Ukraine sniping problem...

[Caustic Logic]

That stuff I posted above about the audio discrepancy between the sunset videos and the RT azimuths/offset reading - I'm serious about that and taking it further. A small update: I improved Petri's azimuth for the other video, 248 degrees +/- 1 degree maybe. He had just under 247, drawn to a building the sun was over. But rather, it's by it. That gives local time 4:53 +/- 2, not 4:51. This is a bit further off from my decided 1:35 (not 1:37) RT video offset time of 4:49, which still is rough - +/- 5-7 minutes seems fair. Close enough that it should be the same time span in general and gives an area to check thorughly, which I did. There are noises, clangs, camera queaks and pops.

But here's the challenge - in that RT footage, however far out from the shots at 6:24, is there any sound, anywhere near that time so it can fit, that realistically could be that single lonely gunshot heard in that weird-sounding fisheye video? (it will be loud - all signs say it was fired from the hotel - note the men coming out to shield the medics from just that direction, etc. - and the RT camera is also in a window high on the same side of the hotel)

If not, I call audio manipulation in the activist video. And there's a way to test that, and I did. Will post soon the video where I show it with both soundtracks, and RT's multi-shots audio makes the scene make more sense. People react to sounds previously not there, etc.

 

[uke2se]

When? Sometime after it's true.

Evidently not, as that has been true for a long time.

 

[Border Reiver]

This I have a hard time seeing. Last seen, he was standing on the ground, pointing at buildings some distance away. When it shines on the hotel (should be - about 30 meters could be right, or likely more, up to maybe 70-80 m) So was that scene staged, shone from a different tree he maybe climbed up?

Is it possible this is a newer type of laser you don't know about? At 4:28 you can see the bright spot on a building tens of meters away, and the beam running back almost to the camera.

So, I question your call of ... nonsense here.

Hand held devices are really hard to hold steady to get a consistent point of aim. Get a cheap laser pointer, say the kind they use to amuse our cat overlords and stand at one end of a hallway, activate the pointer and hold your arm out like he's doing and look at the dot on the opposite wall.

You will notice that:

A. The dot is really hard to see if there is ambient light, and it gets worse in sunlight; and
B. The dot isn't steady on the wall, your arm shakes. Minute shakes will cause significant errors the farther you are away.

I'm familiar with laser rangefinders, and I can tell you that the only time you see the beam is if particles have been introduced into the beam, which reduces it's effectiveness by deflecting part of the beam (which is what you are seeing). The only visible laser beams are in movies or comic books.

This could be. Non-police helpers pretending to be baffled by the snipers, getting their message in same day - or later - or an a different frequency even. I don't think it's proven. I imagine your insight on encryption is normally true, but that you're just guessing - maybe a real good guess but not a fact - that that's how they do it in Ukraine.

Even if it's so, and it makes sense, in an unusual situation might they just forget, or consider it low priority considering, or even speak openly in the hopes someone will hear their bafflement, and realize they didn't do it? (or the reverse psychology version of that (saying unencrypted "we didn't do that!" as they did it) etc.? I don't think this is a point so sure it should cut the straightforward option from what should be your list of three options.

Radio frequencies are assigned by bands to various uses by international treaty. There is a particular band of frequencies assigned for specific uses (for example 30.00-76.00MHz is part of the band of frequencies assigned for military uses).

For police and military radios they are set to various frequencies and are programmed with their encryption before they leave for operations and cannot just turn off the encryption to sow confusion then hope when they turn the encryption back on that it will work - the algorithm used won't be synced to allow it to work.

It is possible that someone was engaging in a radio deception plan.

Encrypted radios are pretty standard for North American and European police and military use, and were widespread in the former Soviet military. I can't see the Ukraine having adopted a lower standard of what can be a fairly inexpensive technology.

And not to be a pain, but when you quote me please don't attribute my rants to uke2se.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hand held devices ...

