Ukraine sniping problem...

[carlitos]

Physical Marks:
Until verified, I consider physical marks not seen happening on video (to my knowledge) in another category - possibly made later, possibly fake, but possibly relevant and so worth mentioning.
...

I think you'll find that Kiev is full of physical marks.

Make your own call how to read that mark relative to two holes precisely placed by a "sniper" in a street-level light pole, rather than into anyone's neck.

This is, quite literally, the definition of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy^WP. You drew a circle around two bullet holes, and are implying that they were "precisely placed" by a "sniper."

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think you'll find that Kiev is full of physical marks.

Yep. Some are from bullets, some of which hit trees and people on February 20 and matter here.

This is, quite literally, the definition of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy^WP. You drew a circle around two bullet holes, and are implying that they were "precisely placed" by a "sniper."

Did you watch the ridiculous segment to see who's committing the fallacies here (if anyone)? Of course not, or maybe so. I can't even tell with you and your clowning.

I quoted that propaganda clown ironically. For the record, I didn't see those holes and don't care. The mark on three, looks like a downward angle shot from the hotel towards someone at the OP. But as I said, make your own call from that. Maybe after actually seeing it first.

And hey, we could use more gopher cartoons around here. That's always a skeptacular move.

 

[carlitos]

Perhaps you could write more clearly so I would know when sarcasm is being invoked. Apologies for the misunderstanding on my end.

FYI, regarding the gopher...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Perhaps you could write more clearly so I would know when sarcasm is being invoked. Apologies for the misunderstanding on my end.

FYI, regarding the gopher...

Hey, another thing I could do.

Or, sine you're the one making these blunders lately, you could figure something out to avoid that.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bump for the graphic and notes.

[qimg]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Libyan%20Civil%20War/Ukraine_Shooting_Directions_7_small_zps05653942.png[/qimg]

Notes:
Behind Directions - October Palace and Hotel Ukraine:
Previously we noticed a tree that's hit from behind, either left or right seems possible to me ATM (see first half in this video). This could be either from the Hotel or the October Palace (OP). The latter was insurgent-held as of about 12:30, just in time to be potentially relevant to the sniper massacre.

Besides the possible tree shooting, Hotel-origin fire (west side) is suggested by a man who's shot and tips over from that direction (19:20 or so in the long video). Other victims are possibly hit on that line, but nothing definitive can be ventured with what I've found so far.

Forward Directions:
The ? line is one possible angle for fire we can visually verify (in two instances of non-fatal shooting - one in the second half of the above video) that may or may not be distinct from the solid blue line to the "Ministers' Club" - the Ironic kid took a hit on about this line. So that's either one or two positions, more likely two of them.

The short, solid line to the Arcade Bank turret window, we have covered... the window's shape is in dispute and some here speculate it might be a giant hamster up there in the trees. Snipers don't usually shoot from inside giant hamsters, so this remains among the most serious challenges posed by the JREF resident skeptics. Nonetheless, I continue calling it a regular rectangular window of the exact shape usually in that exact spot.

Total: Three directions I call as evident on video, likely four, and possibly five.

Alleged Directions:
These are all implicitly dotted with uncertainty. The pattern I noted earlier holds - for the weeks right after the incident, no one mentioned snipers at the hotel. It's not as obvious as I thought but still likely that there was significant fire from there involved, but it's now acknowledged as the primary "still investigating that" alternate sniper perch, highlighted in that Monitor program, etc.

 

[uke2se]

Bump for the graphic and notes.

[qimg]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Libyan%20Civil%20War/Ukraine_Shooting_Directions_7_small_zps05653942.png[/qimg]

Notes:
Behind Directions - October Palace and Hotel Ukraine:
Previously we noticed a tree that's hit from behind, either left or right seems possible to me ATM (see first half in this video). This could be either from the Hotel or the October Palace (OP). The latter was insurgent-held as of about 12:30, just in time to be potentially relevant to the sniper massacre.

