Ukraine sniping problem...

[uke2se]

They presented - images of the marksmen on the Palace lawn ("ridge," wrong side)

Are you denying that the sniper is on a ridge?

as proof of snipers, then pointed to the injuries sustained by people shot, mainly from the hotel, as having sniiper-like precision. No bullet or rifle ID for the actual injuries or death, anywhere, that I've seen. But this is for you adequate "evidence" - coincidentally, of course, when it's blamed on Yanukovych.

Considering the fact that the sniper is clearly visible, yes, I'd say that is sufficient. Do you have any images of non-Berkut snipers? By "sniper" I do not mean two guys in an elevator armed with an air-rifle and an AK-47.

BBC's Gatehouse says they came under :"sniper fire" from the hotel Ukraine by a "shooter" in a green protester helmet. The rifle was never identified. You never complained, until Istarted talking about him.

I don't get BBC, so I didn't know I was supposed to complain. Why do you expect me to complain about stuff I haven't heard?

For the record, I doubt the BBC came under sniper fire. I think they came under fire.

He's a sniper by my definition, by the way, just like by most peoples' "non-military," "meaningless" usage, used up 'til now by everyone but you, buddy.

Everyone but the military, and experts, you mean.

So that's why I'm done with your game.

It's not a game. Over a hundred people are dead in clashes with the regime you supported, and Russia has invaded another country and annexed part of it. That's about as far from a game as you can get.

I've got a good and growing case,

but you haven't touched it, except to show you've thrown it all away, clearly without any real thought, and to stay hung up on whether these gunmen should be called snipers or not.

Considering the fact that you are so terrible at this that you think two guys in an elevator armed with an air-rifle and an AK-47 are snipers, and that redeploying Berkut absolutely has to be under fire from some guy poking his head up behind a piece of cover, I'd say I can throw your assertions away with good confidence.

Not explicitly, and I was watching for it. But you know there were snipers killing people, and you've been careful to keep that word on the Berkut alone.

Because the only reliable evidence that exists show Berkut snipers.

And your starting/ending argument is quite clear that you already and will always blame Y's Berkut snipers, as the opposition and the corporate media instructed you to do on the 20th and since. Seeing how all this lines up, it seems a subconscious strategy anyway.

Should't you call me a sheeple too? I think that's the next step in the conspiracy theorist's playbook.

No, I've only made a few blunders, really.

I'd say you've made many blunders.

And I learn from them, set an example for how to engage and learn.

So, you have changed your Youtube video that asserted the Berkut were fleeing from a sniper?

I'm fine. I know you want to say every word I type is a blunder, etc. just to be annoying. So go ahead.

No, I wouldn't go that far. When you try your hand at video- or forensic analysis, you are extremely prone to blunders though. That's to be expected, really, as you lack the qualifications. The problem is that you don't seem to realize that. It's a stellar case of Dunning-Kruger in action.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Are you denying that the sniper is on a ridge?

I'm just saying, here's the image, and the video it's from. You're calling that "concealed." I can agree to disagree with that and move on. Anyone else can make their own call.

Considering the fact that the sniper is clearly visible, yes, I'd say that is sufficient. Do you have any images of non-Berkut snipers? By "sniper" I do not mean two guys in an elevator armed with an air-rifle and an AK-47.

No because snipers are concealed by (the usual) definition, they tend to be unseen. The ones I'm looking at clearly exist, but I don't see them See, that's a sniper.

I don't get BBC, so I didn't know I was supposed to complain. Why do you expect me to complain about stuff I haven't heard?

It was an example, to remind you the elevator guys were not my IDd hoytel snipers. Many many many media reports said sn

For the record, I doubt the BBC came under sniper fire. I think they came under fire.

Neither. Volodomy Melnichuk came under sniper fire. The crew, really, just heard the fire, above them, making them come "under" it

Everyone but the military, and experts, you mean.

And you. The news, politicians, other commentators, etc. And me, use the word the normal way, before and after Y alone was blamed. Military tribunals and such can nitpick, over there out of the way.