Just to check, you've seen the relevant footage, right? It was filmed at night, extra dark it seems (are the street lights turned off? If so, I wonder how and why?). The one beam, barely visible - the air's not that hazy. And whatever causes it, there's a bobbing bright spot on about the 10th floor of the hotel, west side (I'll have to re-check the floor-numbering to be sure, but only one floor has that molding beneath it). If that's impossible from where he's standing on video, then where do you propose he was that was so much closer?

Your implication is this guy Sergei faked the whole thing, with extra hidden laser men, or something, with or without the TV crew's help. Before I'd agree to that, I'd need better than your cat laser comparison. This looks to me like a handheld laser pointer, that just exceeds what you're familiar with.

Radio frequencies ...

Interesting. If it's as obvious to debunk as you say here, and it would prove an obvious hoax as soon as anyone versed had a look at it, why would anyone bother scratching it together? It could be a disinfo ploy to attach a hoax exonerating Berkut to this "stronger and stronger understanding," to sink the latter with the former.

Either that, or an ill-advised and amateurish hoax, or one way or another your understanding just doesn't apply here. I'd need to do some basic research of my own, at least, before I decided. Not a top priority ATM.

And not to be a pain, but when you quote me please don't attribute my rants to uke2se.

I appreciate your concern about getting mixed up. I would want to avoid that too. I don't think I have done that (recently) but if so, sorry, and I doubt it'll happen again.

 

[TheRealnz]

Could you provide evidence for this, like an article by a doctor discussing this matter?


For the record, you are talking BS, and we all know it. It's going to be funny watching you flail for evidence.

Gunshot wounds in general? Sure, here's anesthesiologist talking about wound characteristics, etc.

Don't be coy. Tell me what you saw on CSI.

You may think so. I don't.

A doctor engaged in life saving operations would make sure to measure a wound before trying to stop the bleeding. Or do you think a doctor has the ability to see the difference between a 5.56mm entry wound and a 7.62mm entry wound without measuring?

See for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=player_embedded

No. I'm pretty sure a doctor engaging in life saving operations would try and stabilize the patient enough to take Xrays, scans, etc in order to assess the damage done, in order to effectively stop the bleeding, remove any bullet fragments, clothing fragments, etc, that will get shoved into the wound and later cause infection. During the course of these scans an experienced doctor will recognize characteristics that are familiar with known patterns. The subsequent surgery will either confirm or correct the doctors original assessment.

Or do you think they just cut them open and start poking around to see what they find?

 

[LSSBB]

Gunshot wounds in general? Sure, here's anesthesiologist talking about wound characteristics, etc.







You may think so. I don't.



See for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=player_embedded

No. I'm pretty sure a doctor engaging in life saving operations would try and stabilize the patient enough to take Xrays, scans, etc in order to assess the damage done, in order to effectively stop the bleeding, remove any bullet fragments, clothing fragments, etc, that will get shoved into the wound and later cause infection. During the course of these scans an experienced doctor will recognize characteristics that are familiar with known patterns. The subsequent surgery will either confirm or correct the doctors original assessment.

Or do you think they just cut them open and start poking around to see what they find?

Before you take the good doctor's word as golden, you need to first establish her accuracy by comparing her judgements against known sources of those bullets. How else would you know for sure what her success rate is?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, our research wiki has been down almost constantly these last three days, just as I've been trying to assemble this new evidence there. It's frustrating, but encourages me to slow down and work things out better before publishing.

I said I'd have a video up, and within a day I will. But first, just in case anyone here can add anything useful and cause me to delay release as I re-think the issue ... I refer to the information, linked videos, and the challenge issued in post #316 (with #314 being the embarrassingly vulgar version of that) and post #321.

Reference graphic (too wide to post here, or even get uploaded full-size, but it's readable)
This is the audio waveform for just over an hour of the 2.5 hours of RT's shared footage from that window. You can see there I've marked out the main 2.5 minute burst of shooting that I think killed Mr. M. And I identified two other noises that to me sound like gunshots, and single ones, kind of like you hear in that fisheye video. All other loud spots, as I've checked, are different metal and hammering noises, camera squeaks, etc. Anyone inclined to check can spot a peak, go to that spot in the video, and see what it sounds like.

