Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

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.

As I've said, I don't know my weapons details. So I'll just defer to you here. Considering what else I have, I'm left thinking this was a smaller caliber hit.

Do you have an alternate reading to account for the dents? Or a different reading of the dents themselves? Why do two new ones appear right at the time of shooting? Little rocks or batons flying around too?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Missed his target and hit someone else.

That was my 2nd and better guess. There don't seem to be any good targets at this time (5:20-5:30 PM) Berkut were chased away fromt he Palace 5 hours earlier, right before the massacre. Unless you can cite any "legit" target he might have been aiming for, I'm thinking he was aiming for one of the Melnichuks.

What evidence do you have that the two are part of any sniper team?

They have rifles, they're together, with others, getting orders, and getting elevated. That's all evidence, and I already gave it. Don't forget the meaning of the word.

How do you know this?

being a two part quote - common sense for secret snipers, and the friggin' video (and a presumption this is the ground floor).

Maybe they didn't admit that they were setting up a sniper team because that never happened? Did that even cross your mind?

They didn't admit to the stuff we can see on video. Do you think the video is fake? Or were they doing at least some more guns-helmets-elevation stuff, at the Hotel, than they let us know about? They told us the "facts" as we were forming our opinions and denunciations of Yanukovych and his snipers who were not at the hotel. Except later they decided, yeah a bit there.

What are you talking about? You said they were armed with an AK-47 and an air-rifle. Neither of those are sniper rifles.

I'll offer this definition of a sniper rifle that's more relevant and offers less distraction - any rifle used to kill or injure people from a secured, usually elevated, position. Whatever was used here was fatal most of the time, because of the hits. And the range is all 110 meters or less. Account for all that and your points might matter.

I've already told you that. Lack of skepticism.

And I understand the hidden (even to you!) meaning of "skepticism" in this context.

I'm not sure you are getting it, since your parenthesis doesn't have anything to do with why your posts aren't examples of critical thinking.

No it's just a coincidence that ignorant people insist on dismissing stuff they won't even think about - and there's a Wall Street-backed cou d'etat hiding behind the ignorance they refuse to tackle.

Just show me wrong by tackling. It doesn't have to be that hard.

ETA: Some here are already doing that, tackling it realistically, in the actual details. That wasn't so at first, and it's an improvement. But you, Uke, are not one one of those yet.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hi. See above.

What expertise do you have to make this assumption?




Seriously, this is your evidence?

No response.

 

[IDB87]

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.

It depends on where the shot came from, but we don't have any hard evidence of exact police positions, only approximations, which makes this tricky. But, regardless of explaining where the two holes came from (and for the record I believe there were two shots fired at the kid, both of which appear to hit the tree, one of which passes through the shield without hitting flesh [possible ricochet], the other for sure striking him in the body), the supposed trajectory outlined in the video you originally posted can be explained just as easily by the ricochet theory, or by an awkward camera angle.

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.

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing it. All I see are two bullets hitting the tree, casting "smoke" in the air.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It depends on where the shot came from, but we don't have any hard evidence of exact police positions, only approximations, which makes this tricky. But, regardless of explaining where the two holes came from (and for the record I believe there were two shots fired at the kid, both of which appear to hit the tree, one of which passes through the shield without hitting flesh [possible ricochet], the other for sure striking him in the body), the supposed trajectory outlined in the video you originally posted can be explained just as easily by the ricochet theory, or by an awkward camera angle.

Alright, the angle I see is about 180 from the general/main forward direction the shields are up against. But there could be other angles, that's true. This matters only so much considering the angle of fire/ricochet matches with the angle several others were clearly shot from. So I think it's a shot, like the others.

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing it. All I see are two bullets hitting the tree, casting "smoke" in the air.

How do you see bullets hitting the tree, except by the light patch? See, there's a light patch, that fades as the shield pivots. I gave a time stamp, and it's clearly got an arrow pointing right to it at that point, and it almost looks like bark chipping, except the bark grows right back. Ergo ... I'll need an good alternate explanation before I can let go of mine.

ETA: Also check that smoke. Some curls up against the tree - but from under/behind the shield, where a bunch has gathered and rolls out all sides.

 

[000063]

What does the guy who played Bill Cosby's partner from I Spy have to do with anything?

 

[Caustic Logic]

What does the guy who played Bill Cosby's partner from I Spy have to do with anything?

Nothing. It was Mea Culper he said, not Culp. If the Culpers had a show, oddly enough, it'd be called "we spy."

See, I can even pay attention to the irrelevant things uke says. And in return ... eh.

