him revealed since.
If you're talking about the same video I'm thinking of, at least one riot shield is struck from the front, as if it the shot came from the police side. Can you explain how, if the snipers were behind, how a shield can be struck from the front?
If you're talking about the same video I'm thinking of, at least one riot shield is struck from the front, as if it the shot came from the police side. Can you explain how, if the snipers were behind, how a shield can be struck from the front?
What is this? Specifics? That's not proper, but I'll run with it.
This Dusk Sniper(s) stuff is all different, hours later than the massacre you're talking about. I think the scene you refer to is the guy who gets a ricochet off the tree and rolls backwards bizarrely (see my enhancement here that clarifies that - two trajectories seen).
That's the forward angle (app. 10:00 from the street direction there). It may have downed the first few victims, and caused the rest to hide and put up their shields forward. Otherwise, it's loud, frequent, obvious, and secondary. (from the same team, I suspect, but maybe not) What really kills is the occasional sneak shot from behind (hotel, west side, mid-level, it looks like). One drops, the others puzzle, another drops. They never get that it's coming from behind. Very sad.
Why does that option matter here (and what would it mean?)? The man was shot through the neck and died shortly after. Or do you have evidence otherwise? Mrs. Melnichuk would be pleased to learn the sniper missed and her husband is not dead.
ETA: Or maybe I just don't understand your option? "The sniper missed," meaning what?
You don't know that either of those are snipers. You simply assume they are because it fits your narrative. Another explanation is simply that they are barricading positions in the hotel, or any number of other explanations. For the record, the AK-47 is a relatively close range assault rifle. Not a sniper rifle.
I don't think these two are part of the main sniper team, which could be one man only. That would get set up way more quietly, I would think. But they do have green helmets and rifles and are getting elevated for shooting. This they never admitted, and tried to stop even this filming, and it sets a precedent for the unseen snipers there's separate and growing evidence for.
And for the record, an AK-47 is not an air rifle. The armament picture is ticking up in the militant direction from last we knew here.
More whine and yet another plug for your youtube videos.
I told you to ignore it, and it seems you have. Good. Diagnose some more. What's wrong with me and those like me? That's the real question here. This
The long and short of it is, your theories aren't rejected because we are biased towards Western media. They are rejected because they don't contain any critical thinking.
The specific shot I'm referring to is at the 36 second mark in this video you posted.
The protesters/militants/insurgents/nazis are facing what I assume to be the police lines. The hole in the person's shield is indented on the police side after the shot, so I'm going to assume the shot comes from the police direction.
To clarify, also - the ranges that matter here are all relatively close, from the hotel. Thew massacre area was about 60-85 meters (plus elevation, depending which window(s). The dusk shot was 110 meters from the one window. I don't know weapons well, but I suspect that's within range for an AK. I still think this isn't the, or a, sniper of interest, but your point seeming to be moot, I think it could be.
The specific shot I'm referring to is at the 36 second mark in this video you posted.
The protesters/militants/insurgents/nazis are facing what I assume to be the police lines. The hole in the person's shield is indented on the police side after the shot, so I'm going to assume the shot comes from the police direction.
Ah, that scene. (For the record, I suspect the Nazis would run this show, and pick non-Nazis or expendables, to be in this doomed first wave - the sacrificial lambs, innocents to make them all look good.) I know this scene even better, and I think you're reading it wrong.
The shields face towards that forward fire, here from left and back of the cameraman. But the "ironic kid" (my nickname) as seated is facing the hotel. That was the first scene to convince me (being first in the video, and also by chance the first fatal shot we get to see happen). The irony is he's given a shield and just gets it up to protect from the forward (possibly police) direction, when the shot hits him from the other side. It looks like he sees the sniper and starts to stand, but he's hit first, lives for a bit, and is apparently dead later.
But maybe you get the layout and the "hole" in the shield is the problem. There are no holes I can agree to, just dents. One to start with, at the bottom. I puzzled over this one for a bit and could see both firing directions, even though the shield should have protected him from the one angle (there might be a gap, etc.). But what clarifies the matter for me is the two new dents in the shield. One sends sunlight reflecting on the tree as it's punched, when the sun was just about straight down the street (between 12:30 and 1 PM). This shows it's an outward dent, made from the hotel direction (best indication of a west-side room, or even further west than the hotel maybe). The light on the dents after, light side away from the camera, say the same thing.