As for those single shots (or shot-like sounds) - in my opinion these are both too distant, in both space and time, to be possible matches. These are quiet and seemingly distant from the hotel-based camera. The shot we're looking for comes through louder on the Palace Grounds than these do from the obvious source of that fire.

And both of these noises occur half an hour apart from the one batch that's at the right time - one is 32 min. before, and one 28 min. after. No way is my calculated offset 30 minutes off - maybe ten-ish, absolute tops. I challenge anyone wondering that to test it by measuring any azimuth (well) and getting a time remotely that far off. Show me, and I'll check it. Bonus if you can do multiple readings and show a pattern over time (I checked seven points).

 

[Caustic Logic]

As for my last video and the argument it makes - there was some scoffing earlier.

Can we all see that window now, closed and then opened? That's the primary point I want to double-check is coming through. (see post #313 for the embedded video and a few notes) Would appreciate specific answers in the affirmative or negative.

Secondary issues more open to debate:
- the importance of that opening time, who could or could not have accessed that window then
- whether or not it's on one of the injury-indicated sniper trajectories
- whether or not there was a sniper/marksman/armed protester in there at all - it's never visually evident, just suggested.

 

[uke2se]

Gunshot wounds in general? Sure, here's anesthesiologist talking about wound characteristics, etc.

Where?

You may think so. I don't.

It is becoming clear.

See for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=player_embedded

Oh, here it is.

The video description (which I'll take as a summary of the video, since you provided none) makes my point for me:

Popular modern service calibers have nearly identical performance and are all built to (and do) perform within the same IWBA and FBI specs.

Thanks for that.

No. I'm pretty sure a doctor engaging in life saving operations would try and stabilize the patient enough to take Xrays, scans, etc in order to assess the damage done, in order to effectively stop the bleeding, remove any bullet fragments, clothing fragments, etc, that will get shoved into the wound and later cause infection. During the course of these scans an experienced doctor will recognize characteristics that are familiar with known patterns. The subsequent surgery will either confirm or correct the doctors original assessment.

Or do you think they just cut them open and start poking around to see what they find?

Did the doctor take X-rays and do a forensic comparison of the bullet wounds then? Could you provide evidence for this?

 

[carlitos]

Can we all see that window now, closed and then opened? That's the primary point I want to double-check is coming through. (see post #313 for the embedded video and a few notes) Would appreciate specific answers in the affirmative or negative.

I really don't see it. Sorry. I've stared at your video a couple of times, and despite your putting filters on what you say is an open window, all I can see is a dark blurry blob through a tree. I found myself looking at the window to the left, and if the one with the "sniper" is open, maybe that one is open too. Or, the angle of the camera and / or sun is different and therefore the reflection isn't visible like in the comparison photo.

 

[Caustic Logic]

A bit more from the new government's investigation, some days old now (April 10). Via Google Translate, even going word-by-word, it's not totally clear. In spots.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/04/10/7021997/

Home Office admits that on February 20 in the Cabinet of Ministers were 2 sniper special rapid response team of the General Directorate Combating Organized Crime "Falcon" .

This was at a meeting of the temporary parliamentary commission investigating said Deputy Chief of Special Forces "Falcon " Alexander Ershov , according to " Ukrainian News" .

He noted that the February 20 order by then former Interior Minister Vitaly Zakharchenko group of Special Forces "Falcon" of 20 people, including 2 sniper from Lugansk , was the building of the Cabinet.

Thus Ershov denied that there were snipers on the roof and fired on protesters .

Thus who did what?