Besides the possible tree shooting, Hotel-origin fire (west side) is suggested by a man who's shot and tips over from that direction (19:20 or so in the long video). Other victims are possibly hit on that line, but nothing definitive can be ventured with what I've found so far.

Forward Directions:
The ? line is one possible angle for fire we can visually verify (in two instances of non-fatal shooting - one in the second half of the above video) that may or may not be distinct from the solid blue line to the "Ministers' Club" - the Ironic kid took a hit on about this line. So that's either one or two positions, more likely two of them.

The short, solid line to the Arcade Bank turret window, we have covered... the window's shape is in dispute and some here speculate it might be a giant hamster up there in the trees. Snipers don't usually shoot from inside giant hamsters, so this remains among the most serious challenges posed by the JREF resident skeptics. Nonetheless, I continue calling it a regular rectangular window of the exact shape usually in that exact spot.

Total: Three directions I call as evident on video, likely four, and possibly five.

Alleged Directions:
These are all implicitly dotted with uncertainty. The pattern I noted earlier holds - for the weeks right after the incident, no one mentioned snipers at the hotel. It's not as obvious as I thought but still likely that there was significant fire from there involved, but it's now acknowledged as the primary "still investigating that" alternate sniper perch, highlighted in that Monitor program, etc.

Have you visited the site and conducted measurements, or at least verified the impact-angle on the victims yet?

Or are you still locked in confirmation bias?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's the German MONITOR report finally with English subtitles, good translation as far as I watched.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay ... people have been saying for a while the criminal sniper fire probably came from insurgent-controlled locations.

Initially, it was claimed, and proven with documents given to MP Gennady Moskal, that Interior troops (Berkut) and SBU forces opened fire from gov-held rooftops.

Moskal was put in charge of Kiev's investigation. They've had a couple of month with the best evidence available, more than we see. They trace out the forensics better, match bullets and guns, decide what can be denied and what has to be faced up to ...

May 13, Moskal calls a press conference. Here's my new article about it:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ki...iper-killings-of-civilians-and-police/5382785

In a telling sign of confidence in this revised, interim version, Moskal told reporters, essentially, that this crime will remain murky and unsolved for decades. RT cites him as saying “this will be yet another case, like the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which is still being investigated today.”

Interesting and highly relevant points:
1) The bullets that killed the unarmed protesters do not match any of the weapons given to Berkut that day. The "concealed" marksman on the lawn, all yellow-armband-waering riflemen, the 12 "Black Unit Berkut" arrested in March, the whole Berkut unit dissolved ... oops. Someone less visible did it, imagine! Like... snipers, and their guns haven't been matched yet to the bullets.

2) As RT summed up the announcement:

“[Moskal] alleged that the shooters were agents of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) acting from the ranks of the protesters, but admitted that genuine protesters could have been the culprits.”

He clearly favors the false-flag version over straightforward one, but ... that might not be the most sound call. Hence, perhaps, the predictions of murk.

Earlier, Moskal said the plans to have Berkut and SBU snipers on rooftops. Is this the same plan? Why was the undercover part not mentioned before? And ... whose rooftops/high windows? Insurgent ones, he implies.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Have you visited the site and conducted measurements, or at least verified the impact-angle on the victims yet?

Or are you still locked in confirmation bias?

Even after the delay, no I haven't. Have you <eh, snip it>

Now, see what those who live there and have been looking at the evidence decided. They wanted to point to government-help places only government snipers would be, but apparently could not quite do it. Details not given, but it sounds like the best forensics might point to places where insurgents were. The snipers were right there amongst them, not on gov-controlled rootops as the original gospel insisted.

And your "concealed" Berkut maksman on the lawn was proven innocent. And the other "verified Berkut snipers" you used to prove to yourself Yanukovych was behind this. Or so it sounds from the press conference.

New theory needed. Think snipers amongst the insurgents who actually benefitted from the massacre. Who would that be? Someone real sneaky I bet, and not the Fascist insurgents themselves. Right?