IDB87, anyone else following:

I still see dents, not holes, with the dents and smoke coming from the kid's side of the shield, and so I still see a shot from that side. Since we're dealing with visual evidence and physical laws, I imagine it's possible to agree on it eventually. But it may take more review, a contrary reading that accounts for everything, or whatever. Standing by.

There are nalso other victims and their shooting directions to consider. Is two irons in the fire too many? To clarify that at least some shots come from the hotel, nothing beats this sequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XRkd-NbNBA
If you have it mapped right, you'll see how all forward lines of fire are completely ruled out, and only the hotel or maybe October Palace (both protester run) could explain the angle. The guy who runs for it right after is the next video, and clarifies it's the hiotel side - his while running half-turned, he's hit about left shoulderblade, out the left chest, not instantly fatal, but probably within a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2on6_nRqIdY

And there are other aspects entirely. Next I'm looking into any info I can find on the one o'clock sniper this massacre was apparently blamed on. That link should be worth something in a few more days, but all I know now is they said a guy was caught, somewhere (the hotel?), by "Euromaidan self-defense" as of 1:15 PM, and was being held at Maidan HQ, wherever exactly that was (the hotel?)

 

[uke2se]

That was my 2nd and better guess. There don't seem to be any good targets at this time (5:20-5:30 PM) Berkut were chased away fromt he Palace 5 hours earlier, right before the massacre. Unless you can cite any "legit" target he might have been aiming for, I'm thinking he was aiming for one of the Melnichuks.

There "seems" to be a lot of "seeming" in your posts.

They have rifles, they're together, with others, getting orders, and getting elevated. That's all evidence, and I already gave it. Don't forget the meaning of the word.

You just provided evidence that they were armed and under command. I asked for evidence that they were snipers, which you asserted that they were. Do you know what a sniper is?

being a two part quote - common sense for secret snipers, and the friggin' video (and a presumption this is the ground floor).

Common sense? Common sense would seem to indicate that these people weren't in the process of forming a sniper team, due to the fact that they aren't equipped for it.

They didn't admit to the stuff we can see on video.

They didn't admit to people getting treated for gun shot wounds, or for specifically entering an elevator while armed? What were they asked?

Do you think the video is fake?

I don't see any reason for why it would be. There's nothing controversial in the video, except for a bunch of people with grave injuries.

Or were they doing at least some more guns-helmets-elevation stuff, at the Hotel, than they let us know about?

I'm not sure why you are under the impression that these people need to report their movements to you to avoid being accused of conspiracy.

They told us the "facts" as we were forming our opinions and denunciations of Yanukovych and his snipers who were not at the hotel. Except later they decided, yeah a bit there.

I don't even know what this means.

I'll offer this definition of a sniper rifle that's more relevant and offers less distraction - any rifle used to kill or injure people from a secured, usually elevated, position.

Then you are using a different definition of "sniper rifle" than everyone else. Perhaps this would be a good thing to mention from the beginning. Or you could admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just using cool sounding terms when it pleases you.

Whatever was used here was fatal most of the time, because of the hits. And the range is all 110 meters or less. Account for all that and your points might matter.

My points matter right now. The two on the video cannot under any definiton of the word be called snipers, and there is no evidence they were involved in setting up any sniper position. Despite this you assert that they are snipers. My point - being that you cannot possibly know that - is therefore perfectly valid.

And I understand the hidden (even to you!) meaning of "skepticism" in this context.

No, you don't.

No it's just a coincidence that ignorant people insist on dismissing stuff they won't even think about -

Most people here aren't ignorant. Some people are skeptics and some aren't. You aren't.

and there's a Wall Street-backed cou d'etat hiding behind the ignorance they refuse to tackle.

Ok, now I'm going to have to ask you for evidence that that Wall Street were involved. Specifics, please. Who payed whom, at what time and how much?

Just show me wrong by tackling. It doesn't have to be that hard.

I have done so, over and over again. I have shown you that jumping to conclusions the way you are can lead to (and has led to) an erroneous assessment of the situation. You are building a conspiracy theory, and you don't have evidence, and you lack the technical qualifications to produce your own evidence, no matter how many youtubes you watch.

ETA: Some here are already doing that, tackling it realistically, in the actual details. That wasn't so at first, and it's an improvement. But you, Uke, are not one one of those yet.

And I never will be. You see, I don't engage in conspiracy theories. I understand that the essence of conspiracy theories is hunting for anomalies. I refuse to engage in that. It doesn't provide any useful evidence.

 

[uke2se]

Hi. See above.



No response.

You didn't answer any of those questions above.