It's not a game. Over a hundred people are dead in clashes with the regime you supported, and Russia has invaded another country and annexed part of it. That's about as far from a game as you can get.

Sorry, I meant your S-word game. I thought that was clear.

etc. etc.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Of course I make mistakes. Even if I achioeve total perfection here or there, it's not usually done right off the bat, but aftyer some missteps and corrections. So far, I caught one video analysis mistake myself, after U here made me want to argue, and double-check first. I thanked him, but he didn't point out the mistake himself.

The mistake was the supposed pursuer. I still think they're running, not "jogging" - seems BR agrees - in a hasty relocation. I'll challenge this in a moment, but I think they're taking fire, with impacts. At any rate, they vacate, and minutes later, the doomed first wave of protesters moves in ...


In the other case he keeps whining about, in fact the potential snipers I pointed to are armed with one AK-47 at least, and are getting elevated in the hotel. These are reasons to point to them and wonder, and add to the evidence picture, as I've done. None of these reasons has been shown wrong. I don't see how one can prove they are NOT going to become snipers. So that clues sits as-is until further info makes it different.

As for people being able to look and make their own call, here are my videos. IDB87 had indicated he might have a look, around now. Others could. There's a precedent for findable mistakes, so it might be worth a look.

these cover most, but not all, seen shootings. Unseen ones don't help much. The few others might be of interest. They'll be mainly in the 41 minute video.

Enhanced shooting 1 - the ironic kid

2 - downed helpers, untouched gunman - the latter part is my own find, and open to challenge. I think it's a rifle with shoulder strap. Model, no guess. Hunting, air, maybe.

3 - downed by the wall

5 - green man, one other - more graphic - I see extra red pixels, at exit and maybe even entry (top of backpack) - how silly is it to think these might set the trajectory?

6 - two shooting directions

As far as I know, these are all good. But I felt that about the Berkut pursuer too, so ...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Having worn body armour, tactical load bearing equipment and a helmet and having had to move quickly while carrying a rifle I can confirm that the police in that video are moving at a good speed for the conditions. Not having all the facts, but based on the video in its entirety, I do not believe they are "fleeing those bullets", but are more likely being moved to a different area.

So they're evacuating at a fairly hurried pace. This could be because of a danger of gunfire at least, right? Of course if anyone tried to flee a particular bullet, they'd fail. Bullets move fast. But it seems they're moving away from increased gunfire in general, which they feel threatens them (i.e. it's not theirs).

If that group is taking fire, it is being remarkably blase about it - no flinching, no attempts to present a smaller target by crouching, no dispersion.

There's of course, as I mentioned, the fact that they're armored. And this video has a lot of foreshortening. They don't look tiny enough to be blocks behind that barricade, but some distance back and increasing.

And the guy who stays behind (?) does seem to duck as puffs appear around him, and take cover from something, as you note.

If there had been fire directed at this location, it wasn't shown in this video - none of the people shown in it are reacting in a manner consistent with the normal reactions to such an event.

...
Based on the reactions of the people, I do not believe that those puffs of dust are bullet impacts.

...
The person you note behind the sandbags doesn't appear to be shooting.

Huh. Well, demeanor aside, I was just straining to think what else these puffs of smoke/dust/sand could be. Muzzle flash from firing, no. Bullet impacts, no. .... that's all I could think of. Mini-hail storm?

So, I don't know what other conclusion yet to draw, except that they're taking some fire there, and it's probably related to their fairly hurried retreat.

The video is not clear enough to determine if this person has a weapon and if so of what sort - all the video shows is a blurry object. It is probable that this person is manning an observation post of some sort, but without further information its all speculation.

It sounds like you're seeing the same possible scope I was seeing. I leapt to a conclusion about those pixels, but apparently I didn't just make them up. Thanks.

 

[Border Reiver]

So they're evacuating at a fairly hurried pace. This could be because of a danger of gunfire at least, right? Of course if anyone tried to flee a particular bullet, they'd fail. Bullets move fast. But it seems they're moving away from increased gunfire in general, which they feel threatens them (i.e. it's not theirs).