 

[uke2se]

I see a lot of assertions but no evidence. Declaring victory is easy. Achieving it is hard.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I see a lot of assertions but no evidence. Declaring victory is easy. Achieving it is hard.

The new assertions, of course, are straight from a Fatherland member in Kiev, heading the probe with the best access anyone has to the evidence.

It's true he provides no evidence/details for his assertion, but apparently, they cannot make the trajectories point to where the government was, or to the Berkut. It all goes to unknown guns in areas where insurgents were. That's what the evidence must say, too clearly to deny, or they wouldn't be conceding this.

The politic comes back in with the other evidence-free assertion that it was sooper-seekrit government snipers working amongst the protesters. You're right that this lacks details in the same way, and unlike the other, apparently evidence-based assertion, this one lacks common sense too.

 

[Caustic Logic]

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/ukraine-official-putins-plans-have-failed-302260

Brand-new interview with Andriy Parubiy, unrepentant neo-Nazi skinhead, co-founder Social National party (now Svoboda) since branched off to run security operations for the regime-change protests in 2004 and 2014, and to serve in parliament under the Fatherland banner as well (went "mainstram.") Now he's somewhere meeting NATO heads over the Russian plots. He thinks Russia is behind everything.

Earlier I mentioned Parubiy being credibly blamed for running the Miadan snipers, and being put in charge of an investigation into it. That last may not be true, but maybe; it sounds like at least there is another investigation with different findings from parliament's, which Parubiy knows a lot about.

From the interview:

You were the commandant of Euromaidan, so you must have first-hand information?

[The allegation about Polish snipers is] absolutely absurd. We are facing Goebbels-type propaganda [Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany] which is unbelievable, but people listen to Putin and some consider that such a point of view is also legitimate. This is complete nonsense.

Talking about Maidan, there was nobody there except Ukrainians on our side. Now that we are conducting investigations, we have found that 18 Spetsnaz [Russian special commando forces], including snipers, were in Maidan. The investigation will reveal from which points they were shooting, but I can already say that they did everything they could to spill blood and provoke civil unrest. What happened on Maidan and what happens now [in Eastern Ukraine] is part of the same plan conducted by Russian special forces, aimed at taking control of Ukraine.

"...will reveal from which points they were shooting." As soon as they can figure out how to make the lines of fire point away from places he controlled? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the Commandante/head of Maidan self-defense had his own ranks infiltrated by Spetsnaz provocateurs? And they didn't just sneak away from Maidan, but all the way out of Ukraine now, totally out of reach until we march on Russia...

Coming back to the 18 Spetsnaz troops at Maidan…
… the 18 snipers.

What else can you say about what you know about them?
I think they escaped from Ukraine.

Except of course the two reported captured on 20th, around 1 PM and 9 PM, both apparently in Hotel Ukraine. Thhose ones didn't get away, right? Maybe. There's still no mention of either of those in all the news since then, including here. It's as if they were caught and released, or never really caught.

We have a working hypothesis which would be confirmed or rejected by the investigation, that in the most difficult days they shot equally – at Berkut [the Ukrainian anti-riot forces] and at the Maidan activists. Their aim was to instigate a more violent civic unrest. That was the tactic. The same tactic was applied in Odessa, in Donetsk, aiming at dividing the society and dividing Ukraine.

And the aim is that Russia could warm its hands at this fire. When we speak about fighting terrorists, the best way is to find their centre of coordination, of financing. In this case, this centre is one person, it is Putin.

On the tensions the snipers stoked, and who "warmed their hands" by it (and by the fire in Odessa too!) consider what the Nazi thug said about the Russian plans as they played out to his advantage on the Maidan:

What I can further say is that had we been unable to oust [the then President Viktor] Yanukovich, he would have called the Russian army and a completely different scenario would have unfolded. We know that Russian snipers shot at both sides. It is not by chance that Russian troops have stood at the borders of Ukraine since the days of Maidan.

So you recognise that you ousted Yanukovich?
Yes. He ran away.

