Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

Fair enough. I added the ? before saving a ?-free copy of that still, and couldn't re-find that exact spot, so oh well... I think that helps make it look, well, questionable. But it's not really, not very.

Behind the branches, a window-shaped lack of glass. Before, same spot, shininess right on the shiniest side. Above I gave the video link and the time stamps. I'll add that 16:10 is probably the best view. At 16:53, the guy I think was shot from that window (it's almost/barely visible at that moment - no muzzle flash or anything)

Also, above that and to the right, one of the tall upper panes also doesn't shine, but that's consistent, and it looks to me more boarded over (in black?) than open.

 

[Border Reiver]

No, using the very best footage - where the open window is maybe 4% more obvious - might take hours of comparing various online postings, or I'm sure you'd prefer, since those are all Online" and have grains (pixels) I shoudl spend months tracking down the guy with the very original footage, verified on his same camera, flying there with my own proper, professional-grade thumb-drive, etc.

And flying all the way to Kiev, burning precious fossil fuels etc., just to measure it all myself - and improve the measurements by probably about 2% - would slightly improve the clarity with which I mapped this out, slightly clarify the match I've already done almost as well, here in the real world.

But if I did it that other way, I have the bonus that you couldn't complain about the investigation not being proper. That, I suspect with good reason, would leave you grasping for a whole other type of knee-jerk obstructionism.

Don't get me wrong - someone honest and rigorous (like me!) getting all the best access, info, and tools would be awesome, and could be milked for a lot, if you didn't get shot doing it.

But again it's impossible, so end of story. We have what we have, you don't want to work with it, and you intend to keep urging the rest of us to follow suit and do nothing. You can continue to do that.

What uke2se is trying to convey to you is that pointing out what you are doing is not an investigation that would stand up to any sort of rigor.

If you wanted to establish who shot the people who died in Kiev, you would need to actually go to Kiev to carry out the investigation, or be prepared to accept the evidence collected by other people.

You would need a forensic examination of the gunshot victims - not the rushed and superficial examination of the doctor doing ER services - to determine calibre, weapon type, angle of entry, etc.

You would need to know the relative position of the gunshot victim at the time they were shot - this and the angle of entry determined from the victim will let you trace back a trajectory.

Once you know where the shot came from (by tracing back the trajectory) you can accurately determine the shooter's position.

Then you get the joy of determining which side controllled the location at the time of the shooting.

Plus, you should be corroborating the forensic evidence with other forms of evidence (witness statements, recordings of radio traffic, physicial evidence such as shell casiings, broken windows, etc) to see if that information backs up the forensic evidence, if not then you need to be able to explain why.

You've looked at some videos - and not necessarily the raw footage, but potentially edited footage taken by an unknown person and passed to similarly unknown people, and some reports from persons who were doing something different, and reached a conclusion that is not supportable.

The evidence that you've presented is not sufficient to reach a conclusion much more specfic than "Some people were shot on the Maidan. Some of those people died. There were police and protestors present."

 

[Caustic Logic]

One valid point is that my/our "citizen's investigation" (CE and Petri and others a bit feed into it) is only going to be able to do so much and only so well with what we have. But past investigations show that it's worth trying because sometimes, even with the limits, you can achieve a better and truer picture than the corporate media ever presented.

That is, the bar is pretty low. So you might be surprised at what you can get over it. Getting millions to hear and believe it is the part I really haven't been able to do.

The evidence that you've presented is not sufficient to reach a conclusion much more specfic than "Some people were shot on the Maidan. Some of those people died. There were police and protestors present."

"Not much more specific" is accurate enough, with the "much" being maybe underrated and growing. I don't trust the people in Kiev doing the "official investigation," so anything anyone can find might help. Already I've added the link between the green-helmet dusk sniper and Melnychuk's fatal shooting, when no one else had, and now this "Arcade" bank window find is another addition. Others find other things, we all pay attention and keep learning - a few weeks in, it's doing a bit.

 

[uke2se]

One valid point is that my/our "citizen's investigation" (CE and Petri and others a bit feed into it) is only going to be able to do so much and only so well with what we have. But past investigations show that it's worth trying because sometimes, even with the limits, you can achieve a better and truer picture than the corporate media ever presented.