Doubtful. Riot police or military, when you are told to get somewhere else it is generally done at the double - why, because you are reacting to a situation and you need to do so before the situation changes too much. All that can be drawn from this clip is that these people are moving in a tight formed body to an unknown location.

We can infer from their body language that they are not under fire. I would also infer that their own people aren't shooting, because nothing draws fire like more fire.

There's of course, as I mentioned, the fact that they're armored. And this video has a lot of foreshortening. They don't look tiny enough to be blocks behind that barricade, but some distance back and increasing.

Most police forces world wide provide body armour for their officers, and if not the line officers, then the riot control ones will. Given the state of the area, the protests have been going on for some time, so it would be more unusual for the police to not be armoured.

And the guy who stays behind (?) does seem to duck as puffs appear around him, and take cover from something, as you note.

With lack of other signs of gunfire in this area, no, I do not think it looks like he's ducking.

Huh. Well, demeanor aside, I was just straining to think what else these puffs of smoke/dust/sand could be. Muzzle flash from firing, no. Bullet impacts, no. .... that's all I could think of. Mini-hail storm?



So, I don't know what other conclusion yet to draw, except that they're taking some fire there, and it's probably related to their fairly hurried retreat.

Falling debris from surrounding buildings?

Bit of air movement picking up dust?

Given that these people are not reacting as if they are under fire, some cause other than bullets seems more likely.

It sounds like you're seeing the same possible scope I was seeing. I leapt to a conclusion about those pixels, but apparently I didn't just make them up. Thanks.

For what? I saw a blurry object, vaguely rectangular. The video is not sharp enough to make out any details - it could be a rifle, spotting scope, apiece of wood or an umbrella - the point is that there is insufficient detail to draw any conclusions about what it is.

 

[Caustic Logic]

With lack of other signs of gunfire in this area, no, I do not think it looks like he's ducking.

Now this is different from saying you don't see anyone firing or bullet impacts. To say no sign of gunfire I think goes against the constant sound of gunfire, very loud and nearby.

Plus, I still think, it goes against those mysterious explosive puffs all over the place.

Falling debris from surrounding buildings?

Not much better than my hail theory. Are we both straining on this?

Bit of air movement picking up dust?

Slightly worse.

Given that these people are not reacting as if they are under fire, some cause other than bullets seems more likely.

Given loud gunfire, puffs consistent with bullet strikes and little else, and their evacuation from the area of the puffs .... I just have to disagree, for the moment at least.

For what? I saw a blurry object, vaguely rectangular. The video is not sharp enough to make out any details - it could be a rifle, spotting scope, apiece of wood or an umbrella - the point is that there is insufficient detail to draw any conclusions about what it is.

For agreeing there's an object, straight-edged if not rectangular, we can see at about eye level on this guy. Rifle scope, telescope, kaleidoscope, flashlight, top edge of a canteen, top edge of something else, etc. I might've been wrong, but not crazy, to once pick rifle scope from that list.

 

[Border Reiver]

Now this is different from saying you don't see anyone firing or bullet impacts. To say no sign of gunfire I think goes against the constant sound of gunfire, very loud and nearby.



Plus, I still think, it goes against those mysterious explosive puffs all over the place.

<snip>

Given loud gunfire, puffs consistent with bullet strikes and little else, and their evacuation from the area of the puffs .... I just have to disagree, for the moment at least.

I've done OBUA (Operations in Built Up Areas). Sounds are wired things there, with buildings amplifying and channelling some sounds while deadening others. Yes, you hear gunfire. No, with the way those people are moving, I do not think there is any in this area. Plus, bullet impacts into sandbags give up a lot more debris then what you are seeing here, unless that dude with the air rifle is the one shooting.

As I said, the people moving at speed isn't unusual, especially if their sergeant just got the order to redeploy and is told to get there ASAP. They can hear the shooting, they know they need to get there fast, but with the lack of danger here, they can do so with minimal precautions (ie. in a tight group, standing erect, moving in a straight line, etc.)