But he ran away because he was afraid for his life?
Yes of course. After so many deaths and such national tension, he understood that if he didn’t run away, the personal consequences could be very bad.

 

[LSSBB]

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/ukraine-official-putins-plans-have-failed-302260

Brand-new interview with Andriy Parubiy, unrepentant neo-Nazi skinhead, co-founder Social National party (now Svoboda) since branched off to run security operations for the regime-change protests in 2004 and 2014, and to serve in parliament under the Fatherland banner as well (went "mainstram.") Now he's somewhere meeting NATO heads over the Russian plots. He thinks Russia is behind everything.

Earlier I mentioned Parubiy being credibly blamed for running the Miadan snipers, and being put in charge of an investigation into it. That last may not be true, but maybe; it sounds like at least there is another investigation with different findings from parliament's, which Parubiy knows a lot about.

From the interview:


"...will reveal from which points they were shooting." As soon as they can figure out how to make the lines of fire point away from places he controlled? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the Commandante/head of Maidan self-defense had his own ranks infiltrated by Spetsnaz provocateurs? And they didn't just sneak away from Maidan, but all the way out of Ukraine now, totally out of reach until we march on Russia...



Except of course the two reported captured on 20th, around 1 PM and 9 PM, both apparently in Hotel Ukraine. Thhose ones didn't get away, right? Maybe. There's still no mention of either of those in all the news since then, including here. It's as if they were caught and released, or never really caught.



On the tensions the snipers stoked, and who "warmed their hands" by it (and by the fire in Odessa too!) consider what the Nazi thug said about the Russian plans as they played out to his advantage on the Maidan:

Maybe Parubiy can partner with the neo-Nazis that Putin used to monitor the Crimean vote.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Maybe Parubiy can partner with the neo-Nazis that Putin used to monitor the Crimean vote.

Huh, wouldn't that be interesting?

But of course it won't happen. Those are alleged neo-Nazis who support Russia and this is a fairly loony alleged Nazi who really, really doesn't. And he 's helping investigate what might be the crimes of his alleged Nazi strange-haircut underlings, one of which is the subject thread.

Your reason for bringing in the others was ... what? Is the existence of pro-Putin Neo-Nazis is supposed to, like, cancel something out, or something?

Do you trust this Parubiy guy and his investigation of the Spetsnaz snipers sent by Moscow, apparently, to grease his own and his allies' rise to power?

 

[uke2se]

The new assertions, of course, are straight from a Fatherland member in Kiev, heading the probe with the best access anyone has to the evidence.

It's true he provides no evidence/details for his assertion, but apparently, they cannot make the trajectories point to where the government was, or to the Berkut. It all goes to unknown guns in areas where insurgents were. That's what the evidence must say, too clearly to deny, or they wouldn't be conceding this.

The politic comes back in with the other evidence-free assertion that it was sooper-seekrit government snipers working amongst the protesters. You're right that this lacks details in the same way, and unlike the other, apparently evidence-based assertion, this one lacks common sense too.

I see no evidence for your assertion that the "lawn sniper" has been found "innoscent" or of what he's supposedly innoscent of. I do see a guy explaining that Spetznas snipers were present (no evidence for that either) and somehow you feel this completely vindicates you. Amazing.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I see no evidence for your assertion that the "lawn sniper" has been found "innoscent" or of what he's supposedly innoscent of.

Not surpising. You excel at not seeing things that are right there.

To CLARIFY, the findings of the parliament investigation found all Berkut gunmen, including that one, were innocent of shooting the sniper victims, who were shot by someone else with different guns.

Still not seeing it tough, are you? Never will, will you?

I do see a guy explaining that Spetznas snipers were present (no evidence for that either) and somehow you feel this completely vindicates you. Amazing.

Rather, he's trying to vindicate a view something like yours. And so is Moskal. But they have totally different readings of the evidence, one of which at least must be wrong. Were they SBU, or Russians? Or are both just guesses one comes up with when simply "not us!" won't cut it?

Their stumblefest vindicates my view to some degree.