 

[IDB87]

My points matter right now. The two on the video cannot under any definiton of the word be called snipers, and there is no evidence they were involved in setting up any sniper position. Despite this you assert that they are snipers. My point - being that you cannot possibly know that - is therefore perfectly valid.

All we need is a time, I think. We see them entering the elevator on video - is there any way to grab a timestamp of this action? CL puts the shootings down between 12-1 (is that correct CL?).

I saw one video of people in the lobby of the hotel, one is yelling "Those are police" (presumably referring to the people doing the shooting), at which point we see the armed men enter the elevator. If this happens to be during the videos which CL has posted, I think we may be able to rule out this sniper team as the culprits for the afternoon shooting at least. I have that video book marked at home and will post it later for reference sake.

Now these could be the snipers that CL is referring to (and I think it's best not to get hung up on the definition here - I understand the way he's using sniper in this context), or they could be armed protesters rushing to get high ground against the police, and that's all.

CL - as to your request for "more than one iron in the fire", I simply don't have the bandwidth to scrutinize the videos and information you posted until at least this weekend. I hope you won't take my drawn down contributions in this thread to mean I've given ground

 

[uke2se]

All we need is a time, I think. We see them entering the elevator on video - is there any way to grab a timestamp of this action? CL puts the shootings down between 12-1 (is that correct CL?).

I saw one video of people in the lobby of the hotel, one is yelling "Those are police" (presumably referring to the people doing the shooting), at which point we see the armed men enter the elevator. If this happens to be during the videos which CL has posted, I think we may be able to rule out this sniper team as the culprits for the afternoon shooting at least. I have that video book marked at home and will post it later for reference sake.

Now these could be the snipers that CL is referring to (and I think it's best not to get hung up on the definition here - I understand the way he's using sniper in this context), or they could be armed protesters rushing to get high ground against the police, and that's all.

CL - as to your request for "more than one iron in the fire", I simply don't have the bandwidth to scrutinize the videos and information you posted until at least this weekend. I hope you won't take my drawn down contributions in this thread to mean I've given ground

I've yet to see any evidence of sniper activity except for the verified Berkut snipers. That's my problem with Caustic Logic's posts. There's simply no evidence. There are assertions and home brewn "analysis" and "commentary", but no evidence.

ETA: As for Caustic Logic's definition of a sniper, it absolutely matters what he means, as the foundation of his claims is the word of a doctor that said the bullet wounds were similar for sniper victims on both sides. A sniper rifle fires different ammunition than an AK-47.

 

[IDB87]

ETA: As for Caustic Logic's definition of a sniper, it absolutely matters what he means, as the foundation of his claims is the word of a doctor that said the bullet wounds were similar for sniper victims on both sides. A sniper rifle fires different ammunition than an AK-47.

Yeah, I understand. A silly question as follow up then: Does the good doctor know the difference between wounds inflicted with an AK, and those inflicted with a "sniper rifle"? Why can't the doctor use the word "Sniper" when referring to riflemen "sniping" with AKs?

 

[uke2se]

Yeah, I understand. A silly question as follow up then: Does the good doctor know the difference between wounds inflicted with an AK, and those inflicted with a "sniper rifle"? Why can't the doctor use the word "Sniper" when referring to riflemen "sniping" with AKs?

That's a question I first posed when Caustic Logic started to go on about this doctor. He never gave a satisfactory answer.

As I understood it, the doctor never saw any shooter. She just treated the victims. If Caustic Logic's point is that the wounds were from the same or similar weapon, it does him no good to claim that an AK-47 is a sniper rifle. The whole technical aspects of Caustic Logics "case" (if you can call it that) is that sniper rifles were used on the police. He's so ignorant about the technical aspects of this that he thought he could label a wielder of an AK-47 as a "sniper" and get away with it.

 

[Caustic Logic]

All we need is a time, I think. We see them entering the elevator on video - is there any way to grab a timestamp of this action? CL puts the shootings down between 12-1 (is that correct CL?).

Ya, and don't worry, of all people you I'm not grumpy at. The time frame, from reports plus the clock and stuff, spanned at least 15 minutes, prior to 1 PM, starting shortly after 12:25. I put much of that in the timeline (meaning of this sniper massacre) section at the wiki page.

I saw one video of people in the lobby of the hotel, one is yelling "Those are police" (presumably referring to the people doing the shooting), at which point we see the armed men enter the elevator. If this happens to be during the videos which CL has posted, I think we may be able to rule out this sniper team as the culprits for the afternoon shooting at least. I have that video book marked at home and will post it later for reference sake.

ETA: oops, deleted a part. You saw that in a different video? Sounds interesting ... there was also a column of 50 police, captured, marched through the Maidan to some commandeered building. Maybe that's what they exclaimed about? But this was also about 1 PM, I think, so any timeline problem is the same ...