For agreeing there's an object, straight-edged if not rectangular, we can see at about eye level on this guy. Rifle scope, telescope, kaleidoscope, flashlight, top edge of a canteen, top edge of something else, etc. I might've been wrong, but not crazy, to once pick rifle scope from that list.

No, it's not crazy to suspect that that object is a rifle, or a spotting scope (rifle scopes generally being affixed to the weapon), but one cannot say that it is definitely a rifle.

 

[Caustic Logic]

...unless that dude with the air rifle is the one shooting.

That (or similar) might be just it. It would also explain the lack of panic; they're only worried what gun will be used next.

And that's consistent with the general impression the insurgents wanted Berkut and police gone, not dead. Dozens were injured by guns, hundreds by rocks and clubs and fire, nearly 70 captured, and only 5 (or a few more maybe) actually died.

ETA: and point taken about the audio. It's the visual only I'll stay concerned with.

Either way, it's not a central issue. Though it is related to that, since this vacated barricade is just a few meters from the spot where unarmed people were gunned down en masse just a few minutes later.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I've been doing some timeline work, and some small inconsistencies worked out. I'm now more sure of the basic timeline I gave before - the main sniper massacre was bewteen 12:30 and around 1:00. The early end is set by the Berkut retreat (app 12:26 by the lawn clock), RT reporter's recall that the first sniper injuries behind the hotel were dragged down 5-7 minutes later, and two men dragged by early in the 41-minute video, some minutes before the larger group goes in. The later end is set by reports of 13 just killed by 12:44 and 20+ by 1:00

Some early entries in the BBC's timeline has 21 killed by 12:10 local, but other entries saying that appear 12:50 and on. All the tweets have their times given 40-50 minutes early. So I'm guessing that's the problem with those entries too.

some interesting peripheral sniper cases, with time-stamps, that seem to lie just beyond the main massacre in time or space:

12:25 PM - a graphic photo was tweeted of a man with a bullet lodged in the back of his neck. Out at least this early, it's too early to be part of the main sniper massacre. I don't know if he died or not, or who he is, or where he was when shot. But the bullet maybe could be IDd or narrowed down?

I wonder if this could be a Berkut, and the body armor explains why this round did nothing but barely enter. That this is a protester photo argues against that, and there are other explanations. Any thoughts?

Some of us might recall hearing the story of Olesya Zhukovska, the young lady medic famously shot in the neck by a sniper, famous because she tweeted "I'm dying." Dramatic. She survived, the wound was minor, but the original tweet, moments after the shot, was at 12:44 PM. Right time to be the sniper massacre, if she was shot for helping. But she doesn't seem to appear in the relevant videos, the photo from right after looks more like the Maidan proper, and she said she was shot "as she walked around the camp with several friends."

I wondered because shooting medics happened behind the hotel too. At 26:05 in the 41-minute video, a team of five medics with white helmets and orange jackets is in the kill zone, putting a man on a stretcher. There's a cut, and at 26:41, a team of four is now carrying out one of their own orange comrades.

 

[uke2se]

I'm just saying, here's the image, and the video it's from. You're calling that "concealed." I can agree to disagree with that and move on. Anyone else can make their own call.

Fair enough. Being concealed isn't a requirement for being a sniper anyway. As I said, it's a role. One doesn't seize being a sniper because one exits cover, nor is one something else until one enters it.

No because snipers are concealed by (the usual) definition, they tend to be unseen. The ones I'm looking at clearly exist, but I don't see them See, that's a sniper.

Ahh, the fact that we can't see your sniper is evidence that he's there. Clever.

It was an example, to remind you the elevator guys were not my IDd hoytel snipers. Many many many media reports said sn

Some of the media outlets might well have been fired upon by a sniper, as we know there was at least one there (the Berkut sniper on the picture). I will note that it's often hard for someone under fire to determine if their attacker is a sniper or not. Trained military personnel could probably make that determination most of the time due to distance, accuracy and sound, but I doubt the average reporter could.

Neither. Volodomy Melnichuk came under sniper fire. The crew, really, just heard the fire, above them, making them come "under" it

Do you know for certain Volodomy Melnichuk came under sniper fire, or is this another one of your own assessments?