At the same time, he acknowledged that the ballistic examination of the removed sniper weapons are not carried out, was made official test, and the results submitted to the Prosecutor General.
Ershov also said that from February 18 in the Kyiv conducted Operation " Fortress" , according to which the men " Falcon" guarding the building of the Ministry of Interior and the General Directorate Combating Organized Crime.
Head GUBOZ Sergei Rudenko noted that the implementation of this plan by personal order Zaharchenko in Kyiv were upset group of snipers from Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Khmelnitsky.
Also at the meeting of the Commission of Inquiry head of the department of public order of the Main Directorate of the Interior Ministry Nikolay Klimchuk acknowledged that Kiev from February 18, there were 30 officers armed with pistols BB.
At the same time , he said , with 15:00 on the order Zaharchenko were armed with firearms 3,500 employees of internal troops.
Also, at 11:30 February 20 Street Banking, Instytutska arrived special unit "Omega ", who were armed with AK -5, 45.
Also Klimchuk said that 20 February, Internal Forces of the employees of the State Guard was handed a receipt 2 Kalashnikovs .
These machines have taken with them when fleeing Viktor Yanukovych and former Commander of Internal Troops Stanislav Shulyak .

Another report is almost identical but adds this odd line at the end.

Attorney General's Office has not established the involvement of political forces at the time were in opposition, to the snipers.

??

I wouldn't really doubt any of those related and perhaps useful details. BB pistols to start, a unit with AKs arriving at the rear barricade (corner of Instytutska and Bankova) at 11:30, just as the police were cleared from the square in that audacious Nazi mob offensive we saw, and just as forces at the October Palace etc. were coming under fire, finally retreating at 12:25. 11:30 = good time for backup, and AKs might come in handy.

The broader order to arm police came at 15:00? That's about two hours after the alarming sniper massacre the then authorities claim to have been surprised and stunned by. Blanket armament after some debate might be a response consistent with that, and fitting the timeline.

None of that seems controversial. It'll be the lacking ballistic tests and such that might start to tie murderers to specific murders via direct physical clues. It seems like their investigation remains less about that stuff and more about politics. All they've shown so far looks like a flow chart showing who to arrest. Now they have a list of numbers of guns deployed.

There is, obviously, no balancing assessment how many rifles of what type Parubiy's self defense team had. No one's been called to say if and when they fanned out to the vacated Arcade Bank and Minsiters' Club, besides their obvious control of the hotel. Comparing the two sets of evidence, one empty or non-existent by design, I predict the investigators will decide on the one option they have set before themselves. And it will be lauded by many.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I really don't see it. Sorry. I've stared at your video a couple of times, and despite your putting filters on what you say is an open window, all I can see is a dark blurry blob through a tree. I found myself looking at the window to the left, and if the one with the "sniper" is open, maybe that one is open too. Or, the angle of the camera and / or sun is different and therefore the reflection isn't visible like in the comparison photo.

Good, thanks. That "blob" - standing out against the lighter area around - shouldn't be dark, unless someone opened it. Before, was all light. The part that clarifies it is at 2:22 - watch the proportioned frames fade out - That's the same layout at the right angle. If you still can't see how that blob has the exact location and shape of the middle window, then I'll just settle for the "blob" being dark. As I said, close enough.

Cheers

 

[uke2se]

Good, thanks. That "blob" - standing out against the lighter area around - shouldn't be dark, unless someone opened it. Before, was all light. The part that clarifies it is at 2:22 - watch the proportioned frames fade out - That's the same layout at the right angle. If you still can't see how that blob has the exact location and shape of the middle window, then I'll just settle for the "blob" being dark. As I said, close enough.

Cheers

Congratulations. You've finally managed to establish something: There's a dark blob behind a tree.

Surely the conspiracy is unraveling.

 

[TheRealnz]

Where?






It is becoming clear.




Oh, here it is.

The video description (which I'll take as a summary of the video, since you provided none) makes my point for me:



Thanks for that.



Did the doctor take X-rays and do a forensic comparison of the bullet wounds then? Could you provide evidence for this?

You have misunderstood the FBI IWBA classifications you cited.
It doesn't mean the performance are the same for different military calibers, it means the standards of the rounds of the same type are consistent within the international and FBI specs for the rounds. This wasn't always the case, some people might have had the same round but loaded hotter than other county's specs for the same round. What the statement is saying or implying is that there is more consistency in the rounds now and that enables easier classification of what round was used.

