Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

Mind read fail. I am not arguing against any possibility.

Good. They should all be considered, not ignored.

I am refusing to accept any as true without sound evidence that they are, including using measurement systems like the good Doctor's brain that don't have independent verification of their accuracy.

The point is to go into the situation letting solid evidence lead to a probable answer. It is not a process of:

1. Form opinion
2. Find evidence that only supports your opinion, or failing that, try to dress facts up so they appear to support your case.

That sounds pretty good.

Would you agree that this would be a bad approach?

1. Start with an opinion Yanukovych must have done it and the opposition couldn't possibly have
2. Look for any evidence or claim, however flimsy or compromised its source, to support that
3. Ignore or minimize, with deceptive re-phrasing, any contrary information
4. Attack the messengers of that information with confused or dishonest, and unsupported, allegations of dishonesty
5. Pretend you've won against the liars and enjoy the back-slapping party.

ETA: I'm not accusing you of that, just others nearby. But that would be a pretty piss-poor approach too, wouldn't it?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Instantly being convinced would be a rather suspect "road to Damascus" sort of volte face. How about you read (vice skimming) the reports and let us know if your opinon has changed, and if not the specific evidence that you find suspect?

Yes it would, so I wouldn't even try to pretend. Though some seem to confuse a lack of instant conviction with "ignoring" the information they found so obviously convincing.

The skim was good enough to say ... what the hell was this guy (and the Health minister Musiy, a Bogomolec ally) talking about, then, when they said they had proof the shooters weren't Ukrainian, that Russia did it to provoke an invasion? Now they have names and specifics and they aren't Russians, just regular Ukrainian crackdown guys. That kind of flexibility suggests to me this was always an exercise in "what are we going to say?" Moskal and the Fatherland people won that debate with the straightforward version. The other theory was so nuts it really just kept the door open, like it should be, IMO. That they decided to let it shut is a sign their onetime uncertainty is over, and they're in this story for the long haul. I expect endlessly delayed or kangaroo trials.

The specific evidence, as presented here so far, is too vague for my distrust to mean much.*I can't point to the suspect details because I don't know the details of the details yet. As I said, the single machine gun tied to 8 killing is intriguing, and I'd like to know where they put it, how that lines up with the video evidence, etc. We'll see if and when more specifics come out.

My opinion, obviously, not changed yet by this show of confidence and issuance of words.

 

[uke2se]

Uh, no. I didn't actually want a negative proven. It was a rhetorical request, to make/re-state a simple point.

So it was a rhetorical request for someone to prove a negative? Convenient. Next time you should say it was just a joke.

So you think that is his wording then? Where in the call does he say that? I presumed this was your own paraphrase/characterization of his words. It seemed deceptive, considering, but if you can show where he did say that, I'll revise that and apologize.

It has been explained before. The context of the conversation was rumors.

Don't forget the gossip, innuendo, lies, and slander that he talked about in the call. Oh was he scathing about these pernicious falsehood swirling about him, wasn't he?

But my goodness - conspiracy theorists will just twist his words to say things like "all the evidence," "medical photos," "same bullets," "stronger and stronger understanding." Those deceptive bastards assaulting the truth! And using quotation marks to do it! Corporate media skeptics and the paraphrase repair kit to the rescue! Should be under-the-rug size again in no time!

Are you asserting that they were the same bullets? Paet was just repeating a rumor that he heard. What have you got?

 

[TheRealnz]

You might want to actually study (rather than relying on CSI repeats) before making such claims.
A bullet wound, sans projectile, is a hole.
As for determining distance from a bullet wound, just how would that work?

You ******** me? Why don't you google "wound channel".

No it wouldn't. Again you seem to be basing your claims on an utter lack of actual knowledge (quite common in this thread). Even if your have an intact bullet that's all you have; rifling characteristics (assuming they're available) can tell you a manufacturer (maybe) of the weapon.
A spent casing can tell you the weapon and something about the ammunition. Not really much use when pretty much everyone is using similar weapons and ammunition, manufactured in the same plants.