That is, the bar is pretty low. So you might be surprised at what you can get over it. Getting millions to hear and believe it is the part I really haven't been able to do.

It's worth doing if you can do it properly. You can't, and you have demonstrated that you have no interest to try. All you want to do is to conduct an investigoogle that comes to the conclusion that you drew before you even started.

"Not much more specific" is accurate enough, with the "much" being maybe underrated and growing. I don't trust the people in Kiev doing the "official investigation," so anything anyone can find might help. Already I've added the link between the green-helmet dusk sniper and Melnychuk's fatal shooting, when no one else had, and now this "Arcade" bank window find is another addition. Others find other things, we all pay attention and keep learning - a few weeks in, it's doing a bit.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence that any green-helmet dusk sniper even exists, much less linked him to any actual victims. You are engaged in typical conspiracy theorist anomaly hunting, and every time you find something that you think might correlate with your preconceived conclusion, in your mind it is evidence for your preconceived conclusion. It's quite ridiculous.

I honestly hope you never get anyone listening to you, because poorly conducted investigoogles like the ones you do could make a bad situation worse.

 

[Border Reiver]

One valid point is that my/our "citizen's investigation" (CE and Petri and others a bit feed into it) is only going to be able to do so much and only so well with what we have. But past investigations show that it's worth trying because sometimes, even with the limits, you can achieve a better and truer picture than the corporate media ever presented.

That is, the bar is pretty low. So you might be surprised at what you can get over it. Getting millions to hear and believe it is the part I really haven't been able to do.

No, you are relying on a limited selection of video images and stills of unknown provenance with limited testimonial statements to get to what you percieve as the truth of an event. What you have is a limited view, no way to fact check and no way to actually examine the physical evidence. Forgive me, but considering that to be a "better and truer picture than the corporate media ever presented" is fantasy - and potentially no more accurate than a picture of you in a suit with small metal rod, seeing a video of you getting into a police call box and concluding that you are Dr. Who.

"Not much more specific" is accurate enough, with the "much" being maybe underrated and growing. I don't trust the people in Kiev doing the "official investigation," so anything anyone can find might help. Already I've added the link between the green-helmet dusk sniper and Melnychuk's fatal shooting, when no one else had, and now this "Arcade" bank window find is another addition. Others find other things, we all pay attention and keep learning - a few weeks in, it's doing a bit.

What you are doing is NOT adding to the knowledge of the events. You are indulging in a fantasy that your analysis is able to link anyone to a shooting. If you believe that you have evidence that links A to B, then by all means present it to the appropriate authorities for them to do a real investigation with it, not indulge in the fantasy that you've gotten to the bottom of it sitting in front of a computer screen.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's worth doing if you can do it properly. You can't, and you have demonstrated that you have no interest to try. All you want to do is to conduct an investigoogle that comes to the conclusion that you drew before you even started.

On review, anyone can see I said it would be awesome to be able to do more, but the scale and scope you propose is impossible. Plus, I contend some of it's not worth the hassle when other things come close enough for reasonable folk. Anyway, if you read that as I'm uninterested, well, that's weird.

All you've suggested, over and over, is that I do nothing, unless I can do it all to your exaggerate specs. That, in case it's not clear, I am not interested in. That, your S-word game, what else? In my world, a good citizen does what they can, ideally, rather than looking for reasons to do nothing.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence that any green-helmet dusk sniper even exists, much less linked him to any actual victims. You are engaged in typical conspiracy theorist anomaly hunting, and every time you find something that you think might correlate with your preconceived conclusion, in your mind it is evidence for your preconceived conclusion. It's quite ridiculous.

You seriously still contest that too? Well, at least this is on-topic and worth going back over once more. It would help to clarify it, not for you probably but everyone else.

There's only one such gunshot mentioned being fired in the BBC report. Their crew didn't get to record it, but Gatehouse heard it and saw the shooter, as described, and they filmed the window where he saw that. A single and only gunshot, not two a few seconds apart, take note. If there were any two shots, they must have been some time apart, but both are clearly in the same 5PM-dusk-sunset time frame when roughly zero shooting was reported or evident. Aside from this one.

A single shot, from the hotel the recorder/uploader thinks, at that same time, killed a man 110 meters due north of that window. One shot was fired by an apparent "protester" at the hotel, one shot killed a man, and it seems more likely than not the two shots are the same.