That's why I prefer to deal with Catsmate but he seems reluctant to answer because of the truth.

 

[uke2se]

You have misunderstood the FBI IWBA classifications you cited.
It doesn't mean the performance are the same for different military calibers, it means the standards of the rounds of the same type are consistent within the international and FBI specs for the rounds. This wasn't always the case, some people might have had the same round but loaded hotter than other county's specs for the same round. What the statement is saying or implying is that there is more consistency in the rounds now and that enables easier classification of what round was used.

That's why I prefer to deal with Catsmate but he seems reluctant to answer because of the truth.

Care to reply to my other points?

Where in the video does the doctor say that a medical doctor can tell a sniper bullet from a non-sniper bullet by looking at the bleeding wounds of a dying patient? Because that's the whole point.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Congratulations. You've finally managed to establish something: There's a dark blob behind a tree.

Surely the conspiracy is unraveling.

It's a step-by-step process, and getting confirmation like this is the most I can pull off with this crowd, so not bad. The black rectangle's shape is ignored and it's called "blob," but tha'st two who admit they can at least see that.

You have misunderstood the FBI IWBA classifications you cited.
It doesn't mean the performance are the same for different military calibers, it means the standards of the rounds of the same type are consistent within the international and FBI specs for the rounds. This wasn't always the case, some people might have had the same round but loaded hotter than other county's specs for the same round. What the statement is saying or implying is that there is more consistency in the rounds now and that enables easier classification of what round was used.

That's why I prefer to deal with Catsmate but he seems reluctant to answer because of the truth.

Good on you to keep at this point in a way that seems fairly intelligent.

In case you're looking to branch out, can I pester you into having a look at my window video? Isn't that dark blob the same shape, size, and location as the window lining up with a poss. sniper trajectory? And does that look to you like the right trajectory for how that guy tumbles and/or apparent wounds?

 

[uke2se]

It's a step-by-step process, and getting confirmation like this is the most I can pull off with this crowd, so not bad. The black rectangle's shape is ignored and it's called "blob," but tha'st two who admit they can at least see that.

It's not ignored. It is regarded through the eyes of someone without your confirmation bias.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's not ignored. It is regarded through the eyes of someone without your confirmation bias.

Well if you're going to make a big deal of it...

It's four equilateral sides of just the right size meeting at right angles in just the right spot. Bias against confirming even the most basic, visually evident point I try to make, duly noted, again. Ican't even get you to call a rectangle a rectangle, and anyone who looks will see the kind of lame dodges you engage in.

But it's a dark shape, okay. In just that spot at just that time...

 

[uke2se]

Well if you're going to make a big deal of it...

It's four equilateral sides of just the right size meeting at right angles in just the right spot.

Show your math.

Bias against confirming even the most basic, visually evident point I try to make, duly noted, again. Ican't even get you to call a rectangle a rectangle, and anyone who looks will see the kind of lame dodges you engage in.

It's not a dodge. It's commentary on the fact that you never engage in any actual research. You simply decide what things are and run with it.

But it's a dark shape, okay. In just that spot at just that time...

Yes, it's a dark shape. A blob, one might say. Behind a tree. As I said, congratulations.

 

[TheRealnz]

Care to reply to my other points?

Where in the video does the doctor say that a medical doctor can tell a sniper bullet from a non-sniper bullet by looking at the bleeding wounds of a dying patient? Because that's the whole point.

You know that IWBA and FBI specs are based on studies of handgun ammunition? The reason they're nearly identical performance wise is because they lack the penetration characteristics that are found in rifle ammunition. But yeah, lets pretend you already knew that.

I really, really do not understand why you're finding it so difficult to grasp that a doctor treating gunshot wounds is somehow able to make the observation that the wounds that they were treating in THAT particular instance were similar.

Call it magic, call it voodoo, if it helps.

Anybody else with a functional brain would chalk it down to professional expertise. But yeah, you go buddy. Keep doing what you're doing.