CL - as to your request for "more than one iron in the fire", I simply don't have the bandwidth to scrutinize the videos and information you posted until at least this weekend. I hope you won't take my drawn down contributions in this thread to mean I've given ground

No need for you, or anyone, to digest it at any time. I just wanted to clarify that point, and what the heck, there's the videos to help whenever. The point was this: Whatever we make of the one shooting and whether it came more from the hotel or the forward area (and sub-angles aside it's almost a 180-opposite difference), there are other cases that show brutal shooting clearly more from the hotel side, and even its west half. So either way, that will have to be addressed at some point.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You didn't answer any of those questions above.

Ah, sorry then.

 

[Caustic Logic]

In other news:
I've been digging a bit on captured sniper news and actually have a bit already pieced together (same link I gave above). I was premature to say they didn't catch this dusk sniper, or even allegedly catch him. It looks like there are two alleged snipers caught on the 20th, and while times aren't given for both, one was way up on the 10th floor when caught. And I counted ten floors - below where the dusk sniper was, on 11 (a good ref image - is that right?), so, I don't know how this all correlates.

(by 1:15 local time) "Maidan Self-Defense captured one one of the snipers. He is currently in Maidan headquarters." Magnolia.tv Facebook

komentant Square (?) Stephen Kubiv could not neither confirm nor deny this information. "I'm 20 minutes ago was still at headquarters, but I have no such information. Never been able to neither confirm nor deny," - he said Espreso.TV.

Feb. 21, Euromaidan PR tweet:

Sniper was caught on the 10th floor of the Hotel Ukraina on #Euromaidan Personality to be identified.

When did they catch any nighttime sniper? Yulia at Skynews had her room searched "just' before 8:44. Alexey of RT had his room "frisked" for snipers by 9:20 - linked photo is now blank, at least on my end. Still looking 3-4 hours after Mr. Melnichuk was shot? Was he found before or after this? Under whose bed? Hm...

March 1 report: Snipers were paid up to $40,000 a day, per-victim, says a guy. Another guy, Centurion Volyn hundreds (?) "explained that maydanivtsi caught two snipers. However, their fate , he said nothing."

Kyiv commentary: same as above plus "There were snipers allegedly from self-defense, security officials reported . At least two, and probably at the time they served in the Soviet army in Afghanistan. However, most samooboronivtsi (self-defense members) deny this information ."

Still seeing no names or specifics emerging for either, and the search should include everything up to earlier today. But that's just the search so far.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The "Maidan headquarters" are/have been the huge building with the clock tower and burning signs, the House of Trade Unions. It seems both sides accuse each other for the fire which happened on Feb 18, I think. Maybe an interesting side topic to explore.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The "Maidan headquarters" are/have been the huge building with the clock tower and burning signs, the House of Trade Unions. It seems both sides accuse each other for the fire which happened on Feb 18, I think. Maybe an interesting side topic to explore.

That's what I've heard. I found a photo said to be in front of it, but rather, that was the Post Office, trade unions hall in the distance. There's also Parubiy's office in the hotel, a great place to keep a "captured sniper" - just tell him that's enough, he stops, it seems he was caught.

But here we have a different "Maidan Commandante" familiar with that HQ - Stephen Kubiv - being cited. So that's another confusion. May be easy to settle. Will look later.

 

[Caustic 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.

BINGO!

I had my response moved, so let me try again.

- Obvious: Do you even know what I said was obvious? Do you actually disagree, or is this a completely hollow point you're making?

- Quote: Can you demonstrate how I misused any quote? No, not reasonably. I'd be amused to see your attempt. Otherwise, you just claim that without support.

- Burden of proof? How 'bout this: aside from pointing to the health minister saying the same thing, I'll just flat out assert that the sniper massacre was in fact crucial to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. Call me out for that claim all you like.

- Otherwise, I apologize for threatening to disengage or ignore a fellow forum member, and for failing to respond to each and every point he made. I will rectify this behavior starting in a moment.

 

[Caustic Logic]

There "seems" to be a lot of "seeming" in your posts.

It might seem that way, sure.

You just provided evidence that they were armed and under command. I asked for evidence that they were snipers, which you asserted that they were. Do you know what a sniper is?

Yes. Just checking though:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/sniper
[count] : a person who shoots at another person from a hidden place
▪ The soldiers were attacked by a sniper. — often used before another noun ▪ a sniper attack
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniper
1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

I'm sorry IF I ever said these guys can only be snipers. I MEANT to point out they fit the profile, and have the right kind of helmets, to match the one Gatehouse saw, and called a sniper.