And you. The news, politicians, other commentators, etc. And me, use the word the normal way, before and after Y alone was blamed. Military tribunals and such can nitpick, over there out of the way.

It is quite an important distinction if one is attempting to determine who shot whom, like you are doing. You don't seem to care, though.

Sorry, I meant your S-word game. I thought that was clear.

That's not a game either, as noted above.

etc. etc.

My answer here.

 

[uke2se]

Of course I make mistakes.

The problem is that you spread your mistakes on Youtube, and a lot of other conspiracy minded people eat it up. You are thereby promulgating a misconception.

I note that you haven't altered or taken down the faulty video, even after we pointed out your many mistakes. It still names the guy behind the cover as a sniper "chasing" the relocating Berkut. You can make non-apology apologies all you want about your mistakes here, but the video remains, and thereby migrates from "mistake by amateur who doesn't know what he's doing" to "intentional lie".

Even if I achioeve total perfection here or there, it's not usually done right off the bat, but aftyer some missteps and corrections.

Of the videos I've seen, you have never achieved total perfection, or even something close to it.

So far, I caught one video analysis mistake myself, after U here made me want to argue, and double-check first. I thanked him, but he didn't point out the mistake himself.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you caught the mistake you made before I did? Why, if so, is the video still up?

The mistake was the supposed pursuer. I still think they're running, not "jogging" - seems BR agrees - in a hasty relocation. I'll challenge this in a moment, but I think they're taking fire, with impacts. At any rate, they vacate, and minutes later, the doomed first wave of protesters moves in ...

The last part isn't visible in your video, nor does it have anything to do with the video.

In the other case he keeps whining about, in fact the potential snipers I pointed to

You never said potential snipers. You said snipers. Anyone is a potential sniper.

are armed with one AK-47 at least, and are getting elevated in the hotel.

Now, this might seem like a nitpick, but as you keep using the word "elevated" as meaning "going up", how do you know the elevator didn't go down? Is that visible in the video?

These are reasons to point to them and wonder, and add to the evidence picture, as I've done.

Name the specific reasons, other than the fact that you desperately want there to be a sniper in the hotel?

None of these reasons has been shown wrong.

Nor have they been shown to be relevant, or even existent.

I don't see how one can prove they are NOT going to become snipers. So that clues sits as-is until further info makes it different.

That's the fun thing about skepticism. Nobody has to prove that they aren't going to become snipers. If you want to call them snipers, it's incumbent upon you to prove that they are going to become snipers.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Fair enough. Being concealed isn't a requirement for being a sniper anyway. As I said, it's a role. One doesn't seize being a sniper because one exits cover, nor is one something else until one enters it.

Concealed is in 4/4 definitions brought here. Otherwise fair enough. A sniper (close enough) seen at the palace prior to 12:26 could be relevant to some incidents. But unless these guys relocated to the hotel, it must be someone else behind the worst of it from 12:30-1:00.

Ahh, the fact that we can't see your sniper is evidence that he's there. Clever.

Clever and true. Marksmen, who we can call snipers, are more prone to being seen. Because they aren't concealed.

Some of the media outlets might well have been fired upon by a sniper, as we know there was at least one there (the Berkut sniper on the picture).

Since that? Because of that? Not because of the sniper fire out the hotel windows? Yeah you're a "skeptic."

Do you know for certain Volodomy Melnichuk came under sniper fire, or is this another one of your own assessments?

Yes, by the normal human meaning of the word, it's pretty darn certain.

It is quite an important distinction if one is attempting to determine who shot whom, like you are doing. You don't seem to care, though.

No, the word used to describe the shooter is not important to the fact that he's shooting people dead.

That's not a game either, as noted above.

Well I disagree with the game master who swears it's not a game and really really matters. And I'm done playing his game.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The problem is that you spread your mistakes on Youtube, and a lot of other conspiracy minded people eat it up. You are thereby promulgating a misconception.