 

[uke2se]

Not surpising. You excel at not seeing things that are right there.

To CLARIFY, the findings of the parliament investigation found all Berkut gunmen, including that one, were innocent of shooting the sniper victims, who were shot by someone else with different guns.

Still not seeing it tough, are you? Never will, will you?

I see, according to the investigation you don't trust that sniper didn't shoot the only victims you are interested in. Now if you could only find where anyone has accused that particular sniper of shooting those particular victims, you wouldn't be setting fire to strawmen.

Rather, he's trying to vindicate a view something like yours. And so is Moskal. But they have totally different readings of the evidence, one of which at least must be wrong. Were they SBU, or Russians? Or are both just guesses one comes up with when simply "not us!" won't cut it?

Their stumblefest vindicates my view to some degree.

It does? If at least one of their views are false, how does that mean your view is true? Please explain.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I see, according to the investigation you don't trust that sniper didn't shoot the only victims you are interested in.

I truth the implication that they can't deny the forensics, or something, putting the shots in the protest area, secured overall by Euromaidan Commandant Parubiy, BTW.

"The only victims I'm interested in" actually the only ones I can place and have video and a chance to get a good reading, and it's about 30 people killed there in a short span - about half the non-security deaths in Kiev that day. It's the biggest, worst, most clearly not a "clash" but a massacre, and most video-proven part. Those people were not shot by Berkut.

Now if you could only find where anyone has accused that particular sniper of shooting those particular victims, you wouldn't be setting fire to strawmen.

All Berkut were taken as proof, just because they had guns. You pointed to it, but it's true you for one never have made an explicit case aside from me being wrong somehow.

Do you even have an explicit opinion? Even by accident, after all this sniping and nitpicking, have you gotten enough info in your head to form a guess? Berkut, SBU, Spetsnaz, other "third force," or "protesters" themselves?

It does? If at least one of their views are false, how does that mean your view is true? Please explain.

For God's sake, dude, I said "to some degree." Prove that doesn't support my view to some degree. Note that "at least one" leaves open that it's more than one. I highly suspect both are untrue, but at least one almost has to be. (there are outside options like the SBU and the Russians both having snipers there, etc.)

Kiev authorities telling us untruths about the murky snipers who brought them to power is troubling, no matter what games you choose to play.

 

[uke2se]

I truth the implication that they can't deny the forensics, or something, putting the shots in the protest area, secured overall by Euromaidan Commandant Parubiy, BTW.

This implication is only in your head. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually telling the truth? Did you even consider that? At least the truth as best they can tell?

"The only victims I'm interested in" actually the only ones I can place and have video and a chance to get a good reading, and it's about 30 people killed there in a short span - about half the non-security deaths in Kiev that day. It's the biggest, worst, most clearly not a "clash" but a massacre, and most video-proven part. Those people were not shot by Berkut.

You don't know that, nor do the actual investigators. They think these people weren't shot by Berkut, but they don't know who did it.

All Berkut were taken as proof, just because they had guns. You pointed to it, but it's true you for one never have made an explicit case aside from me being wrong somehow.

Do you usually have this much trouble following a conversation? The Berkut sniper was lifted as the only photographically evidenced sniper. You were wrong because you refused to admit that the sniper was a sniper, and couldn't understand what a sniper actually was.

Do you even have an explicit opinion? Even by accident, after all this sniping and nitpicking, have you gotten enough info in your head to form a guess? Berkut, SBU, Spetsnaz, other "third force," or "protesters" themselves?

No, I don't have a "guess". When it comes to the murder of innocent people, I tend not to "guess" as to the perpetrator. One of my many problems with your investigoogling is that you rely almost exclusively on guesses and your own failed analysis.

For God's sake, dude, I said "to some degree." Prove that doesn't support my view to some degree.

Not up to me. You made the claim. You prove it does support your view. You know your view doesn't win by default even if all other obvious theories are discredited. You need positive evidence, and what you have is pitiful.