My enhancements on this one (zoom, slow, brighten, sharpen) help with the details - if anyone thinks I'm reading this wrong, check that first, and if you still think so, let me know. Right here:
(sorry for all the "promo" - I just know and trust my own work best when pointing to stuff)
Two dents would also suggest to me multiple bullets (at least one hits him too, obviously), and I hear two different cracks - two snipers hitting him at once, or is that just an echo where the second is louder, and the bullet broke up? Or? (not getting hung up on that point, but open to any ideas)
To clarify, also - the ranges that matter here are all relatively close, from the hotel. Thew massacre area was about 60-85 meters (plus elevation, depending which window(s). The dusk shot was 110 meters from the one window. I don't know weapons well, but I suspect that's within range for an AK. I still think this isn't the, or a, sniper of interest, but your point seeming to be moot, I think it could be.
I believe AK47s are good at up to 200 meters. Beyond that would require a steady hand and some know how for long distance shooting.
Ah, that scene. (For the record, I suspect the Nazis would run this show, and pick non-Nazis or expendables, to be in this doomed first wave - the sacrificial lambs, innocents to make them all look good.)
I wonder what the survivors of this "first wave" are saying about it, if they have any issues with how the situation unfolded. One claim in the video we're discussing is that a man was shot in the stomach while retreating towards protester lines. Well, if he survived, do you think he'd be able to piece together the fact that bullets do not make u-turns? Small things like that.
As an anecdote, I used to go shooting at this great big sand pit a few towns over when I was younger. One day a guy showed up with an AK47, and my friends and I happened to be down range from him inspecting a few monitors we just shot up. He wanted to take a few shots with some new ammo he just loaded that morning, and would happily be on his way afterwards. So, we ducked behind a rather large dirt pile and allowed him to unleash. Even with our ears covered and out of sight, there was no mistaking what direction those shots were coming from, and that was about 100 yards away, and at intervals of 5-10 seconds a round.
The shields face towards that forward fire, here from left and back of the cameraman. But the "ironic kid" (my nickname) as seated is facing the hotel. That was the first scene to convince me (being first in the video, and also by chance the first fatal shot we get to see happen). The irony is he's given a shield and just gets it up to protect from the forward (possibly police) direction, when the shot hits him from the other side. It looks like he sees the sniper and starts to stand, but he's hit first, lives for a bit, and is apparently dead later.
What evidence do you have that he was shot from behind? What makes you think it's "apparent"? The problem with observing video footage is that it doesn't even come close to painting a full picture, especially when the shots come from off screen. You don't take into consideration ricochets, or the placement of the camera to account for an assumed downwards trajectory. Humor me though, if you will - could a ricochet from the police side account for what is seen in the video, and what happens to "ironic kid"?
But what clarifies the matter for me is the two new dents in the shield. One sends sunlight reflecting on the tree as it's punched, when the sun was just about straight down the street (between 12:30 and 1 PM). This shows it's an outward dent, made from the hotel direction (best indication of a west-side room, or even further west than the hotel maybe). The light on the dents after, light side away from the camera, say the same thing.
Honestly, I've read this multiple times and watched your edited footage multiple times. It still doesn't make a lick of sense to me, or how you were even able to determine trajectory from it. Admittedly it's early and I'm just finishing my first cup of coffee, but would you take another stab at this reflecting light argument?
Two dents would also suggest to me multiple bullets (at least one hits him too, obviously), and I hear two different cracks - two snipers hitting him at once, or is that just an echo where the second is louder, and the bullet broke up? Or? (not getting hung up on that point, but open to any ideas)
It could suggest a semi-automatic rifle, it could suggest a bullet fracturing and splitting up (but this shattered bullet making the same size hole twice at this point seems far fetched), it could suggest multiple shooters shooting at the same target.
But maybe you get the layout and the "hole" in the shield is the problem. There are no holes I can agree to, just dents. One to start with, at the bottom. I puzzled over this one for a bit and could see both firing directions, even though the shield should have protected him from the one angle (there might be a gap, etc.). But what clarifies the matter for me is the two new dents in the shield. One sends sunlight reflecting on the tree as it's punched, when the sun was just about straight down the street (between 12:30 and 1 PM). This shows it's an outward dent, made from the hotel direction (best indication of a west-side room, or even further west than the hotel maybe). The light on the dents after, light side away from the camera, say the same thing.