You sound worried. How 'bout a laugh instead; 48 views in almost a month. I can live with this small warpage until I can take the time to re-do the video (it takes some time)

I note that you haven't altered or taken down the faulty video, even after we pointed out your many mistakes. It still names the guy behind the cover as a sniper "chasing" the relocating Berkut. You can make non-apology apologies all you want about your mistakes here, but the video remains, and thereby migrates from "mistake by amateur who doesn't know what he's doing" to "intentional lie".

Does it? Wow, I feel horrible. No, wait ... I don't. Good try though.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you caught the mistake you made before I did? Why, if so, is the video still up?

Yes, I caught it myself. As I said, time.

The last part isn't visible in your video, nor does it have anything to do with the video.

No it's not. It has to do with the events the videos depict, which matters more.

You never said potential snipers. You said snipers. Anyone is a potential sniper.

Did I? If so, it was a bit of sloppiness.

Now, this might seem like a nitpick, but as you keep using the word "elevated" as meaning "going up", how do you know the elevator didn't go down? Is that visible in the video?

That's a good question. It looks to me like the ground floor, with the big lobby to the side. The first elevator buttons aren't lit up or down, but there are two buttons on the first panel, suggesting at least a basement level beneath. But the other, less clear, he seems to press the one and only button in the middle - that one maybe is only up. So possibly these guys are already high and moving lower in the hotel. More likely, the other way.

Either way, they're adjusting levels, with their rifles and green helmets in the hotel.

Name the specific reasons, other than the fact that you desperately want there to be a sniper in the hotel?

I have, see above.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Earlier uke tried to downplay the sniper killings of the 20th as minor enough, in the scale of killings, to barely matter. I didn't feel like digging up articles showing otherwise (and they do, because this is a matter of perceptions more than fact). But I just had this Daily Beast article pointed out to me. It has photos of the same Berkut we've seen, getting equipped in their parking lot. As far as I see it adds nothing but their unmasked faces, good info for prosecutors of lynch mobs. They're shown preparing over the morning, filmed by activists on the roof, who stopped taking or sharing photos at noon. This keeps us from seeing the "Russian-trained killers" return blood smeared and crying. They still have no evidence that, after leaving the October Palace and the barricade by the metro station, both under armed attack, these "Russian-trained killers" took up positions in the hotel or whatever spot the other visible line of fire points to.

Anyway, this article gives a higher death toll than I heard before, and clarifies the perceived significance.

The death toll of at least 53 people on February 20 doubled the body count of the previous two days.

"53 people" might be inflated, but not by much. It will include police, maybe Berkut (some of these died, many injured, not included in the previous 5 I mentioned - those were all policemen), obvious gov. loyalist victims of the mob, like the IT specialist killed in the attack on Regions party HQ, etc. Most will be on the protester side, however.

February 20 marked a critical turning point in the conflict. It was the most violent day in the history of Ukraine since Soviet times and it proved to be the undoing of the Yanukovych regime. The snipers failed to break the spirit of Yanukovych’s opponents, but the carnage inspired key loyalists in his ruling Party of Regions, including the city’s mayor and members of the Rada, or parliament, to quit. The next day Yanukovych fled the capital, and then the country.

And the sniper massacre of at least 20-30 dead was the major part of that, delivered in a bloody 15-20 minutes or so, serving as a double-underlining of the message: the criminal Yanukovych must go after this. It's generally taken as total fact that this was the thesis statement of his own suicide note. De-politicized logic would beg to differ, and urge serious skepticism and a closer look.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Another source, with unfortunately no clear time-frames indicated:

Scharfschützen schießen auf Demonstranten, Protestierer nehmen Gefangene by Moritz Gathmann, Nina Jeglinski, Tagesspiegel

Google Translated portions:

Then , on Thursday morning at nine clock , overrun the activists on the Maidan the barricades. They rush to the police . Why do they do that is not clear. Is it the radicals? Do they have armed themselves ? In the early morning buses from western Ukraine have arrived on the Maidan , where a barracks was stormed on Wednesday , weapons were captured . On Thursday in Kiev is happening is difficult to reconstruct .