The above, if you bothered googling, would tell you what you need to know.

Yes actually I can, because I understand firearm ballistics to a far greater degree than you.
Now I assume one of your duplicate references to 'ak 74' was actually to the AK/AKM family so you've three different ammunition calibres; 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm and 7.62x54mmR. A wound caused by the two 7.62mm rounds will appear quite similar, unless a bullet is available. Even then both the SVD and Mosin have similar rifling (1:9.5 4RH) as do several machine guns firing that round.

Is the "hole" going to be the same with an ak74 firing a hollowpoint, in comparison with an ak74 firing a full metal jacket? Ditto with the rest of the rifles. Will a Dragunov firing a wolf hollowpoint produce a similar "hole" that an ak74 firing an identical round will?

Different bullet designs and weights, yes; however in the actual scenario the weapons and ammunition are common, ubiquitous, designs.

Different bullet designs and weights, when considered in all varied possible combinations, offer a wide range of factors affecting the end result of a "holes" characteristics, and that's excluding shooting distances.

 

[uke2se]

Good. They should all be considered, not ignored.



That sounds pretty good.

Would you agree that this would be a bad approach?

1. Start with an opinion Yanukovych must have done it and the opposition couldn't possibly have
2. Look for any evidence or claim, however flimsy or compromised its source, to support that
3. Ignore or minimize, with deceptive re-phrasing, any contrary information
4. Attack the messengers of that information with confused or dishonest, and unsupported, allegations of dishonesty
5. Pretend you've won against the liars and enjoy the back-slapping party.

ETA: I'm not accusing you of that, just others nearby. But that would be a pretty piss-poor approach too, wouldn't it?

This is pretty much what you've been doing, only with certain words replaced, such as "Yanukovych" for "the opposition".

It's amusing to see you project like this, though.

 

[uke2se]

You ******** me? Why don't you google "wound channel".

Does googling "wound channel" tell you that a doctor can tell from a wound what kind of weapon caused it, the distance and whatever else you imagined?

The above, if you bothered googling, would tell you what you need to know.

Is that were you got your degree? The University of Google?

Is the "hole" going to be the same with an ak74 firing a hollowpoint, in comparison with an ak74 firing a full metal jacket? Ditto with the rest of the rifles. Will a Dragunov firing a wolf hollowpoint produce a similar "hole" that an ak74 firing an identical round will?

Ask yourself "Is a doctor able to determine the difference between a hole caused by an bullet fired from an AK74 and that fired from a Dragunov without making a serious forensic examination?" Then ask yourself if the doctor can make the determination that two bullets were fired from the weapon from looking at the wounds.

Maybe you could google it.

Different bullet designs and weights, when considered in all varied possible combinations, offer a wide range of factors affecting the end result of a "holes" characteristics, and that's excluding shooting distances.

Any of these characteristics immediately noticeable to a doctor performing emergency treatment to a patient suffering a shooting injury?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Catsmate1, so quick to accuse me of "ignoring anything" you can't even pause to read what I wrote. When asked to explain or retract ... it will never happen, obviously.

Therealnz: the right answer to some of that is "okay, she'd have to take it to a lab or expert," or something like that. And maybe she did, for all we know. We know extremely little, but certain lnow-it-alls are sure that dumb lady just leaps to conclusions.

One I could have jumped to - RT says:

Meanwhile the new head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaichenko accused Yanukovich of planning the mass killings “under the guise of a counter-terrorist operation.” ... The report prompted comments from Olga Bogomolets, an influential Maidan activist and presidential hopeful, who said it casts doubt on the Ukrainian investigation into the killings, which may be conducted by the same people who committed the crimes.

Really? Her words were twisted to blame the new government, but here she says the same?

Meant to have another link, but I can't relocate it ... pretty sure I saw her actual quote and it suggested she meant the Interior Ministry. However the wording seemed vague and, of course, those largely aren't "the same people" anymore.

Oh, Daily Beast, duh.