On large problem with your analysis here is the dented shield.
At the ranges that these shooters are at (100-200m) a 7.62x39mm round from an AK will punch right through a police riot shield. Such shields are not intended to stop heavy pistol bullets and certainly not rifle calibres. Police riot shields are intended to stop hand thrown projectiles and to stop hand held weapons from hitting the officer holding them.
Dents to a shield would be the result of impacts such as batons, rocks, etc, not bullets that impacted at anything more than a glancing angle.
Essentially, using a dented shield as evidence that a shooter was present, and moreover to use it to try an determine the potential location of a shooter, is not likely to yield correct results.
On large problem with your analysis here is the dented shield.
At the ranges that these shooters are at (100-200m) a 7.62x39mm round from an AK will punch right through a police riot shield. Such shields are not intended to stop heavy pistol bullets and certainly not rifle calibres. Police riot shields are intended to stop hand thrown projectiles and to stop hand held weapons from hitting the officer holding them.
Why does that option matter here (and what would it mean?)? The man was shot through the neck and died shortly after. Or do you have evidence otherwise? Mrs. Melnichuk would be pleased to learn the sniper missed and her husband is not dead.
ETA: Or maybe I just don't understand your option? "The sniper missed," meaning what?
This they never admitted, and tried to stop even this filming, and it sets a precedent for the unseen snipers there's separate and growing evidence for.
To clarify, also - the ranges that matter here are all relatively close, from the hotel. Thew massacre area was about 60-85 meters (plus elevation, depending which window(s). The dusk shot was 110 meters from the one window. I don't know weapons well, but I suspect that's within range for an AK. I still think this isn't the, or a, sniper of interest, but your point seeming to be moot, I think it could be.
No, you are still wrong, because you are not approaching this from a skeptical position, but instead trying to work backwards from a pre-conceived conclusion.
I would like to remind you that you described the two men as "snipers", and you are now trying to back peddle from this.
No, you are still wrong, because you are not approaching this from a skeptical position, but instead trying to work backwards from a pre-conceived conclusion.
I would like to remind you that you described the two men as "snipers", and you are now trying to back peddle from this.
What evidence do you have that he was shot from behind? What makes you think it's "apparent"? The problem with observing video footage is that it doesn't even come close to painting a full picture, especially when the shots come from off screen. You don't take into consideration ricochets, or the placement of the camera to account for an assumed downwards trajectory. Humor me though, if you will - could a ricochet from the police side account for what is seen in the video, and what happens to "ironic kid"?
Could? Yeah. But I think that's highly unlikely. it would be almost a 180 degree, or two ricochets. The directions seem close to opposite.
Quote:
But what clarifies the matter for me is the two new dents in the shield. One sends sunlight reflecting on the tree as it's punched, when the sun was just about straight down the street (between 12:30 and 1 PM). This shows it's an outward dent, made from the hotel direction (best indication of a west-side room, or even further west than the hotel maybe). The light on the dents after, light side away from the camera, say the same thing.
Honestly, I've read this multiple times and watched your edited footage multiple times. It still doesn't make a lick of sense to me, or how you were even able to determine trajectory from it. Admittedly it's early and I'm just finishing my first cup of coffee, but would you take another stab at this reflecting light argument?
Yeah - you can see a light patch on the tree (0:38 in my vid, it's distinct, then less so, then gone, as the shield tilts). At first I looked at a still and thought a bullet from that side nicked the bark off, but it fades - bark doesn't grow back in a few frames, so what else but reflecting light? The angle is about right, though I haven't done the math (road runs S-SE). It seems so bright for such a cloudy day with so little shadow I can't otherwise time this video like a normal daylight one. But at a couple inches, really shiny shield, I think so.
And I think the light on the dents after (dark side towards camera) clarify they curve out the front side, hit from the other side.
Yeah - you can see a light patch on the tree (0:38 in my vid, it's distinct, then less so, then gone, as the shield tilts). At first I looked at a still and thought a bullet from that side nicked the bark off, but it fades - bark doesn't grow back in a few frames, so what else but reflecting light? The angle is about right, though I haven't done the math (road runs S-SE). It seems so bright for such a cloudy day with so little shadow I can't otherwise time this video like a normal daylight one. But at a couple inches, really shiny shield, I think so.
And I think the light on the dents after (dark side towards camera) clarify they curve out the front side, hit from the other side.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