The units of the Interior Ministry and the Special Police " Berkut " are completely surprised by the sudden attack : On the Institutska - street behind the hotel " Ukraina " right on Maidan contact the driver of the police buses in panic , while some policemen try the trigger with rifle shots on to cover the attacking activists.

Within minutes, the police units disappear up the Institutska Street, instead driving two vehicles on . And then begins a even after all the violence of the past few weeks previously unimaginable scene : In small groups of two or three men bring the activists , protected by shields, towards the next barricade . Then they fall to the floor and remain motionless - hit by the bullets of the sniper. The fight is unequal, and yet the scenes are repeated for hours. From the stage of the " Maidan" call the speaker on fighters , no longer on the hill next to the " Hotel Ukraina " penetrate . Vain .

Due to the upper floors of the hotel , meanwhile, draw with pistols and rifles armed Maidan activists , looking for snipers that shoot supposedly still one room of the hotel on the people . From the 14th Stock (floor) shoot the activists in the direction of the barricade on the Institutska Street, where they suspect more police snipers . Their answer promptly follows : One shot, one splintered glass , luckily no one is hurt.

Citing Gathmann (all from German:
Benjamin Bidder "Ukraina": People dying next to "Hotel Ukraina", shot by snipers. Protestors with guns on 14th floor." Vera Kämper: "Snipers apparently shoot at anyone who shows up at the windows of the Hotel Ukraina. Background: it is evident that armed opposition are in the hotel."

 

[uke2se]

Clever and true. Marksmen, who we can call snipers, are more prone to being seen. Because they aren't concealed.

But not seeing something isn't evidence that it's there. I'll grant you that it isn't evidence that it isn't there, but you are making it out to be evidence that it's there. That's just BS.

Since that? Because of that? Not because of the sniper fire out the hotel windows? Yeah you're a "skeptic."

What? This doesn't seem to have any relation to what I wrote, but if I am to untangle this mess, i'd take it to believe you mean I was asserting that the Berkut sniper in the picture shot at the media. If so, I can't prove that. I'm simply saying that it's not unreasonable for media teams to be fired upon by snipers, because we know at least a sniper was present, possibly more.

Yes, by the normal human meaning of the word, it's pretty darn certain.

Prove it, please.

No, the word used to describe the shooter is not important to the fact that he's shooting people dead.

That's not what I meant at all. Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand me in order to set up another appeal to ridicule?

It's important to distinguish a sniper from a non-sniper, because a sniper using a sniper rifle will normally fire different kinds of bullets than non-snipers. Not always - some sniper rifles use ammunition common to other weapons, like the Dragunov SVD which uses ammunition used in other sniper rifles as well as general purpose machine guns in the Russian Army. If we are to determine who did what shooting, a forensic examination of bullet wounds is necessary, so that we can determine which wound was cause by what type of weapon. That's why the distinction is important.

Well I disagree with the game master who swears it's not a game and really really matters. And I'm done playing his game.

You don't seem to be done, as you keep replying, long after informing me that I was to be ignored.

 

[uke2se]

You sound worried. How 'bout a laugh instead; 48 views in almost a month. I can live with this small warpage until I can take the time to re-do the video (it takes some time)

You could take it down. That wouldn't take much time. I mean, you would take it down if you were serious.

Does it? Wow, I feel horrible. No, wait ... I don't. Good try though.

You don't feel horrible that you are spreading intentional lies on Youtube? I would be, if I was hoping to be taken seriously.

Yes, I caught it myself. As I said, time.

I'd say this is another lie, as you defended the mistakes long after I pointed them out.

No it's not. It has to do with the events the videos depict, which matters more.

The video depicts a few Berkut relocating and a guy poking his head out from behind some kind of cover.

Did I? If so, it was a bit of sloppiness.

Was it? I very much doubt it.

That's a good question. It looks to me like the ground floor, with the big lobby to the side. The first elevator buttons aren't lit up or down, but there are two buttons on the first panel, suggesting at least a basement level beneath. But the other, less clear, he seems to press the one and only button in the middle - that one maybe is only up. So possibly these guys are already high and moving lower in the hotel. More likely, the other way.