And let me add an argument that tightens it up some - this is new, so I don't blame you for not having considered it yet. The RT live feed I cited in my video was filmed from a window very near that one, filming the area below for hours in the right span, with outside audio. Clearly it did record that shot, but it's not there because, as the video shows, they snipped it. There is one and only one missing segment, 30 seconds of silence and black, and no other spot during the dusk-5 PM time frame, otherwise continuously recorded, where any second shooting can be heard.

The one shot only can hide in that small gap, so there was only the one shot, or so I contend with good reason. It left the hotel window, overseen by that helmet, and hit that guy through the neck, and Yanukovych was blamed.

After this review, are you willing to agree this match of shootings into one is - if not 100% proven - at least one of the most reasonable readings? And really, probably true? If still no, can you specify what would fill in these small gaps and constitute proof to you? And can you answer without resorting to some dumb dodge like "a proper investigation" which you never demand of CNN or the new government in Kiev or anyone like that?

I honestly hope you never get anyone listening to you, because poorly conducted investigoogles like the ones you do could make a bad situation worse.

Interesting point, that. You know what's even scarier than someone making a dangerous error online, is someone using a murderous lie to take over a government, and then use that government to enforce its lie as official truth. Put those possibilities on the scales, folks, and think about the balance of danger as you consider this advice - essentially to do nothing as the new government in Kiev sorts out all the facts for us.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No, you are relying on a limited selection of video images and stills of unknown provenance with limited testimonial statements to get to what you percieve as the truth of an event.

You know, I find criticism like this much more useful when it's specific - is the video in question due to its prevenance issue? no. Irrelevant. Which testimony and limits is a problem for what? Etc. Endlessly reminding me of general limits I'm well aware of is boring and tedious.

What you are doing is NOT adding to the knowledge of the events. You are indulging in a fantasy that your analysis is able to link anyone to a shooting.

See above. It's a pretty realistic fantasy at least. One shot has only one shooter end and one victim end, and exactly those two, and only one shot, are accounted for.

If you believe that you have evidence that links A to B, then by all means present it to the appropriate authorities for them to do a real investigation with it, not indulge in the fantasy that you've gotten to the bottom of it sitting in front of a computer screen.

For gosh sakes, appeal to "take it to the authorities." This is a discussion forum, not a department of Interpol or something. I'm working it out, occasionally (rarely) getting useful input from others, etc. The public can see it as is, take a bad lead and kill it, a good one and develop it, and judge for themselves, and they're who I'm talking to.

"The appropriate authorities" would want (my overall theory) covered up if it were true. This window, it's just a point. Maybe I should submit it and they'd accept it as an important clue, and suddenly they'll find new documents ordering snipers to go to the Metro/Arcade Bank and kill, with the bwahahaha sound.

 

[uke2se]

On review, anyone can see I said it would be awesome to be able to do more, but the scale and scope you propose is impossible.

It may be impossible for you which should serve as a hint that you aren't the most suited person to conduct such an investigation.

Plus, I contend some of it's not worth the hassle when other things come close enough for reasonable folk. Anyway, if you read that as I'm uninterested, well, that's weird.

I read you dismissing my concerns over the many faults of your investigoogle, and your outright dismissal of proposed steps for a proper investigation as you being disinterested.

All you've suggested, over and over, is that I do nothing, unless I can do it all to your exaggerate specs.

I'm not saying you should do nothing. You could start a grassroots campaign for a proper investigation into the killings, although you'd have to have a good reason for why you are rejecting the concluded investigation. "I don't trust them" isn't going to cut it.

That, in case it's not clear, I am not interested in. That, your S-word game, what else? In my world, a good citizen does what they can, ideally, rather than looking for reasons to do nothing.

In my world, a good citizen realizes his or her limitations and does not engage in fantasy while claiming to be looking for the truth.

You seriously still contest that too? Well, at least this is on-topic and worth going back over once more. It would help to clarify it, not for you probably but everyone else.

There's only one such gunshot mentioned being fired in the BBC report. Their crew didn't get to record it, but Gatehouse heard it and saw the shooter, as described, and they filmed the window where he saw that. A single and only gunshot, not two a few seconds apart, take note. If there were any two shots, they must have been some time apart, but both are clearly in the same 5PM-dusk-sunset time frame when roughly zero shooting was reported or evident. Aside from this one.