Note that "at least one" leaves open that it's more than one. I highly suspect both are untrue, but at least one almost has to be. (there are outside options like the SBU and the Russians both having snipers there, etc.)

So?

Kiev authorities telling us untruths about the murky snipers who brought them to power is troubling, no matter what games you choose to play.

The snipers didn't bring them to power. We've already been over this, so you can stop telling fibs about that. Nobody's buying it.

Aside from that, prove that "Kiev" is lying, as that is the implication that you are making.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This implication is only in your head. Maybe, just maybe, they're actually telling the truth? Did you even consider that? At least the truth as best they can tell?

First, I appreciate that you managed to not make big deal of an obvious, rushed typo.

Maybe just maybe, for reasons I'd like explained a bit, that really is the best explanation. The snipers that underwrote our rise to power definitely fired from Maidan Euro-free-zone happyland, as we sternly denied up 'til now ... but it was still Yanukovych, or Putin, to, you know, cause violence and stuff.

You can see I'm not putting my money on that option, but it's possible.

You don't know that, nor do the actual investigators. They think these people weren't shot by Berkut, but they don't know who did it.

They checked the guns issued to Berkut and they didn't match the bullets that killed people. That's what Moskal said.

Do you usually have this much trouble following a conversation? The Berkut sniper was lifted as the only photographically evidenced sniper. You were wrong because you refused to admit that the sniper was a sniper, and couldn't understand what a sniper actually was.

Lol. I refer and defer to the record. Suggest you do same.

No, I don't have a "guess". When it comes to the murder of innocent people, I tend not to "guess" as to the perpetrator.

You have a guess, and it's I'm wrong. On everything. You don't even bother making sense half the time, or checking what I'm wrong about. You could stand to take a break maybe.

But you always had clear implications, with your "leave it to the experts" mentality (ie, status quo, frozen at what the Cabal has said) and having only one party fielding visually "verified" and yet "concealed" snipers ... yea, you never did field an explicit guess. You are just *way too responsible* for that.

One of my many problems with your investigoogling is that you rely almost exclusively on guesses and your own failed analysis.

You ... Why do you lie?

How do you manage to say basically nothing and still squeeze so much dishonesty out of it?

Not up to me. You made the claim. You prove it does support your view. You know your view doesn't win by default even if all other obvious theories are discredited. You need positive evidence, and what you have is pitiful.

Clashing cover stories is a classic sign of cover-up, dude. The truth doesn't have all these different versions. They're telling different versions.

Motive is a classic ... motive for crimes that later need covered up.

No, nothing's proven in that. But you have to be chemically self-impaired to not see how there's growing cause for just the same concern Urmas Paet picked up in late February.

Everyone, BTW, now says the snipers shot both sides. Remember when that "rumor" was hotly contested?

So?

see above

The snipers didn't bring them to power. We've already been over this, so you can stop telling fibs about that. Nobody's buying it.

Rather, everyone knows it. * Which street was renamed for the "Heaven's hundred?" Where are virtually all "protesters killed" videos filmed? You probably have no clue. So you don't know how wrong you are. Like usual.

And BTW on my focusing mainly on this one acute massacre, where did it come up that's all that matters here? It's not so. that's just my interest. All Maidan sniping problems seem to be covered by the probe - the cops shot on the 18th, the various others all shot wherever in between.

Across the board, I think, as far as snipers go, Berkut exonerated, location when established leaves them not-really-torn between protesters, and sooper-seekrit agents of whoever pretending to be.

See, that's not at all what they were telling us back in February, is it? But it is now.

* To some serious degree: Other violence is another story, yes, but that always paled and looked murky next to the "regime's" Berkut snipers in clarifying the need for a real change. Everyone knows that.


The new turn does, I'll say, provide a ray of hope that sanity can triumph in Ukraine.

Aside from that, prove that "Kiev" is lying, as that is the implication that you are making.

Sorry can't be done. Especially now as the voice of Kiev might be diversifying more.

Need a match? (ah-chooo ... hay fever)