"We have demanded an independent and transparent investigation into who was involved in the crimes that took place and we are very worried that the people who are investigating are members of the bodies responsible for the shootings," Dr. Olga Bogomolets, a candidate in Ukraine's scheduled May presidential elections, told The Daily Beast.

Does this mean Interior, which it could by that wording, or Fatherland/Right Sector,Parubiy's self-defense sniper corps., which also seems possible? She might be presidential-hoepfully thoughtful with her words and innuendo. Double meanings are more likely in a mind this grand.

Interesting March 27 press conference I found while looking:
https://onenessofhumanity.wordpress.com/tag/olga-bogomolets/

“Okay, look, I’m not a criminal expert – I’m a doctor – so it wouldn’t be professional for me to give any comments. Because we have criminal experts, you can talk to them and you can get this information.”

If she did offer her semi-educated opinion again, what would it be? Careful with her words a presidential hopeful would be. It takes little to no care to simply repeat that the old government was to blame.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This is pretty much what you've been doing, only with certain words replaced, such as "Yanukovych" for "the opposition".

It's amusing to see you project like this, though.

Have you ever noticed how awesomely you "win" when I'm around? I make awesome points, and all you have to do is spin the around 180.

You are a good spinner. Be proud.

 

[uke2se]

Have you ever noticed how awesomely you "win" when I'm around? I make awesome points, and all you have to do is spin the around 180.

You are a good spinner. Be proud.

It's rather the case of me being a skeptic and you not.

 

[uke2se]

Therealnz: the right answer to some of that is "okay, she'd have to take it to a lab or expert," or something like that. And maybe she did, for all we know. We know extremely little, but certain lnow-it-alls are sure that dumb lady just leaps to conclusions.

If that's the case, there'd be evidence. Please present the evidence.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If that's the case, there'd be evidence. Please present the evidence.

No, I told the hypothetical investigators to send a copy of the results over to you. It's up to you now to present the evidence. Should be there by now. Been slacking off on checking your mail, or are you just afraid to post it?




I was doing a joke this time!

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's rather the case of me being a skeptic and you not.

Not your best turn.

I'm not a corporate-media "skeptic" like you, this is true.

 

[uke2se]

Not your best turn.

I'm not a corporate-media "skeptic" like you, this is true.

Why don't you call me a "sheeple" and get it out of your system?

 

[catsmate]

Instantly being convinced would be a rather suspect "road to Damascus" sort of volte face. How about you read (vice skimming) the reports and let us know if your opinon has changed, and if not the specific evidence that you find suspect?

Actually looks at facts and evidence? That's crazy talk.

So it was a rhetorical request for someone to prove a negative? Convenient. Next time you should say it was just a joke.

Indeed.

You ******** me? Why don't you google "wound channel".

I don't need to, I actually understand the term, and how useful it is.
And instead of merely "googling" why don't you go read some books by actual experts?

The above, if you bothered googling, would tell you what you need to know.

Is the "hole" going to be the same with an ak74 firing a hollowpoint, in comparison with an ak74 firing a full metal jacket?

No. Is this relevant somehow? Has anyone shown any evidence that expansing 5.45mm rounds were used? Otherwise you're just engaging in strawmannery in an attempt to cover the holes in your argument.

Ditto with the rest of the rifles. Will a Dragunov firing a wolf hollowpoint produce a similar "hole" that an ak74 firing an identical round will?

Well given that the SVD is (generally) chambered in 7.62x54 and the AK-74 family in 5.45x39 this merely demonstrates (again) you have no idea what you're talking about.
Of course you've yet to show the slightest evidence that expanding rounds were used, so again this is all irrelevant strawmannery.

Different bullet designs and weights, when considered in all varied possible combinations, offer a wide range of factors affecting the end result of a "holes" characteristics, and that's excluding shooting distances.