Anectdotal.

A single shot, from the hotel the recorder/uploader thinks, at that same time, killed a man 110 meters due north of that window. One shot was fired by an apparent "protester" at the hotel, one shot killed a man, and it seems more likely than not the two shots are the same.

And anecdotal.

This is why you need a proper investigation. You are drawing entirely on eye-witness reports, and your selection is far too limited. You have not done any technical analysis at all. You don't even know how the victim was positioned.

And let me add an argument that tightens it up some - this is new, so I don't blame you for not having considered it yet. The RT live feed I cited in my video was filmed from a window very near that one, filming the area below for hours in the right span, with outside audio. Clearly it did record that shot, but it's not there because, as the video shows, they snipped it. There is one and only one missing segment, 30 seconds of silence and black, and no other spot during the dusk-5 PM time frame, otherwise continuously recorded, where any second shooting can be heard.

The one shot only can hide in that small gap, so there was only the one shot, or so I contend with good reason. It left the hotel window, overseen by that helmet, and hit that guy through the neck, and Yanukovych was blamed.

This is so speculative that it's not even worth a response.

After this review, are you willing to agree this match of shootings into one is - if not 100% proven - at least one of the most reasonable readings? And really, probably true? If still no, can you specify what would fill in these small gaps and constitute proof to you? And can you answer without resorting to some dumb dodge like "a proper investigation" which you never demand of CNN or the new government in Kiev or anyone like that?

The fact that you consider asking for a proper investigation before jumping to conclusions to be a "dodge" really says it all.

Interesting point, that. You know what's even scarier than someone making a dangerous error online, is someone using a murderous lie to take over a government, and then use that government to enforce its lie as official truth. Put those possibilities on the scales, folks, and think about the balance of danger as you consider this advice - essentially to do nothing as the new government in Kiev sorts out all the facts for us.

You haven't proven that. You haven't even produced a single iota of evidence for that. Yet, that is the conclusion you formed prior to even investigoogling it. It is the motive for your dismissal of the existing investigation, and it's highly unskeptical.

 

[Border Reiver]

You know, I find criticism like this much more useful when it's specific - is the video in question due to its prevenance issue? no. Irrelevant. Which testimony and limits is a problem for what? Etc. Endlessly reminding me of general limits I'm well aware of is boring and tedious.

If you are well aware of the limitations on what you are doing, either improve your method or stop doing it.

With respect to video provenance - an investigator would need to answer the following questions:

a. Who shot this video;
b. When was it shot (a specific date/time group);
c. Where was the photographer;
d. What equipment was used to take it;
e. How did the video come into your possession;
f. Are there any signs of tampering/editing;
g. What was the Chain of custody;
h. Is the activity being shown self explantory, or does it require interpretation?

Most of the testimony that you quote is not suitable to reach a conclusion from:

a. The Dr's testimony that the bullets came from a sniper - again:
i. What evidence is she basing her conclusion on;
ii. What training, or experience does she have to make that assessment?

b. The "sniper" in the Hotel
i. what information did he base his statment on?

So again, with the limitations on the information available to you, why should people accept your investigation as being accurate?

See above. It's a pretty realistic fantasy at least. One shot has only one shooter end and one victim end, and exactly those two, and only one shot, are accounted for.

Let's look at what your said:

You seriously still contest that too? Well, at least this is on-topic and worth going back over once more. It would help to clarify it, not for you probably but everyone else.

There's only one such gunshot mentioned being fired in the BBC report. Their crew didn't get to record it, but Gatehouse heard it and saw the shooter, as described, and they filmed the window where he saw that. A single and only gunshot, not two a few seconds apart, take note. If there were any two shots, they must have been some time apart, but both are clearly in the same 5PM-dusk-sunset time frame when roughly zero shooting was reported or evident. Aside from this one.

A single shot, from the hotel the recorder/uploader thinks, at that same time, killed a man 110 meters due north of that window. One shot was fired by an apparent "protester" at the hotel, one shot killed a man, and it seems more likely than not the two shots are the same.