But by your definition, I think, no special "sniper rifle" ("not equipped" you say) = not sniper. So to avoid further distraction, I'll use ta form of this term when speaking to you: Elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range. NOT snipers. (unless you decide snipers is okay, but you seem really really opposed to that)

By the way, what proof do you have there were ANY people actually killed or even injured by snipers, your definition, in Kiev that day, on any side?

Common sense? Common sense would seem to indicate that these people weren't in the process of forming a sniper team, due to the fact that they aren't equipped for it.

Common sense referred to quieter set-up for the central sniper(s) that matter most. Do you disagree? Or do you think they would they run around shouting in crowds, with rifles already assembled and held aloft, like these elevated gunmen with rifles fatal at range?

They didn't admit to people getting treated for gun shot wounds, or for specifically entering an elevator while armed? What were they asked?

The latter. I don't know what they were asked. Here, they were asked by action "can I film this?" and someone said no, with a rag over the camera. Maybe he just decided that on his own and the "protesters" generally meant to be totally open about this operation. Otherwise, it looks like a thing they didn't really want seen in detail.

I don't see any reason for why it would be. There's nothing controversial in the video, except for a bunch of people with grave injuries.

There is controversy about the direction of fire, and clues to that on the video. Or so it "seems" to me.

I'm not sure why you are under the impression that these people need to report their movements to you to avoid being accused of conspiracy.

It's standard! You plan a false-flag event, report to me with the details! Don't you ever wondfer how I learn so much about them?

I don't even know what this means.

Oh well.

Then you are using a different definition of "sniper rifle" than everyone else. Perhaps this would be a good thing to mention from the beginning. Or you could admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just using cool sounding terms when it pleases you.

Holy crap: "an extremely powerful rifle developed for the military; capable of destroying light armored vehicles and aircraft more than a mile away." I thought they were for killing people, not armored vehicles and planes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sniper+rifle
Alright, aside from the personalized avoidance of "sniper" to refer to a sniper, I WON'T use that definition for "sniper rifle" at all. These are standard rifles, not special sniper ones, and by the Uke2se dictionary, anyone wielding one cannot be a sniper. So ... no clear proof there were ANY snipers, by that dictionary, anywhere in Kiev in those days, that actually hit anyone. (an image of a guy aiming or even firing one doesn't in itself count)

My points matter right now. The two on the video cannot under any definiton of the word be called snipers, and there is no evidence they were involved in setting up any sniper position. Despite this you assert that they are snipers. My point - being that you cannot possibly know that - is therefore perfectly valid.

For you, Elevated gunmen hidden inside windows with rifles fatal at range. NOT snipers. By other definitions, they are potential snipers. It's true I cannot know they actually are. Any prior assertion by me they were snipers should be read as my opinion or hunch, not a known fact.

No, you don't.

A fair opinion.

Most people here aren't ignorant. Some people are skeptics and some aren't. You aren't.

You're one of the "skeptics," right? I'm getting the same meaning for "skepticism" that you just refuted. Skeptical = compliant with the general corporate media narrative. I think that really is your definition, and you deny it because you're not really consciously aware of it.

Ok, now I'm going to have to ask you for evidence that that Wall Street were involved. Specifics, please. Who payed whom, at what time and how much?

Hm, I guesss I should have said an alleged coup d'etat. apologies. They're supposed to get me the details, but the call is a little slow this time ...

I have done so, over and over again. I have shown you that jumping to conclusions the way you are can lead to (and has led to) an erroneous assessment of the situation.

Again, I was wrong to call the rifles they have sniper rifles, and in your mind to say snipers at all. You have done an awesome job of getting me to change that. But you aren't saying much else that's true or relevant.

You are building a conspiracy theory,

fair 'nuff

and you don't have evidence,

quite false

and you lack the technical qualifications to produce your own evidence, no matter how many youtubes you watch.

Produce your own evidence? This isn't a thing people do. They examine evidence. I can see directions and basic stuff just fine. You can ignore your own eyes and brain all you like, but you won't get me to do the same.

And I never will be. You see, I don't engage in conspiracy theories. I understand that the essence of conspiracy theories is hunting for anomalies. I refuse to engage in that. It doesn't provide any useful evidence.

Ah! Doesn't that put you in, well ... the wrong forum? You admit, then, that you will never seriously engage the evidence you insist doesn't exist. You're here just to play your knee-jerk 'reject the CT game,' without once checking into whether it could be right. I get called out for "threatening to disengage" from you, when it seemed all along, and you admit, that you were never engaged in the first place.