But the point is, you don't know, and you can't tell from the video, so you can't draw any real conclusions from the video, and yet you keep doing it. Are you understanding the problems I have with your arguments here yet?

Either way, they're adjusting levels, with their rifles and green helmets in the hotel.

I can go along with that, as that's the general purpose of an elevator. I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusions from that, though, nor do I understand why you keep pointing out their helmets, which appear to be standard issue army helmets, issued to any recruit as well as all the people who did military service in the Soviet Army.

I have, see above.

I looked, and there was nothing. Could you maybe write it out again?

 

[uke2se]

Earlier uke tried to downplay the sniper killings of the 20th as minor enough, in the scale of killings, to barely matter.

That's another lie. I did no such thing. I simply pointed out the fact that a lot of people had already died, and it was in the context of you making the assertion that the "sniper killings" of the 20th were most important in bringing the Yanukovych regime down.

I didn't feel like digging up articles showing otherwise (and they do, because this is a matter of perceptions more than fact). But I just had this Daily Beast article pointed out to me. It has photos of the same Berkut we've seen, getting equipped in their parking lot. As far as I see it adds nothing but their unmasked faces, good info for prosecutors of lynch mobs. They're shown preparing over the morning, filmed by activists on the roof, who stopped taking or sharing photos at noon.

Have any of them been lynched?

This keeps us from seeing the "Russian-trained killers" return blood smeared and crying.

Oh, bo-hoo. I feel terribad for the people sent by the government to shoot protesters.

They still have no evidence that, after leaving the October Palace and the barricade by the metro station, both under armed attack, these "Russian-trained killers" took up positions in the hotel or whatever spot the other visible line of fire points to.

Just to make this clear, the person who has calculated the point of origin for this "visible line of fire" is you, no?

Anyway, this article gives a higher death toll than I heard before, and clarifies the perceived significance.

"53 people" might be inflated, but not by much. It will include police, maybe Berkut (some of these died, many injured, not included in the previous 5 I mentioned - those were all policemen), obvious gov. loyalist victims of the mob, like the IT specialist killed in the attack on Regions party HQ, etc. Most will be on the protester side, however.


And the sniper massacre of at least 20-30 dead was the major part of that, delivered in a bloody 15-20 minutes or so, serving as a double-underlining of the message: the criminal Yanukovych must go after this. It's generally taken as total fact that this was the thesis statement of his own suicide note.

A massacre tends to speed up things, but the regime was going down sooner or later anyway. They had already murdered too many of their own people to have any chance to remain in power.

De-politicized logic would beg to differ, and urge serious skepticism and a closer look.

This "de-politicized logic" is not something that you are offering.

 

[uke2se]

Another source, with unfortunately no clear time-frames indicated:

Scharfschützen schießen auf Demonstranten, Protestierer nehmen Gefangene by Moritz Gathmann, Nina Jeglinski, Tagesspiegel

Google Translated portions:



Citing Gathmann (all from German:
Benjamin Bidder "Ukraina": People dying next to "Hotel Ukraina", shot by snipers. Protestors with guns on 14th floor." Vera Kämper: "Snipers apparently shoot at anyone who shows up at the windows of the Hotel Ukraina. Background: it is evident that armed opposition are in the hotel."

You realize that the parts you quoted from this article says that snipers were firing at people in the hotel, right?

 

[TheRealnz]

This is my response to Spin0 who I was replying to about his post regarding Paet's comments.

Urmas Paet didn't say that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.

If you listen to the whole conversation and the context you will hear that he is talking about rumours. They discuss a rumour that snipers were shooting from both sides with the same type of bullets, that there is a concern that the new coalition doesn't want to investigate and there is now a suspicion that someone from the new coalition could be behind the snipers. At this Ashton says that "I think that we do want to investigate."

And I it very well might apt to investigate such rumour.

Shock horror!, Paet back steps in an attempt to cover his ass...Did I mention Maidan in my quote? No I did not.

The Guardian

"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.
Ashton replies: "I think we do want to investigate. I didn't pick that up, that's interesting. Gosh," Ashton says."