And let me add an argument that tightens it up some - this is new, so I don't blame you for not having considered it yet. The RT live feed I cited in my video was filmed from a window very near that one, filming the area below for hours in the right span, with outside audio. Clearly it did record that shot, but it's not there because, as the video shows, they snipped it. There is one and only one missing segment, 30 seconds of silence and black, and no other spot during the dusk-5 PM time frame, otherwise continuously recorded, where any second shooting can be heard.

The one shot only can hide in that small gap, so there was only the one shot, or so I contend with good reason. It left the hotel window, overseen by that helmet, and hit that guy through the neck, and Yanukovych was blamed.

After this review, are you willing to agree this match of shootings into one is - if not 100% proven - at least one of the most reasonable readings? And really, probably true? If still no, can you specify what would fill in these small gaps and constitute proof to you? And can you answer without resorting to some dumb dodge like "a proper investigation" which you never demand of CNN or the new government in Kiev or anyone like that?

First, claiming that only one shot can occur in a 30 second gap is wrong given the existence of weapons more advanced than a muzzleloader (and even there a skilled shooter could probably get off a second shot).

Second, the use of a video to prove something that happened during a gap in the video feed is mindboggling. If the video showed the shooter taking the shot, this would not be a question - however, what you have is a gap in video feed, and then supposition that the shot "must have come" from that area and that the dude with the green helmet must have taken the shot and that it was done by the protestors to discredit the regime.

You're ignoring the possiblity that it was a police shooter (how hard would it be to paint a standard Ukrainian Army helmet that colour green, and use that to gain entrance to the hotel to do the shooting?), or an agent provocateur, or maybe your guess is accurate. The point is you are not looking for any other evidence once you have something that supports the idea that the protesters shot their own.

For gosh sakes, appeal to "take it to the authorities." This is a discussion forum, not a department of Interpol or something. I'm working it out, occasionally (rarely) getting useful input from others, etc. The public can see it as is, take a bad lead and kill it, a good one and develop it, and judge for themselves, and they're who I'm talking to.

If you have evidence of wrongdoing why not take it to people who can do something about the wrongdoing?

All video posts from an anonymous poster are going to do is choke up available bandwidth better used for porn. You have a limited audience, whereas if your evidence was solid you could use it, get it on to news channel and potentially reach millions.

"The appropriate authorities" would want (my overall theory) covered up if it were true.[/hitlite] This window, it's just a point. Maybe I should submit it and they'd accept it as an important clue, and suddenly they'll find new documents ordering snipers to go to the Metro/Arcade Bank and kill, with the bwahahaha sound.

It's comments like this that absolutely confirm that you are doing this, not out of a sense of "telling truth to power" or "revealing corruption to the people" but indulging in a fantasy where you might do this things, if not for the powers that be keeping you down.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Your specifics fail. I'm not going to stop just because there are limits to it.

I care what the video shows mainly. Side details would be interesting to know, and I hear there's a shady story about the filmer, in fact. I need to re-locate that. But this doesn't effect what it shows. Irrelevant to its value as evidence.

I've never made a big deal about the second hand quote from Bogomolec. The sniper in the hotel - that's a good question. I don't trust that guy. What was he basing that on? Hm...

It's comments like this that absolutely confirm that you are doing this, not out of a sense of "telling truth to power" or "revealing corruption to the people" but indulging in a fantasy where you might do this things, if not for the powers that be keeping you down.

Is it a do or don't thing? Seems to me more a matter of degrees. I'm not done yet, and even when I'm done with what I can do, I hope that is seen by others and re-examined, solidified past what I/we can do, and acted on. It'll be mainly citizens, not their accepted rulers, doing that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And can you answer without resorting to some dumb dodge like "a proper investigation" which you never demand of CNN or the new government in Kiev or anyone like that?

The fact that you consider asking for a proper investigation before jumping to conclusions to be a "dodge" really says it all.

What I meant was, can you even imagine what further info - specific evidence like video. witness, DNA, etc. - a "proper investigation" would turn up that would clarify the link between what you think might be two different shots?

I should add here that the RT live feed argument just hit me last night. So while you imagined disproving a second shot would be impossible, proving a negative, and leave me totally adrift on the sea of that possibility, I might be able to prove that negative too. I earlier scanned that video, over an hour of sunset footage, over and over for all signs, and so I said there's no second shot. But now that it's a bigger deal, I will want to go over it again more thoroughly. Mainly just the audio track... will report back if I decide any different.