Again, I suggest you read up on ballistics in the real world.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So I had enough time to re-do my Berkut run from gunmen video. Now it's "Ukraine Feb. 20: Clearing the Massacre Area - Berkut Run from Gunmen."
Better stabilization, more accurate content re: the "sniper chasing them" (lol at myself on that one), a closer view of his (??? - previously rifle scope), time and space clues and significance.


Interesting but non-essential side-note:
This feature of the Kiev Sniper Massacre is similar to one crucial but virtually unknown feature of the 2012 Houla Massacre in Syria (essay 7 on "digital witnesses" in this report for anyone curious). Both incidents were especially large, criminal, and "clear-cut" massacres by a Russian ally "regime," taken as a "turning point" clarifying to many that guilty regime must go.

The feature I refer to: both incidents were carried out immediately after the Western-backed opposition forces overpowered the state's forces in the massacre area - the hollow behind the hotel, the town of Taldou - just before the crime. This unusual change would allow, in each case, murky "third force" actors to operate without anyone effective left to stop them - except the opposition forces in charge, and they do not stop them. It's at these odd moments of opprtunity that "regime forces" do their darkest work on the grandest scale. Of course in each case the opposition reaps the public relations fallout, massive in each case, and use their own allegations to bolster an ongoing with-hunt for the guilty Shabiha/Berkut snipers.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Actually looks at facts and evidence? That's crazy talk.


Indeed.

Indeedy-doo. I noticed none of that, and nothing new from you, was directed at me. But yeah, it's pretty laughable how *some of us* will just "ignore anything" and not read anything the other says.

Can you even hear me at all, or was that enough "ignoring anything" for you?

sigh, I tried, whatever.

 

[uke2se]

Indeedy-doo. I noticed none of that, and nothing new from you, was directed at me. But yeah, it's pretty laughable how *some of us* will just "ignore anything" and not read anything the other says.

Can you even hear me at all, or was that enough "ignoring anything" for you?

sigh, I tried, whatever.

Are you saying you did read the report? Did you find any parts suspicious? If so, which ones and why?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Are you saying you did read the report? Did you find any parts suspicious? If so, which ones and why?

Last time I was asked that (about the reports I linked to, after beating Catsmate1 to the BBC report I (presumably) "would ignore" by 1.5 hours, and after a semi-thorough skim of each of them) I wrote post #242.

Nothing new since. It's only been a few hours, and I was posting a video and working and stuff. Fair enough?

 

[TheRealnz]

Actually looks at facts and evidence? That's crazy talk.


Indeed.



I don't need to, I actually understand the term, and how useful it is.
And instead of merely "googling" why don't you go read some books by actual experts?







No. Is this relevant somehow? Has anyone shown any evidence that expansing 5.45mm rounds were used? Otherwise you're just engaging in strawmannery in an attempt to cover the holes in your argument.


Well given that the SVD is (generally) chambered in 7.62x54 and the AK-74 family in 5.45x39 this merely demonstrates (again) you have no idea what you're talking about.
Of course you've yet to show the slightest evidence that expanding rounds were used, so again this is all irrelevant strawmannery.


Again, I suggest you read up on ballistics in the real world.

Right, right, right, cause I'm the nob that said doctors couldn't tell **** from "holes"

So you have just conceded that two different rounds, of the same caliber, chambered in a different size casing would have different ballistic characteristics. Which is what the point was all along.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Right, right, right, cause I'm the nob that said doctors couldn't tell **** from "holes"

So you have just conceded that two different rounds, of the same caliber, chambered in a different size casing would have different ballistic characteristics. Which is what the point was all along.

"It's a hole. Who friggin' knows?"

She might have been able to, depending. And she might not have.

She's credible, and it sounds like she thought she had something real and worrying figured out, from the injuries and bullets. And Paet is a credible person who heard her explanation. At one credible person removed, that call leaves fairly little room for rumor-garbling, and gives us a clear line-of-sight on credible worries based on extremely direct physical evidence.

But the details of this examination aren't known, and so the various limitations might play in to an unknown degree, and while it's excellent evidence, it's not proof of anything, and so to some here it's not even evidence at all.

So, whatever. That's the scene here.