In the meantime, feel free to keep encouraging me to stop. I imagine it's a cool fantasy to be the Ukrainian peoples' guardian angles, protecting them from harmful CT nutters they couldn't defend themselves from.

 

[carlitos]

 

[Caustic Logic]

Don't touch the infos if you're not trained right! You might break them! Lol.

Look, who started this about me conducting an "investigation?" Was that me? I played into it a bit, and if I started it, I apologize and take it back. I have in the past done serious investigation, within the same limits but finding a lot to do within them. And, although the general public always is my main audience, I have at times "taken it to the authorities," more or less - UN CoI on Syria, even the ICC, plus HRW/Houry, Amnesty, Physicians for Human Rights, etc. Almost always ignored, but I try. And I send my research to journalists, usually without response. But when Alex Thomson saw my research on the Aqrab Massacre, he said it "seems to bear out what I reported from Aqrab at the time." He was the only Western journalist to go there, by the way. What I was able to add is pretty scary, FWIW.

But at the moment, on this subject, it could be said I'm "investigating," but not running "an investigation." It could be said I'm investigoogling, since unlike most people I these days I learn through the Internet (??), or maybe just "research" works. Really I'm more like a guy with a hunch, looking into it, but more seriously than most. I have a few leads that seem promising, and I intend to work those some more. If they get more solid rather than less, quite possibly I will pass them along to other people who could do more with them - Ukrainian people I don't even know yet.

So, with no set standards for what I'm actually doing, I easily exceed the standards. Next, on-topic info.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It was suggested that when citing a video, I should ideally learn who filmed it, with what camera, etc. I suppose to understand how a particular model tends to handle artifacting, for example, might help clarify if what you're seeing is this or that. But I can just go with "unsure" is it actually is. Mainly, these details don't matter - that's clearly that building, this guys is sitting this way against that tree, etc.

But as for who, that is an interesting subject. earlier I noted, and it's true, he's apparently an opposition activist himself, documenting this alleged Berkut sniper massacre, but the whole time he stands there in the open, and never do any of the snipers working the area shoot him. That doesn't prove anything, but it's also consistent with his being a perp, one way or another on the same team as these killers.

I need to eventually check this out better, but over at the ACLOS wiki Petri just brought up an allegation - if it's made up, I didn't make it up. Nor did he. I haven't even carefully read/translated this to see what it's based on, etc. but:

Ukrainian article
and/or
Facebook translation
says the man in question is Atsamaz Kochiev, a pro media photographer in Moscow, and his maternal uncle is Arsan Avakov, the new Interior Minister running the investigation into the killers who never did shoot his nephew. Or so this says. If true, would be rather interesting. Still possibly a coincidence, but noteworthy. Checking on that, later, not a top priority.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, among the gunfire - I wouldn't say sniper fire - that was directed at the Hotel Ukraine, there's one incident of some interest, which I haven't mentioned yet. RT reporter Aleksey Yaroshevsky says he was standing by the window of their room when a bullet came in through the open window, breaking the pane and hitting the wall behind. The bullet was recovered and shown, images around. It was something stubby, small-ish caliber, not a sniper round.

Anyway, it didn't interest me much until this new video report came out, adding details (not sure if it shows the bullet).

Sixth floor, northeast corner room, north face. As traced there with cool effects, the two impacted surfaces suggesting a line to some area (roof or window could hardly be sure, but I go with window) of the expansive musical conservatory building next to the Hotel. (side-note: this may be the same RT room, other corner window, where the "live-feed" video I'm considering was filmed. It's also a bit low in the hotel for the protesters to be searching for the/a dusk sniper, as Yaro reported at 9 PM that night...)

And time - around 11 am. This is well before the core massacre behibnd the hotel I'm mainly focused on. It sounds like it might've been more serious than I thought even at this time.

Okay, the Conservatory. Some agreement and disagreement on that. Both sides have reported that the day's first shots were fired from its roof. Yakimenko, former SBU chief now in Russia, calls it the Philharmonic, but pretty clearly he means this place. (Yaro agrees, calling the conservatory "aforementioned" after playing Yakimenko's interview). As RT translated his charges:

AY: First shots were fired from the Philharmonic building. Maidan Commandant Parubiy was in charge of the building. On February 20, this building was used as a base by the snipers and people with automatic weapons. They basically covered those who were attacking the demoralized policemen running in panic, hunted down like animals. They were followed by armed people with different kinds of weapons. At that point, somebody opened fire at those who attacked the police, and some of them were killed. All this fire was coming from the Philharmonic building. After this first round of fire, about 20 people came out of this building – this was witnessed by many. These people wore special combat clothes and carried sniper rifle cases, as well as AKMs with scopes. There were witnesses, and not just our operatives, but also Maidan activists from Svoboda, Right Sector, Batkivshchyna, and UDAR.

The snipers split into two groups – 10 men each. The Security Service lost track of one of the groups. The other group took a position at the Ukraine hotel. Killings continued.

This has plenty of questionable details. But it doesn't look too bad, really, compared to at least this opposition explanation:

Maidan Translators

This morning, Feb. 20, despite the truce announced last night, clashes were renewed on Maidan, in the center of Kyiv. It is as yet unclear who fired the first live shots, a number of varying reports circulate. According to some reports, protesters started advancing after riot police attempted to set fire to the conservatory, where the wounded were kept. Other reports say that the first shots were fired from behind enemy lines.

As of 11 am, snipers are at work. Over ten people reported dead.

As yet there is no conclusive information as to who fired the first live shots.

Some reports say that the first live shots were fired from the roof of the Conservatory, which was behind the law enforcement cordons. Since the Conservatory lies behind police lines, it would have been extremely difficult for protesters to take firing positions there. This gives ground to the assumption that the killing shots were a purposeful provocation by government forces.

Another report says clashes were renewed when Berkut started throwing Molotov cocktails and/or grenades at the Conservatory. As protesters moved to put out the fires, snipers started shooting – at first, from the police lines, then from behind them.

Either/or, bit of both, whatever? Behind police lines, where they kept (whose?) wounded, burned by Berkut with molotovs, knowing the protesters would put it out, and then sniping them? Hmmm... that makes a little too much sense for my liking.

Another part of RT's video shows the/a point where the conservatory catches fire. I suppose that's worth a look - sigh - later, time allowing.

 

[carlitos]

But as for who, that is an interesting subject. earlier I noted, and it's true, he's apparently an opposition activist himself, documenting this alleged Berkut sniper massacre, but the whole time he stands there in the open, and never do any of the snipers working the area shoot him. That doesn't prove anything, but it's also consistent with his being a perp, one way or another on the same team as these killers.

...

...the man in question is Atsamaz Kochiev, a pro media photographer in Moscow, and his maternal uncle is Arsan Avakov, the new Interior Minister running the investigation into the killers who never did shoot his nephew. ...

Maybe his guardian angle was looking out for him.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Maybe his guardian angle was looking out for him.

Loq. The misspelling makes sense here. All angles, safe.

 

[TheRealnz]

I thought the point was that a doctor giving life-saving aid isn't conducting a forensic investigation measuring bullet holes.

Yes, and our point being that a doctor had better know the type of wound they're dealing with if their treatment is going to be affective. They'll have to note the depth of the wound during the course of slug extraction. So them making the observation that the wounds were similar isn't beyond their scope, nor is it implying they've conducted forensic testing.

I would like to Catsmate response as well as he seems to have gone quiet the past few days.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, and our point being that a doctor had better know the type of wound they're dealing with if their treatment is going to be affective.

Do you think a doctor has to determine if the wound was caused by a 5.56mm projectile or a 7.62mm one in order to be able to treat the wound?

They'll have to note the depth of the wound during the course of slug extraction. So them making the observation that the wounds were similar isn't beyond their scope, nor is it implying they've conducted forensic testing.

No, the doctor hasn't conducted forensic testing by treating a bullet wound, good for you to admit that. Therefore, the doctors opinion doesn't really matter.

 

[carlitos]

Loq. The misspelling makes sense here. All angles, safe.

If you're trying not to be taken seriously, you're doing a great job.

Labeling an anonymous cameraman filming a riot a potential "perp" because he wasn't shot by your theoretical "snipers" doesn't do a lot for my confidence in 'globalresearch.ca' as a news source. You're speculating and engaging in conjecture. Don't confuse that with journalism.